Not saying you are a trader, but your suggestion is suited to your betting/results, at least much better for you than the new PC rules and maybe also better for you than the "old" 20 % PC has been.
   It would be a disaster though for the big punters/position takers on here and they are the ones paying the most commission to Betfair.

Lori, I stand corrected on that, though imv it's a not a viable model--they are not enough recreational players all prepared to swim to the front of the queue.

Bf's model of having full-bookers trying to buy the markets rather than sort through individual bets on 2% works much better imo.

Angelo, wanting no successful punters at all wd mean bf having to replicate all the offers generated by the strategy of anyone who wins. How easily can they do that, and how much wd it cost them to do that? And if they did that and were forced to populate the front of their own markets themselves, how much value wd they be leaving to be picked off by smaller-denomination price-takers?

Wdn't it better for them to have a few big winners paying their full whack in commission in return for taking the day-to-day, second-to-second business of seeding out of their hands?

Everything you say is true Askari1 when you are talking about an organisation that thinks about the long term and whose aim is to grow. Such an organisation realises that its number one asset is its clients and that they should be looked after and made to feel important. This organisation at an objective level at least does not give two hoots about its clients. I will give you an example which will help show this.
About two months ago I woke up to bet on the USA races and when I went to the live video icon to watch the races there was no drop down menu . So I rang the bf help desk and the conversation went along the following lines.
Me: I am not able to watch the races what is the problem.
Bf: Where are you from.
Me: Australia.
Bf: You cant watch anymore because the law was changed and its become illegal.
Me: When was the law changed.
Bf: About 6 months ago.
Me: I was watching them every day until yeasterday.
Bf: I would keep quiet about that if I was you.
Me; Fkn politicians They are destroying the world. Bye.
Bf: Sorry.
The next day the video is back on, the law wasnt changed etc.

Angelo, but which 'clients'?

Let's accept that there are 480 people who have won over 250k each from bf while adopting some kind of commission minimising strategy. This is some 120 million pounds when the value of the company is 850 million--so they've taken away 7% of the company's equity.

How much more do you want them to take? (or this will be the management line). Can you see another mid-sized listed company (say in the engineering or telecoms sector) tolerating that? From someone who presents themselves and is accepted on the same basis as any other 'client'?

..and how much do you think they've paid pokerstars for the privelage?

Eddie...Didn`t qualify for the old PC..which is why I`m shouting so loud about it now !..but in defence I attacked it with everyone else at the time.

Am not mathematical enough to have worked out whether my suggestion on comm is either viable on the whole...I`m certain it would nett many millions more than the PC as it would probably keep everyone here, or better for me personally but I am absolutely adamant that it would be fairer overall than this client losing PC.
Each punter would work out whether the comm netted down to a better value price than they could get elsewhere..in other words exactly what we do now. The PC provides no such comparison...it cannot work for anyone except the hooverers, insiders etc who will not unnaturally say half a loaf is stell better than none.
I speak only on behalf of myself and the many ordinary punters who are being grouped with that other type of client for the unacceptable reason that we win on here. NOT from Betfair but from other losing punters...who pay up to a fiver in the 100 to Betfair and the rest to the winner. Therefore the losers pay for the whole party not the winners.

DD, just want to clearify that I don't defend PC, I think it's a disgrace, always have and always will..
  Your suggestion about the bigger players not getting rebates on the 5 % commission or even having to pay more is what is imo stupid.
  You would lose all big gamblers/position takers in the blink of an eye and they are both the ones paying the most in commission and creating liquidity.

Askari...

"This is some 120 million pounds when the value of the company is 850 million--so they've taken away 7% of the company's equity. "

That is really distorting the picture and is irrelevant. This place was set up and its business model was to provide us with the opportunity to do exactly what you have outlined. That the company has mismanaged its affairs, or as is more likely has gazed on at what punters are capable of doing with envy...is not its clients` faults.
If a pub runs out of beer on a hot afternoon you can`t blame it on the drinkers but certainly on mangement.
Betfair has run out of ideas, it has no growth prospects and most of us knew that years ago. Where else can they look for ever increasing profits but their customers ?
It is the way they are tackling THEIR problem that is going to destroy public confidence, the PC is morally wrong and is going to ruin their business eventually if and when somebody launches a betting exchange that is fair to both parties...management and client.
PC is not the way forward may be an understatement but it needs to be absorbed from the top of the board that we won`t play their game, and if we do we will CONTINUE to take money out of here and that will lead to EVERYONE paying more eventually losers as well.

Betfair could probably doyble their earnings overnight by terminating all spendings on customers "treatment" and could probably double that again by reducing staff to what is needed only.

Five Leaves, sorry I missed yr post and cdn't give you a timely answer.

I have never played a hand of poker for money and do not dispute yr figures. In terms of the pc, it's not just a question of long-term winners, it's what the hosting site get in return for the winner's presence and wins (and this can take a variety of non-pecuniary forms like free advertising).

*bots betting little and often

askari1
02 Jul 11 12:51
Joined:
29 Nov 01
| Topic/replies: 777 | Blogger: askari1's blog
Duncan, the original business model was flawed. It favoured traders over opinion players esp. traders in long-term markets like specials or Test matches. It favoured bots running algorithms running little and often over punters.

The person-to-person model w/ a lot of resident freeloaders does not give the exchange operator enough. The Bet 3.65 option of restricting winners to 10GBP takeout and bleeding the mugs is a better proposition for any owner.
----------------------------------

Then let them attack these bots, traders, arbers, hooverers, fast pic boys, insider dealers, trap bet merchants and close them down...but do not in any circumstances penalise someone genuine for winning on a gambling site.

As for Bet £3.65...they are unworthy of serious discussion and the fact that they have grown so much says everything about how many losers they have on board. That BF has probably as many in % terms gives them the power to do what they are doing and only a mass exodus by the LOSERS will frighten them.

That this is as likely as BF rethinking their ill thought out PC says it all about the great majority of punters in general.

"It favoured traders over opinion players esp. traders in long-term markets like specials or Test matches"

Like a lot of what askari says, complete and utter crap. Which is the main reason why I blocked him, the other is that I can't take anyone seriously who writes in text and abbreviations like a child.

PC winners' PC mitigation strategies obviously eat into the profit of the 40%+ comm. winners, who provide day-in, day-out liquidity.

Of course bf and these suppliers have a vested interest in getting players like hazel out the picture.

Turtleshead, if you have blocked someone, it only seems equitable not to comment adversely on their posts w/out fear of comeback. Others will judge what I say positively or adversely on the basis of something other than the speed at which I type and the abbreviations I use.

*no, losers will lose more slowly--sorry

Yes askari

I am convinced that losers will lose more slowly if those 480 are penalized or decide to leave.

Of course punters will suddenly reduce stakes and become more proficient at choosing prices and runners.

It's only common sense, how come I never though of it before!

My next recommendation will be to all stock market regulating authorities, to penalize winners in the NYSE, FTSE, DAX, IBEX, NIKKEI, EuroStoxx (and others) so that those losing suddenly become proficient in identifying market trends.

This can also be applied to the Real Estate Market.

And also to regular business. If Coca-Cola consistently wins more than PepsiCo, we just force Coca-Cola to pay 70% tax. Surely customers will start to drink Pepsi and PepsiCo will be very happy.

askari1
Date Joined: 29 Nov 01
Add contact | Send message
When: 02 Jul 11 11:14
Joined:
Date Joined: 29 Nov 01
| Topic/replies: 784 | Blogger: askari1's blog
Angelo, it is happy to have business partners who split what they get (their gross) 50-50 w/ the exchange in return for a guaranteed service of prices on certain events.

They don't want the 250k winners who are winning by offering prices selectively. They can get someone to do this for them (no doubt thrown in with a lot of other better offers to the price-taker) or have a go at replicating these prices themselves.

The changes are about 'preferred suppliers'. I have these in my own business and it is not surprising that bf shd want them to.


Sure I agree that 'preferred suppliers' are advantageous to Betfair, however if all these smaller winners are nibbling at their heels and cutting their margins down to size, that should be a good thing for Betfair.

Clydebank, you make bf sound like a free (or rather negative cost) school for career punters.

I agree that bf cd have achieved their stated aims by introducing a turnover charge on the basis you suggest: winners wd on average accept greater variance and leave up more money and the co. cd edge up the share of profits they get from winners on marginally better supply terms.

I don't think they actually want that, though. They wd prefer high-turnover, largely mechanical corporate betting strategies to win w/out being pickpocketed by much smaller selective bettors.

The site thrived in the sense of attracting a substantial share of price-sensitive but recreational gamblers (I'm one such if 'recreational' means 'earning less than I need to maintain long-term financial plans'). But now these pretty much all these people are on board, why do bf need the winners whose activity they can't regulate or anticipate through preferred arrangements and supply terms?

Incidentally, I'm increasingly taking on synthetic arbs based on where I need to win (usually to minimise comm., though sometimes e.g. to meet turnover requirements on bonuses & offers etc). It's very often value for me to use bf as a tool in this way, but is it always in the interests of bf?

Clydebank, you want stipulated terms re turnover and market participation w/ a few selected suppliers.

Without these terms, of course you want as many as poss.

This is a shot in the dark, in that I don't know whether arrangements of this kind are explicitly or implicitly in place w/ any big marketmakers.

My business experience is very limited and people shd take anything I say w/ a pinch of salt, but there are activities my business engages in where I wd move heaven and earth not to have to e.g. auction off outsourced tasks on the open market, as I wd have no security and no quality control (I'm thinking esp. about legal services). I want to do everything I can to bind in external professionals into giving me a deal where I am satisfied w/ my cut.