General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
29 Jun 11
22:20
Joined:
Date Joined:
22 Jun 02
(*For those who are not aware, Monte Carlo is just a fancy way of saying you simulate something lots of times and see what happens on average.)
In this case I set up a random punter who has 20 bets per week on even money shots, at £2,000 each and 2% commission. The 'true' odds of each bet is 1.95 so he is finding a bit of value but nothing astronomical.
On my spreadsheet I calculated his cumulative Gross Profit, Commission Generated etc at the end of each week based on random results and how much Premium Charge he would have to pay both under the current 20% charge and the new 40/50/60 charge. For the purposes of this example I have assumed the punter has always bet in the same style and is therefore comfortably in the 40% bracket (sadly not the case for many people). I have also assumed he is already over the £250k and 1000 markets, and that he starts off exactly on the 40% threshold (i.e. he has no 'buffer').
I simulated a year's worth of betting activity 100,000 times and looked at the expected results based on the 3 different charging systems (no PC, 20% PC, 40% PC). Here are the results:
No Premium Charge
Average Gross Profit £53,655
Average Comm Paid £21,336
Average Net Profit £32,319
20% Premium Charge
Average Gross Profit £53,655
Average Comm Paid £21,336
Average PC Paid £4,083
Average Net Profit £28,235
40% Premium Charge
Average Gross Profit £53,655
Average Comm Paid £21,336
Average PC Paid £16,642
Average Net Profit £15,676
So you can see that it is misleading to look at the increase from 20% to 40% as being a 'doubling' of the charge. In actual fact the average amount charged has increased by more than 4 times. And the customer now gives an average of 70.7% to Betfair, not 40%. It is very important to understand this fact and not believe that it is a simple 40:60 arrangement. In fact there will be many occasions where the PC will make the difference between overall profit and loss for the year, due to the lack of rebates.
Indeed, if I change the 'true' odds from 1.95 to 1.97 the punter's expected Net Profit for the year goes from £10,668 with no PC to £7,470 with 20% PC to -£2,335 under the new 40% PC. So a clear example of how this change would be the difference maker between making money on here and losing money.
If anyone can find fault in my method or disputes figures etc please feel free to post, I am not setting out to deliberately quote misinformation and I am certainly capable of making mistakes so please accept the usual disclaimers if I did make a ballsup somewhere along the line. Look forward to any comments.
In this case I set up a random punter who has 20 bets per week on even money shots, at £2,000 each and 2% commission. The 'true' odds of each bet is 1.95 so he is finding a bit of value but nothing astronomical.
On my spreadsheet I calculated his cumulative Gross Profit, Commission Generated etc at the end of each week based on random results and how much Premium Charge he would have to pay both under the current 20% charge and the new 40/50/60 charge. For the purposes of this example I have assumed the punter has always bet in the same style and is therefore comfortably in the 40% bracket (sadly not the case for many people). I have also assumed he is already over the £250k and 1000 markets, and that he starts off exactly on the 40% threshold (i.e. he has no 'buffer').
I simulated a year's worth of betting activity 100,000 times and looked at the expected results based on the 3 different charging systems (no PC, 20% PC, 40% PC). Here are the results:
No Premium Charge
Average Gross Profit £53,655
Average Comm Paid £21,336
Average Net Profit £32,319
20% Premium Charge
Average Gross Profit £53,655
Average Comm Paid £21,336
Average PC Paid £4,083
Average Net Profit £28,235
40% Premium Charge
Average Gross Profit £53,655
Average Comm Paid £21,336
Average PC Paid £16,642
Average Net Profit £15,676
So you can see that it is misleading to look at the increase from 20% to 40% as being a 'doubling' of the charge. In actual fact the average amount charged has increased by more than 4 times. And the customer now gives an average of 70.7% to Betfair, not 40%. It is very important to understand this fact and not believe that it is a simple 40:60 arrangement. In fact there will be many occasions where the PC will make the difference between overall profit and loss for the year, due to the lack of rebates.
Indeed, if I change the 'true' odds from 1.95 to 1.97 the punter's expected Net Profit for the year goes from £10,668 with no PC to £7,470 with 20% PC to -£2,335 under the new 40% PC. So a clear example of how this change would be the difference maker between making money on here and losing money.
If anyone can find fault in my method or disputes figures etc please feel free to post, I am not setting out to deliberately quote misinformation and I am certainly capable of making mistakes so please accept the usual disclaimers if I did make a ballsup somewhere along the line. Look forward to any comments.
Show More
If say your punter had being doing this for 8 to 10 years to get over the £250k and been consistent, his commission paid would be 40% of his gross profits pr the buffer zone as you mention. So he actually wouldn't qualify for the charge would he?
Maybe this doesn't affect the point your mentioning but just wanted to check as it looks he is contributing to the infamous 'eco system' fairly.
Maybe this doesn't affect the point your mentioning but just wanted to check as it looks he is contributing to the infamous 'eco system' fairly.
Hi LeinsterBeliever,
Actually I think he is averaging 39.7% of his Gross PL in Commission, so I think that would tie in with him being right on the threshold?
Actually I think he is averaging 39.7% of his Gross PL in Commission, so I think that would tie in with him being right on the threshold?
Nice findings Mr Rider, What would that be for 60% PC charge?
Hi jme,
The figures for 60% PC are as follows:
Average Gross Profit £53,568
Average Comm Paid £21,335
Average PC Paid £31,270
Average Net Profit £963
Slight difference in the figures as I had to do a new sim. Obviously it gets complicated when you use 60% as you would expect at some point your lifetime Commission:Profit will go over 5% and you go down to a lower band. That's one reason I gave BF the benefit of the doubt first time round and just used 40%. But there will undoubtedly be a lot of people stuck on 60% to start with, and very little they can do about it now which seems harsh on long-standing customers. 'Brand new customers' of course will have the luxury of knowing the rules from Day 1 and no previous baggage.
The figures for 60% PC are as follows:
Average Gross Profit £53,568
Average Comm Paid £21,335
Average PC Paid £31,270
Average Net Profit £963
Slight difference in the figures as I had to do a new sim. Obviously it gets complicated when you use 60% as you would expect at some point your lifetime Commission:Profit will go over 5% and you go down to a lower band. That's one reason I gave BF the benefit of the doubt first time round and just used 40%. But there will undoubtedly be a lot of people stuck on 60% to start with, and very little they can do about it now which seems harsh on long-standing customers. 'Brand new customers' of course will have the luxury of knowing the rules from Day 1 and no previous baggage.
Correct Knight Rider, I must have entered a wrong number.
What about this last point on the FAQ's. Would this not mean you wouldn't qualify, as the 20% PC charge would bring you over the 40% buffer.
How will the changes be implemented in practice?
For the purposes of introducing a change to the Premium Charge rate that applies to your betting, we will assume that you have always incurred the Premium Charge at the prevailing rate. For example, if the Premium Charge rate applicable to your betting is now set at 40%, we will assume that you have always paid Premium Charges at 40%. This will ensure that you are considered to have generated total charges equal to at least 40% of lifetime gross profits at the point that the new rate becomes effective.
How will the changes be implemented in practice?
For the purposes of introducing a change to the Premium Charge rate that applies to your betting, we will assume that you have always incurred the Premium Charge at the prevailing rate. For example, if the Premium Charge rate applicable to your betting is now set at 40%, we will assume that you have always paid Premium Charges at 40%. This will ensure that you are considered to have generated total charges equal to at least 40% of lifetime gross profits at the point that the new rate becomes effective.
Thanks KR,
£963 profit from £53,568
Nice to know we would keep a whole 1.7% of our winnings.
£963 profit from £53,568
Nice to know we would keep a whole 1.7% of our winnings.
Well done Knight Rider.
Your simulation (some may nick pick about some of the finer details) is spot on.
These guys have just lost the plot.
But, anyway, it's an unenforceable tax, so I can't see why anybody is too worried. That is unless they don't have any friends.
Your simulation (some may nick pick about some of the finer details) is spot on.
These guys have just lost the plot.
But, anyway, it's an unenforceable tax, so I can't see why anybody is too worried. That is unless they don't have any friends.
LeinsterBeliever 29 Jun 11 23:06
What about this last point on the FAQ's. Would this not mean you wouldn't qualify, as the 20% PC charge would bring you over the 40% buffer.
No. The premium charges you have paid are irrelevant to the following criteria on which the new Premium Charge at Higher Rates is based:
Commission generated less than 40% of lifetime gross profits
Note that it states commission generated not total charges generated. Whilst premium charge payments are included in your Total Charges they are entirely irrelevant to your Commission Generated ((Commission Paid + Implied Commission)/2).
What about this last point on the FAQ's. Would this not mean you wouldn't qualify, as the 20% PC charge would bring you over the 40% buffer.
No. The premium charges you have paid are irrelevant to the following criteria on which the new Premium Charge at Higher Rates is based:
Commission generated less than 40% of lifetime gross profits
Note that it states commission generated not total charges generated. Whilst premium charge payments are included in your Total Charges they are entirely irrelevant to your Commission Generated ((Commission Paid + Implied Commission)/2).
This is a good exercise Knight Rider, had a quick look at it and just have two questions.
1. If your guy is turning over 40k per week (20 x 2k), he is then turning over £2,080,000 per year. Based on a 5% edge how do you arrive at the gross profit figure of £53,655?
2. You have calculated PC based on "random results", have you included "implied commission" @ 3% on losing bets? (This one may seem pedantic, but when you are talking about 1% of £1 million it makes a difference.)
1. If your guy is turning over 40k per week (20 x 2k), he is then turning over £2,080,000 per year. Based on a 5% edge how do you arrive at the gross profit figure of £53,655?
2. You have calculated PC based on "random results", have you included "implied commission" @ 3% on losing bets? (This one may seem pedantic, but when you are talking about 1% of £1 million it makes a difference.)
Good morning Shiraz,
The expected return for each bet is 2.0/1.95, which is about 1.025 so the expected profit on each bet is about 2.5% I think rather than 5%.
Yes I have calculated implied commission at 3% on all the losing bets.
The expected return for each bet is 2.0/1.95, which is about 1.025 so the expected profit on each bet is about 2.5% I think rather than 5%.
Yes I have calculated implied commission at 3% on all the losing bets.
Took a look at the 1st post. From 1st side it looks quite accurate. I am familiar with Monte Carlo simulation.
I wouldn't think it's possible for this particular random punter to be on 2% commission unless he's one of betfair's "special" customers in which case he probably needn't worry about the PC anyway.
And he wouldn't pay the 20% PC charge anyway if he was that type of punter.
And he wouldn't pay the 20% PC charge anyway if he was that type of punter.
he is not quite betting enough to be on 2% he would be on 2.2% with that level of activity, but thats not really the point, you have someone who is just swinging the bat, the sort of punter you would think an exchange would dream of, and it would be very hard for him to make it pay, given the chance of a massive downswing.
If you did an assumption as well that he had to give up when he got to -30k or so, I bet it would be even worse, as loads of these runs will have bad runs in them.
If you did an assumption as well that he had to give up when he got to -30k or so, I bet it would be even worse, as loads of these runs will have bad runs in them.
And that's really the key point.
What about protecting punters against the ups and downs of the gambling cycle.?
What about protecting punters against the ups and downs of the gambling cycle.?
Probst, I guess the point I'm making is that there are only so many customer profiles fitting the new PC bill so to speak.
Taking the betting profile of the chap in the simulation, (betting evens shots at 2.5%), a certain amount of turnover is required to hit the new PC charges. I'd suggest maybe betting 5k per match instead of 2k would do it, or betting 50 matches instead of 20 which reduces the number of customers hit by it, and also means they are securing a certain level of profit. I couldn't say for certain if liquidity or price is sufficient for many (any) to hit those marks when operating in the suggested manner (yes, I know it's only an example but the point holds true for different examples).
Personally, I think the new policy is disgusting. However, rightly or wrongly, I have less sympathy for those hit more in absolute terms (i.e. the bigger profiteers). I guess something like marginal utility theory or whatever they call it. I'm not convinced there are many value punters (as opposed to traders) who will be forced out due to the extra charges being the difference between survival and having to look elsewhere for sufficient income. And that was the point I was trying to make without really alluding to it very well!
Just my view.
Taking the betting profile of the chap in the simulation, (betting evens shots at 2.5%), a certain amount of turnover is required to hit the new PC charges. I'd suggest maybe betting 5k per match instead of 2k would do it, or betting 50 matches instead of 20 which reduces the number of customers hit by it, and also means they are securing a certain level of profit. I couldn't say for certain if liquidity or price is sufficient for many (any) to hit those marks when operating in the suggested manner (yes, I know it's only an example but the point holds true for different examples).
Personally, I think the new policy is disgusting. However, rightly or wrongly, I have less sympathy for those hit more in absolute terms (i.e. the bigger profiteers). I guess something like marginal utility theory or whatever they call it. I'm not convinced there are many value punters (as opposed to traders) who will be forced out due to the extra charges being the difference between survival and having to look elsewhere for sufficient income. And that was the point I was trying to make without really alluding to it very well!
Just my view.
I only quickly scanned this thread so may have missed something KR but if Average Gross Profit = £53,568
and Average Comm Paid = £21,335 then should Average PC Paid not equal £31,270 minus £21,335? i.e. bf want 60% of his gross profits but he's already paid them around 40% of gross profit in normal commission.
and Average Comm Paid = £21,335 then should Average PC Paid not equal £31,270 minus £21,335? i.e. bf want 60% of his gross profits but he's already paid them around 40% of gross profit in normal commission.
I think he's showing the cyclical effect of the charges..i.e. as there are no rebates
Ah, I see. Will go back and read in more detail. Thanks Clydebank.
isn't it that he's using commission paid instead of commission generated (which is the betfair use to work out the delta).
I don't get the cyclical side of things. But I've checked with BF and this customers wouldn't pay more than a few quid of premium charge. As his current commission (inc implied and premium charges) to profit is almost 40%, they'll only hit him with PC to bring him to 40% commission to profit.
This guy is betting about £40k a week. i think his implied commission should be £40k a week * (average of 3% and his normal commission rate, stated as 2% = 2.5% minimum). Thus his commission generated per week is c.40k*2.5% = £1000 per week = £50k pa
In the above Ive assumed for simplicity that he wins 50% of the bets even tho it may actually be 51-52%
Whilst he would not expect to pay much PC at this level (his commission generated is close to 100% of his gross profit) then the farcical situation remains where if he had the audactity to win more than half of his 20 EVEN money bets in week 1 then hed have to pay PC. eg. 11 wins out of 20 = +£4k gross vs £1k commission generated. And theyd have £600 off him in PCs lol to top up his payments to £1600 so they can fund the launch of a new fruit machine
Make it a stunning 12/20 wins at EVENS and the greedy little ****s would be in to take c.£2.2k in Premium Charges off this customer who ongoing has an expectation of commission generated forming close to 100% of his gross profit! (note 12/20 wins = c.+£8k vs 1k commie = theyd want £3.2k total = 40% of 8k)
I think ive got the maths right about commission generated etc, but even if not then itd just make the amount of PC that bf were claiming when the poor man won 11 or 12 or more bets in week 1 even higher!
What a system, very fair. Well played all.
In the above Ive assumed for simplicity that he wins 50% of the bets even tho it may actually be 51-52%
Whilst he would not expect to pay much PC at this level (his commission generated is close to 100% of his gross profit) then the farcical situation remains where if he had the audactity to win more than half of his 20 EVEN money bets in week 1 then hed have to pay PC. eg. 11 wins out of 20 = +£4k gross vs £1k commission generated. And theyd have £600 off him in PCs lol to top up his payments to £1600 so they can fund the launch of a new fruit machine
Make it a stunning 12/20 wins at EVENS and the greedy little ****s would be in to take c.£2.2k in Premium Charges off this customer who ongoing has an expectation of commission generated forming close to 100% of his gross profit! (note 12/20 wins = c.+£8k vs 1k commie = theyd want £3.2k total = 40% of 8k)
I think ive got the maths right about commission generated etc, but even if not then itd just make the amount of PC that bf were claiming when the poor man won 11 or 12 or more bets in week 1 even higher!
What a system, very fair. Well played all.
Knight Rider, how did you deal with "Implied Commission" in your calculations?
Knight Rider, isn't someone starting on 40% with no buffer an extremely unlikely scenario? Surely you should apply the same random variation to his historic betting?
They will round people under 40% and over 250k up to 40% so it's a fair assumption. There will be 480 people in exactly this position shortly.
That's not how they are doing it, Lori. They are retrospectively calculating the pc that would have been paid under the new rules on a week by week basis and assuming that it has been paid accordingly. It took me a while to get this but it's really important, it's almost impossible to start on 40% with no buffer. In fact it may well be impossible, I haven't figured it out that far yet.
Don't see that at all catfloppo. I think Lori's correct although some will obviously be starting on 50 or 60 with no buffer and some will have a buffer e.g. gamblers whose lifetime generated is greater than 40%.
In this case I set up a random punter who has 20 bets per week on even money shots, at £2,000 each and 2% commission. The 'true' odds of each bet is 1.95 so he is finding a bit of value but nothing astronomical.
i get the impression that is the key to being a PC gambler.
i get the impression that is the key to being a PC gambler.
It's true Feck, I had it explained earlier. My lifetime commission stands at under 34% yet I start off at 43.8% under the new system. It makes a huge difference to my situation.
In fact it quite neatly means that the more variable your results in the past the bigger buffer you'll start with
That doesn't tally with them saying they'll give you an assumed payment to make it as if you've paid 40% catfloppo.
e.g. (simplified figures for ease of understanding)
GP's 1,000,000
normal comm 100,000
pc's paid 100,000
betfair assume you've paid another 200,000 so you've paid 40% of your profits.
That leaves you with no buffer.
e.g. (simplified figures for ease of understanding)
GP's 1,000,000
normal comm 100,000
pc's paid 100,000
betfair assume you've paid another 200,000 so you've paid 40% of your profits.
That leaves you with no buffer.
cat, I think you are mistaken, but I've literally no idea what you are talking about.
Knight Rider, isn't someone starting on 40% with no buffer an extremely unlikely scenario? Surely you should apply the same random variation to his historic betting?
------------------------
I'm not necessarily thinking of someone starting on exactly 40% on 18 July. Think of it as someone as some point in the future who has been doing well and just becomes eligible for the PC for the first time. Now he has to consider the likely value of his future activity.
------------------------
I'm not necessarily thinking of someone starting on exactly 40% on 18 July. Think of it as someone as some point in the future who has been doing well and just becomes eligible for the PC for the first time. Now he has to consider the likely value of his future activity.
Feck, they calculate the actual pc you would have paid. It has been discussed at length how good week/bad week fluctuations affect the actual amount of pc paid. Well this has been taken into account retrospectively. I'd be astonished if anyone's portal display gives them a starting figure of 40%.
you'll realise soon enough after the 18th that your are wrong cat
cat,
They've told me I'm starting on almost exactly 40% (40.2%).
They've told me I'm starting on almost exactly 40% (40.2%).
Knight, that's overall a pretty unlikely scenario. Much more valuable to model the effect on a consistent performer, although maybe not quite so sensational?
That's not exactly 40% contrarian ;)
Feck, my acct manager but my portal figures support this. As I say my lifetime rate is 34% but it has been rounded up to 43.8%, not 40%.
Feck, my acct manager but my portal figures support this. As I say my lifetime rate is 34% but it has been rounded up to 43.8%, not 40%.
Surely anyone who hasn't paid PC in the past but is below 40%, will start on 40%? And what about people in the future when they reach the 250k threshold? Surely they start on 40%? There would be loads of them I imagine, can't think why it is such an unlikely scenario. And anyone who has a buffer is surely aiming to get down to the 40%, at which point they have to consider the impact of the PC.
Knight, I've not ever paid pc.
feck, what do you mean, nothing?
feck, what do you mean, nothing?
take it from those that have paid the PC cat and dont believe anything your account manager says
Feck, they calculate the actual pc you would have paid. It has been discussed at length how good week/bad week fluctuations affect the actual amount of pc paid. Well this has been taken into account retrospectively.
I now understand what you're saying with this catfloppo although, if that's what they're doing, I don't see their logic. While it may make give those whose edge has been gradually eroded a bit of a buffer it's a bit like stabbing them and then offering them a smoke.
I now understand what you're saying with this catfloppo although, if that's what they're doing, I don't see their logic. While it may make give those whose edge has been gradually eroded a bit of a buffer it's a bit like stabbing them and then offering them a smoke.
Right, I see what you mean Catfloppo. I was told my previous PC payments would be treated as 40% not 20%, actually it's that the account is treated as though the 40% PC was always in place.
Anyways I refer you back to my original answer. I'm not necessarily talking about people who start on 40% from Day One, I'm talking about anyone that gets to 40% and into PC territory. If you never get to 40% then obviously you have nothing to worry about as you won't be paying the PC anyway.
Anyways I refer you back to my original answer. I'm not necessarily talking about people who start on 40% from Day One, I'm talking about anyone that gets to 40% and into PC territory. If you never get to 40% then obviously you have nothing to worry about as you won't be paying the PC anyway.
catfloppo, by nothing I mean nothing relating to the changeover.
One thing I would add, in terms of this 'buffer'; mine will be about £300k lower than it is now. Spoke to another full-timer whose buffer will go down to about 20% of its current level. So clearly this is not great for everyone, although better than starting on 40% obviously!
Clyde, what does your portal report say?
Feck, it makes a massive difference to me, if I ever have a lucky enough run to incur payment I'll buy everyone on here a beer.
Feck, it makes a massive difference to me, if I ever have a lucky enough run to incur payment I'll buy everyone on here a beer.
Feck, you have to go to terms.betfair.com while logged in
Well catfloppo, if they are topping you up then clearly your betting was good enough to stray into PC territory at some point. Not sure I'll still be on here if/when the day comes, but just in case, mine's a Leffe Blonde [;)]
My success has been in decline recently which gives me a big buffer and little prospect of overwhelming it. The turnaround in fortunes required to make me pay pc would certainly loosen the catwallet to the tune of a Leffe Blonde - I might even join you as this is a splendid choice.
I see it now catfloppo. 40.4% for me. 
They must think the sun shines out your @rse.
They must think the sun shines out your @rse.
I have been sat naked in a darkened room wielding a mirror on a stick but I can't even see the faintest glimmer.
That's different to how they did it before, I stand corrected.
I do think people that are over 40% will be surprised how quickly they reach 40% but if you've got 3% of lifetime winnings to play with then you certainly have some time.
I do think people that are over 40% will be surprised how quickly they reach 40% but if you've got 3% of lifetime winnings to play with then you certainly have some time.
Back to my question on "Implied Commission", this is a figure none of us (I expect) will have the data for. So how can we retrospectively figure out how much we would have paid in PC at 40% in previous years (for an idea of what we will get charged)? Maybe commission paid should be good enough as a substitute but my poor brain keeps thinking this is affected by strike rate and therefore not? Maybe I need a crystal ball or an Octupus! Maybe a current 20% payer can answer?
What about those who have already made much, much more than 250K and have only paid a pittance thus far to BF.?
They should have a huge nest egg built up to play with forever, thanks to the introduction of the BF exchange concept.
Would they have been able to make even close to those past amounts using conventional bookies ?
Shouldn't they be down on their knees prostrating themselves before the founders of BF, thanking them for enabling them to make so much money without, in many cases, any real apparent risk, let alone cost.
In the real world, fairy tale financial making scenarios always get closed off.
Let's get realistic about these high rollers at least.
The real problem is that the PC, either the existing 20% and certainly the new 40-60% is also going to penalise those currently slowly building themselves up a good fortune through hard work, fair operating techniques ( that is no super, low or no risk bots) and are fairly cowering the costs of their respective usage levels of the BF platform.
That is the real inequity that has to be acknowledged and addressed by BF.
They should have a huge nest egg built up to play with forever, thanks to the introduction of the BF exchange concept.
Would they have been able to make even close to those past amounts using conventional bookies ?
Shouldn't they be down on their knees prostrating themselves before the founders of BF, thanking them for enabling them to make so much money without, in many cases, any real apparent risk, let alone cost.
In the real world, fairy tale financial making scenarios always get closed off.
Let's get realistic about these high rollers at least.
The real problem is that the PC, either the existing 20% and certainly the new 40-60% is also going to penalise those currently slowly building themselves up a good fortune through hard work, fair operating techniques ( that is no super, low or no risk bots) and are fairly cowering the costs of their respective usage levels of the BF platform.
That is the real inequity that has to be acknowledged and addressed by BF.
That's exactly what betfair have calculated for your starting rate.
Incidently froggy, it's because some users haven't been fairly covering their costs (according to betfair's criteria) that the charge has been imposed
What about those who have already made much, much more than 250K and have only paid a pittance thus far to BF.? They should have a huge nest egg built up to play with forever, thanks to the introduction of the BF exchange concept.
That's a good point FAFH. Will those who were only paying 5%- on large winnings in the bad old days when betfair practically let them use the site for free end up with a big buffer the way betfair are working this out?
That's a good point FAFH. Will those who were only paying 5%- on large winnings in the bad old days when betfair practically let them use the site for free end up with a big buffer the way betfair are working this out?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539