General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
30 Jun 11
14:31
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jul 01
" This is an amendment to the present pricing structure, focusing on a small number of individuals who have betting and trading patterns that have been getting around the existing premium charge...."
You can almost smell his contempt.
" Getting around" indeed...what a sad reflection of the board that runs this company today.....making winning clients feel like criminals.
Don`t fret Mr. Morana...there won`t be many even attempting to get around anything in the near future...try explaining THAT to your precious shareholders next year.
You can almost smell his contempt.
" Getting around" indeed...what a sad reflection of the board that runs this company today.....making winning clients feel like criminals.
Don`t fret Mr. Morana...there won`t be many even attempting to get around anything in the near future...try explaining THAT to your precious shareholders next year.
Show More
weatherman
That's a good post which BF management should take note of. Aspiration is crucial. Why invest time and money getting to the point where you make a profit only to find that at the margin, you can be clobbered to such an extent.
I don't know how long the IR gravytrain will last. You need coperative counter-parties and as most if not all of the players on here must be credited with an above average level of nous compared to players in general, I would guess that sooner or later you will find skilled IR players playing amongst yourslevesfor a diminishing return. Lesser players will have had their fingers burned and acting rationally will leave it to the pros to beat up each other. Anyway, its been a good ride for you.
I woonder if anyone in Bf has ever thought about drawing up an analysis of profit and ROI based on customer groups. It would be possible to put in figure for the kind of infrastucture you need to cope with the low volume requests of opinion players vs tadres/bots vs IR etc. It would not be surprising to find a huge difference.
That's a good post which BF management should take note of. Aspiration is crucial. Why invest time and money getting to the point where you make a profit only to find that at the margin, you can be clobbered to such an extent.
I don't know how long the IR gravytrain will last. You need coperative counter-parties and as most if not all of the players on here must be credited with an above average level of nous compared to players in general, I would guess that sooner or later you will find skilled IR players playing amongst yourslevesfor a diminishing return. Lesser players will have had their fingers burned and acting rationally will leave it to the pros to beat up each other. Anyway, its been a good ride for you.
I woonder if anyone in Bf has ever thought about drawing up an analysis of profit and ROI based on customer groups. It would be possible to put in figure for the kind of infrastucture you need to cope with the low volume requests of opinion players vs tadres/bots vs IR etc. It would not be surprising to find a huge difference.
If curbing bot activity is their aim (which I don't believe), they could do worse than just cut the number of increments for pricing.
If you're a bot operator just skimming and churning the markets without taking any liabilities or hits I would curb the amount they were allowed to keep on deposit. Halting any growth and stopping one operator dominating many many markets. This could stop the massive take outs this lot produce.
Sandown, yes, then tailor a comm. structure that matches infrastructure investment with certain types of markets (or markets supposing a certain threshold number of trades per winner on that market).
There are people offering hard-to-replicate prices and bringing in the liquidity that are hit indiscriminately by all the universal pc formulations.
There are people offering hard-to-replicate prices and bringing in the liquidity that are hit indiscriminately by all the universal pc formulations.
Lori, liquidity (or the impression of liquidity) wd surely suffer?
I think these threads will result in an increase in bot-writing rather than discourage them, because the gist is that bots clearly work.
Or rather that the site (w/ its interface and API) is set up to be exploited by bots, not by winning pricing strategies. This opens a whole host of other issues bf cd address
Yes Askari - raise the cost of hitting the BF servers millions a times a day. Then give the proceeds back to the real punters as incentives to come back and bet.
With many many more arb hunting, churning bots in the pipeline - no doubt currently under development in a lab near you.
Bots are not the enemy, it's the information that's available to them that's the enemy.
There's some good posts on this thread. It's good to see that the message I've been banging for years has at least got through to some.
The reason all the vision and planning has gone from the site is because those now at the helm never had the vision and planning in the first place and they're dealing with something they don't understand.
Spot on Lori.
Spot on Lori.
Betfair want more money.
The PC will/should clear any serious gambler from the site.
If it does then everyone goes across the road at initially less comm (and even 2% in running)and NO PC.
Even those unaffected (including market makers, hooverers then have to go across the road as there is no liquidity here)
Within 1 year BF goes out of business...and BD has nicked the business (if it has the tech capability)
Yet BF are sitting still facing that exact gamble on July 18. Are they truly that stupid ?
Go figure.
The PC will/should clear any serious gambler from the site.
If it does then everyone goes across the road at initially less comm (and even 2% in running)and NO PC.
Even those unaffected (including market makers, hooverers then have to go across the road as there is no liquidity here)
Within 1 year BF goes out of business...and BD has nicked the business (if it has the tech capability)
Yet BF are sitting still facing that exact gamble on July 18. Are they truly that stupid ?
Go figure.
Although I don't think there was a lot of vision in the first place. The founders probably believed their own publicity when they worked in the city and thought traders would be the life blood of the exchange.
john, higher data request charges was my suggestion on this thread too several pages back.
I can't think of too many counter-arguments in that it clearly costs bf to service the accnt. of a data-requesting botter than a winner who doesn't need to look at the markets every second (or every 50 millisecs).
The only thing I can think of is that the high-liquidity (40%+ of profits in costs) providers also need to look at the markets all the time. I can believe this is true in horses.
I can't think of too many counter-arguments in that it clearly costs bf to service the accnt. of a data-requesting botter than a winner who doesn't need to look at the markets every second (or every 50 millisecs).
The only thing I can think of is that the high-liquidity (40%+ of profits in costs) providers also need to look at the markets all the time. I can believe this is true in horses.
Feck, they perhaps thought that trading as a concept wd get them new participants.
Maybe it did, but losing traders drop out, maybe in surprise, and the only the surest, site-bleeding winners stay in situ.
Maybe it did, but losing traders drop out, maybe in surprise, and the only the surest, site-bleeding winners stay in situ.
I think we should be careful with suggestions on alternatives ways of charging high volume punters. They might well be implemented in addition to the PC, rather than instead of.
Not sure about this idea of they keep spouting about running out of losers. Betting is like food to a lot of people they need it constantly. 480 out of 4 million is not a ratio to worry about - it's the 70 or so that make more than BF. They are fast pic merchants and people gibbering on about algorithms.
BF need to put a few of the true winners in the public spot light - much like the national lottery do when they have a winner. It gets people's attention - knocking that aspiration at the outset won't help.
BF need to put a few of the true winners in the public spot light - much like the national lottery do when they have a winner. It gets people's attention - knocking that aspiration at the outset won't help.
There are enough losing gamblers ..there always will be ,but i dare say most have emigrated back to the high street or casinos .
It's all about the rate of losing ,and they were possibly losing too quickly on here.
It's all about the rate of losing ,and they were possibly losing too quickly on here.
Feck, they perhaps thought that trading as a concept wd get them new participants.
Maybe it did, but losing traders drop out, maybe in surprise, and the only the surest, site-bleeding winners stay in situ.
Correct askari and they probably thought these winning traders would be a great advert for betfair which would have others joining the gold rush. They then compounded their initial error by turning the same people into betfair hating zealots who gave them the worst publicity imaginable.
Maybe it did, but losing traders drop out, maybe in surprise, and the only the surest, site-bleeding winners stay in situ.
Correct askari and they probably thought these winning traders would be a great advert for betfair which would have others joining the gold rush. They then compounded their initial error by turning the same people into betfair hating zealots who gave them the worst publicity imaginable.
john, the true winners are the botters--impossible to identify w/.
If you mean people like the guy who won the Jackpot at Taunton, then he was extraordinarily lucky (I mean not just to win but in that the pool wasn't rather taken by a professional designedly making a positive expectation bet). My guess is that the only reason these people were foiled was some form of insiderdom.
And to be fair bf are pushing their terrible value multiple product all the time.
If you mean people like the guy who won the Jackpot at Taunton, then he was extraordinarily lucky (I mean not just to win but in that the pool wasn't rather taken by a professional designedly making a positive expectation bet). My guess is that the only reason these people were foiled was some form of insiderdom.
And to be fair bf are pushing their terrible value multiple product all the time.
Not sure about this idea of they keep spouting about running out of losers. Betting is like food to a lot of people they need it constantly.
Correct john. I agree with coachbuster. At least on the high street they had the perception of betting being fair.
480 out of 4 million is not a ratio to worry about - it's the 70 or so that make more than BF.
Where did 70 making more than betfair come from. Surely impossible as that would mean betfair would have to take less than 1.5% of the money lost on the site and the 70 all of the rest.
Correct john. I agree with coachbuster. At least on the high street they had the perception of betting being fair.
480 out of 4 million is not a ratio to worry about - it's the 70 or so that make more than BF.
Where did 70 making more than betfair come from. Surely impossible as that would mean betfair would have to take less than 1.5% of the money lost on the site and the 70 all of the rest.
Feck, yes, and they lumped in the potential bf enthusiasts (who did not need to trade) in the same blanket pricing scheme, w/out regard for which styles of play brought in comm. in a hard-to-replicate way and which styles were responsible for driving away the recreational pound.
(The last is a matter for bf's own data analysis and I don't know the answer, but insiders, trap bettors and hooverers have to be high up the list).
(The last is a matter for bf's own data analysis and I don't know the answer, but insiders, trap bettors and hooverers have to be high up the list).
The combined total of the top 70, Feck.
Ah, thanks weatherman. Apologies john.
Ah, thanks weatherman. Apologies john.
Indeed askari although (sadly) insiders would be unlikely to be hit with the charges (1,000 markets) and probably even avoid the old pc (250 markets) before they're rumbled.
Earlier in the thread I suggested that perhaps a lot of us value bettors were singing from the same hymn sheet and that, provided betfair kept the biggest value bettors onside, we might not be missed but I was wrong on two counts. 1) I cannot for the life of me see how all my bets are being laid by recreational layers (i.e. I'm at loggerheads with other compilers - one bookmaker once told me I was always wanting to bet horses nobody else seemed interested in) and 2) Even if we were all singing from the same hymn sheet it could still hurt betfair if we do it on the purple site.
Another inequality - the market maker that prices up nearly every event to 110 plus - taking advantage of the market machinations on BF. You'll see the lays everywhere - just check out today's county cricket here and at purple. We have a market mean of around 1.44 so the lays go down at 1.4 down to 1.3's. and the backs higher. Granted he takes it on the chin but the BF commission structure means he is on 2% and with that vig he will never lose - but does Joe public benefit betting on 110% markets - in reality he is betting in 115% markets and he is still on 5% and the market maker on 2% clearing 100k a year.
So is it he generating all this comission to BF?
So is it he generating all this comission to BF?
In an efficient market a strict gambler cannot have a positive expectancy (where I define strict gambler as someone who places no more than 1 bet in a market, as the more bets they place, the more their returns take on trader like characteristics).
In an efficient market there is no way for a winning gambler to make money (broadly speaking). There is always money to be made for traders and market makers no matter how efficient the market is.
The ideal situation for Betfair is to have all market priced to 99.8-100.2% and be completely efficient. That would kill all winning gamblers, and traders / market makers would need to turn over gigantic sums (provide liquidity) to make a reasonable amount of money.
In an efficient market there is no way for a winning gambler to make money (broadly speaking). There is always money to be made for traders and market makers no matter how efficient the market is.
The ideal situation for Betfair is to have all market priced to 99.8-100.2% and be completely efficient. That would kill all winning gamblers, and traders / market makers would need to turn over gigantic sums (provide liquidity) to make a reasonable amount of money.
When I say 'efficient' there is still the spread of course, which could be considered an 'in-built' inefficiency.
This inefficiency will always be there for obvious reasons, but the more liquid a market is the tighter the spread will become. If Betting exchanges ever grow to resemble the currency markets or anything like that, they will introduce smaller increments, which will lead to less profit for customers and more for the exchange.
This inefficiency will always be there for obvious reasons, but the more liquid a market is the tighter the spread will become. If Betting exchanges ever grow to resemble the currency markets or anything like that, they will introduce smaller increments, which will lead to less profit for customers and more for the exchange.
Feck, I am not sure. Somebody else cd put up a sharp pricer's price and generate comm. for bf (poss. slightly less given their rate as against a small gambler's) w/out knowing the correct price so long as they also put up a slew of other prices.
Fortunately for us all, most markets are not efficient. Even getting to 100% spread doesn't mean the markets are efficient. They may be "more" efficient than a small spread but that is it. Smaller increments likely to make little change. Take for example your sport of choice - football (I believe reading your previous posts), you only have to look at the returns for pre market Match Odds to see the inefficiences (using very tight spreads).
john, this is an instance where the company cd surely step in, as the pre-IR prices are surely not that hard to generate and available elsewhere.
The wonder is that there are relatively easy and roomy niches to take up, but this must be down to some sports not interesting capable market-makers.
The wonder is that there are relatively easy and roomy niches to take up, but this must be down to some sports not interesting capable market-makers.
Investor,usually when a market is around 100% the individual odds on that market may be inefficient if there are plenty to choose from, so i do believe you would still have winners on those markets .
The ideal situation for Betfair is to have all market priced to 99.8-100.2% and be completely efficient. That would kill all winning gamblers, and traders / market makers would need to turn over gigantic sums (provide liquidity) to make a reasonable amount of money.
If all winning gamblers were killed off where would the completely efficient market come from?
If all winning gamblers were killed off where would the completely efficient market come from?
TheInvestor2
07 Jul 11 15:18
Joined:
28 May 11
| Topic/replies: 163 | Blogger: TheInvestor2's blog
In an efficient market a strict gambler cannot have a positive expectancy (where I define strict gambler as someone who places no more than 1 bet in a market, as the more bets they place, the more their returns take on trader like characteristics).
In an efficient market there is no way for a winning gambler to make money (broadly speaking).
---------------------------------------------------------
Why not Theinvestor ? I and others are doing exactly that and have been for ten years. The markets are as near efficient as one could expect.
Perhaps you could elaborate ?
A lot of this debate is getting drowned in the details of traders, market makers, hooverers etc etc and I am not hoisting any flag for them in this tirade against the premium charge.
I have been at risk every single bet that I have struck in ten years on here.
I care not a jot for BF`s apparent problems and whether breaking level on my account (aye right) is upsetting them, I am merely pointing out the unfairness of being victimised because I win and without any unfair aid too.
Not seeking kudos...just fairness.
07 Jul 11 15:18
Joined:
28 May 11
| Topic/replies: 163 | Blogger: TheInvestor2's blog
In an efficient market a strict gambler cannot have a positive expectancy (where I define strict gambler as someone who places no more than 1 bet in a market, as the more bets they place, the more their returns take on trader like characteristics).
In an efficient market there is no way for a winning gambler to make money (broadly speaking).
---------------------------------------------------------
Why not Theinvestor ? I and others are doing exactly that and have been for ten years. The markets are as near efficient as one could expect.
Perhaps you could elaborate ?
A lot of this debate is getting drowned in the details of traders, market makers, hooverers etc etc and I am not hoisting any flag for them in this tirade against the premium charge.
I have been at risk every single bet that I have struck in ten years on here.
I care not a jot for BF`s apparent problems and whether breaking level on my account (aye right) is upsetting them, I am merely pointing out the unfairness of being victimised because I win and without any unfair aid too.
Not seeking kudos...just fairness.
Bigger odds this morning ?
BF to abolish PC or News Of the Woprld to close down.
Well one million to one chance just been landed [:o]
BF to abolish PC or News Of the Woprld to close down.
Well one million to one chance just been landed [:o]
I bet Tommy Sheridan is pleased that he has been shown to be right in his condemnation of this bunch of liars and low lifes.
spot on Par...doesn`t make him innocent though !
Feck N. Eejit
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
Add contact | Send message
When: 07 Jul 11 15:43
Joined:
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
| Topic/replies: 4,201 | Blogger: Feck N. Eejit's blog
The ideal situation for Betfair is to have all market priced to 99.8-100.2% and be completely efficient. That would kill all winning gamblers, and traders / market makers would need to turn over gigantic sums (provide liquidity) to make a reasonable amount of money.
If all winning gamblers were killed off where would the completely efficient market come from?
Losing gamblers, and people who reduce the effects of commission by betting repeatedly on multiple selections.
Coach, I agree, It was a hypothetical example. Of course markets that are close to 100% aren't necesseraly efficient.
Duncan, Let's say a 2 runner markets is priced at
A) 4.2 4.3
B) 1.3 1.31
A pure gambler selecting a single one of these outcomes and betting on it, cannot have a positive expectancy if the correct price is somewhere in between the back and lay offers (efficient). If you can price up accurately though, you can be the one laying at 4.2 and backing at 4.3 at the same time and do the same on selection B. The pure gambler is not going to be able to beat commission.
Off the top of my head, I can think of only two scenarios where it is best to gamble rather than trade:
1) The market is highly liquid, but wrong. You're going heavily against consensus and will be unlikely to have a chance to trade out as it won't correct.
2) The market is highly illiquid and you can't trade out at a fair price.
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
Add contact | Send message
When: 07 Jul 11 15:43
Joined:
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
| Topic/replies: 4,201 | Blogger: Feck N. Eejit's blog
The ideal situation for Betfair is to have all market priced to 99.8-100.2% and be completely efficient. That would kill all winning gamblers, and traders / market makers would need to turn over gigantic sums (provide liquidity) to make a reasonable amount of money.
If all winning gamblers were killed off where would the completely efficient market come from?
Losing gamblers, and people who reduce the effects of commission by betting repeatedly on multiple selections.
Coach, I agree, It was a hypothetical example. Of course markets that are close to 100% aren't necesseraly efficient.
Duncan, Let's say a 2 runner markets is priced at
A) 4.2 4.3
B) 1.3 1.31
A pure gambler selecting a single one of these outcomes and betting on it, cannot have a positive expectancy if the correct price is somewhere in between the back and lay offers (efficient). If you can price up accurately though, you can be the one laying at 4.2 and backing at 4.3 at the same time and do the same on selection B. The pure gambler is not going to be able to beat commission.
Off the top of my head, I can think of only two scenarios where it is best to gamble rather than trade:
1) The market is highly liquid, but wrong. You're going heavily against consensus and will be unlikely to have a chance to trade out as it won't correct.
2) The market is highly illiquid and you can't trade out at a fair price.
Actually if you can back 4.3 shots when the correct price is 4.2 you do have a +EV on 2% commission. So it is possible. Just that offsetting the position by laying at 4.2 simultaneously or at some later stage offers a huge and obvious advantage.
Losing gamblers, and people who reduce the effects of commission by betting repeatedly on multiple selections.
What?
What?
I`m certain Feck will have much to say on your last posting Investor sir..
But you could be talking about a different game to me. No disrespect but do you not realise that some of us have zero interest in trading out to either reduce risk or even eradicate risk ? We are gamblers...we welcome risk..we have exposure....and despite that we win. 1.7% of BF clients win on here either by your methods and mathematics or as we oldtimers do ..by punting.
`Positive expectancy`..? that`s a City term for keeping our fingers crossed in my book. Every bet is struck with that but you won`t get far if you take the wrong path especially by the sharks on here who will blow positive expectancy out of the window and the finger crossing will soon fail as well.
Your quote of "The pure gambler is not going to be able to beat commission." forgets to add `imo` because it simply is not true. You haven`t really addressed my post...how do I win here if I ignore positive expectancy and have never traded a race in my life.. ? that of course does not include running for cover and taking a loss either on racing or football which are my only two sports that I bet on.
Some of us actually bet by feel and instinct you know...it is not all about number crunching where as you rightly point out if the prices are correct or `efficient` we simply cannot win with the commission.
Even more so by adding the PC to that equation... we are committing financial suicide....it is beyond my comprehension that winners and losers alike are not unanimous about that.
I really think we are playing a completely different ballgame on here...my methods may make you shiver, but you can`t dismiss them so easily with examples as you have attempted above.
But you could be talking about a different game to me. No disrespect but do you not realise that some of us have zero interest in trading out to either reduce risk or even eradicate risk ? We are gamblers...we welcome risk..we have exposure....and despite that we win. 1.7% of BF clients win on here either by your methods and mathematics or as we oldtimers do ..by punting.
`Positive expectancy`..? that`s a City term for keeping our fingers crossed in my book. Every bet is struck with that but you won`t get far if you take the wrong path especially by the sharks on here who will blow positive expectancy out of the window and the finger crossing will soon fail as well.
Your quote of "The pure gambler is not going to be able to beat commission." forgets to add `imo` because it simply is not true. You haven`t really addressed my post...how do I win here if I ignore positive expectancy and have never traded a race in my life.. ? that of course does not include running for cover and taking a loss either on racing or football which are my only two sports that I bet on.
Some of us actually bet by feel and instinct you know...it is not all about number crunching where as you rightly point out if the prices are correct or `efficient` we simply cannot win with the commission.
Even more so by adding the PC to that equation... we are committing financial suicide....it is beyond my comprehension that winners and losers alike are not unanimous about that.
I really think we are playing a completely different ballgame on here...my methods may make you shiver, but you can`t dismiss them so easily with examples as you have attempted above.
if i was costing betfair 20% pre pc charges why was i getin invited by betfair on free booze ups to the grand national,cricket and football, something doesnt add up. 
...and I rarely bet on 2 runner events I should add.
It mmay not make him innocent, but it could have meant him not being found guilty though
...not of committing perjury. Only his ego thought he`d get away with it all, despite the scum rag that exposed him.
Off the top of my head, I can think of only two scenarios where it is best to gamble rather than trade:
1) The market is highly liquid, but wrong. You're going heavily against consensus and will be unlikely to have a chance to trade out as it won't correct.
2) The market is highly illiquid and you can't trade out at a fair price.
Good Grief. You may know your onions Investor with what you do but you are a complete ignoramus when it comes to gqmbling
offsetting the position by laying at 4.2 simultaneously or at some later stage offers a huge and obvious advantage.
It's this type of thinking which is bringing the site down
You are at one end of a very long spectrum \Investor and your methods are not the only path.
1) The market is highly liquid, but wrong. You're going heavily against consensus and will be unlikely to have a chance to trade out as it won't correct.
2) The market is highly illiquid and you can't trade out at a fair price.
Good Grief. You may know your onions Investor with what you do but you are a complete ignoramus when it comes to gqmbling
offsetting the position by laying at 4.2 simultaneously or at some later stage offers a huge and obvious advantage.
It's this type of thinking which is bringing the site down
You are at one end of a very long spectrum \Investor and your methods are not the only path.
How does it bring the site down? That is essentially exactly what Betfair want.
The exponential growth of API generated millisecond requests demands mega millions of investment. Look at Bf's last figures and you will see that all of there £60m positive cash flow went into IT requirements trying to keep pace.
That is probably true but why not increase data charges to make up for it if it were bringing the site down ?
Actually there are a number of charges both real and imaginary they could come up with to deal with this
Actually there are a number of charges both real and imaginary they could come up with to deal with this
mcfc1981
07 Jul 11 18:03
Joined:
22 Jul 06
| Topic/replies: 1,219 | Blogger: mcfc1981's blog
if i was costing betfair 20% pre pc charges why was i getin invited by betfair on free booze ups to the grand national,cricket and football, something doesnt add up. Shocked
-----------------------------------------------------
That is a good question...I`ve forgotten what a hospitality invitation sounds like these days and after this thread won`t be finding out.
07 Jul 11 18:03
Joined:
22 Jul 06
| Topic/replies: 1,219 | Blogger: mcfc1981's blog
if i was costing betfair 20% pre pc charges why was i getin invited by betfair on free booze ups to the grand national,cricket and football, something doesnt add up. Shocked
-----------------------------------------------------
That is a good question...I`ve forgotten what a hospitality invitation sounds like these days and after this thread won`t be finding out.
and moving their data centre to ireland because it's cheaper.
and developing loads of bells and whistles on the website which deliver highly questionable returns and site instability.
the pricing for transaction charges should be the easiest thing in the world to do.
and developing loads of bells and whistles on the website which deliver highly questionable returns and site instability.
the pricing for transaction charges should be the easiest thing in the world to do.
The exponential growth of API generated millisecond requests demands mega millions of investment.
has it been growing exponentially? how do you know this
Look at Bf's last figures and you will see that all of there £60m positive cash flow went into IT requirements trying to keep pace?
is this what the money has spent on.
has it been growing exponentially? how do you know this
Look at Bf's last figures and you will see that all of there £60m positive cash flow went into IT requirements trying to keep pace?
is this what the money has spent on.
The Investor, what if the market cannot satisfy yr size requirements? (as will happen in 99%+ of bets for an early price horse punter)?
Is yr advice to trade smaller denominations directionally, meaning you miss out on yr best opportunities, or to fill y/s up to (as near as you can get to) yr Kelly stake (always in the understanding that you have adopted a rational comm. minimising strategy and will lay off as yr bet just about touches yr estimate of fair value?)
Is yr advice to trade smaller denominations directionally, meaning you miss out on yr best opportunities, or to fill y/s up to (as near as you can get to) yr Kelly stake (always in the understanding that you have adopted a rational comm. minimising strategy and will lay off as yr bet just about touches yr estimate of fair value?)
Once a business sets up a department, it demands money--and gets money/investment, whether it is profitable or not. The people in it come to see themselves in competitions w/ the company's other departments. Microsoft in its maturity is the prime example of this.
Bf have fallen foul of something similar--intelligent, persuasive people saying, 'we're about to have a recession, many of our clients bet on arcade games, the revenue stream is predictable, we are a full-grown company and need a diversified offering' etc etc etc. You need someone w/ vision to be able to define a core competence and pull the plug when a division is just losing.
Bf have fallen foul of something similar--intelligent, persuasive people saying, 'we're about to have a recession, many of our clients bet on arcade games, the revenue stream is predictable, we are a full-grown company and need a diversified offering' etc etc etc. You need someone w/ vision to be able to define a core competence and pull the plug when a division is just losing.
What am I missing?
At its most basic, BF earns its revenues from commissions, extracted as a % of each bet( there is always a winner).
Its current commission revenues are not enough to cover the costs of running and expanding the site ( let's put aside whether this is a porkie or not).
What can it do to increase its revenues apart from increasing its commissions ?
There is nothing else it can do to increase revenues is there ?
BF then says that if it increased commissions across the board by just upping the basic flat rate, it would be grossly unfair on the majority of customers, that is net losers and modest net winners who effectively pay already a whoppingly large part of their net winnings in commission, most well in excess of 40% ( note the net losers even effectively pay an infinite %, as their net winnings are zero ).
So the only source of extra revenue logically has to come from the " not so modest " net winners.
Hence the PC.
Now the 1st shot at this with it being set at 20% on all net winners has not produced the increase in revenues required by BF.
Hence they need to increase it further.
But once again they have decided not to apply the increase across the board to all net winners, that is they have introduced the 250,000 lifetime earnings threhhold.
Isn't that in turn fair and reasonable also to all the net winners as a whole body ?
Therefore, I'm having trouble understanding from all the posts on here what else BF can do.
It doesn't appear to me to be an API related problem as there are many big winners who apparently still don't even use a bot and thus the API.
It's purely a problem that many smart people, and more dangerously to BF an increasingly many, are achieving very high strike rates in their betting strategies and thus are depleting the betting pools too quickly for too little commission return to BF.
At its most basic, BF earns its revenues from commissions, extracted as a % of each bet( there is always a winner).
Its current commission revenues are not enough to cover the costs of running and expanding the site ( let's put aside whether this is a porkie or not).
What can it do to increase its revenues apart from increasing its commissions ?
There is nothing else it can do to increase revenues is there ?
BF then says that if it increased commissions across the board by just upping the basic flat rate, it would be grossly unfair on the majority of customers, that is net losers and modest net winners who effectively pay already a whoppingly large part of their net winnings in commission, most well in excess of 40% ( note the net losers even effectively pay an infinite %, as their net winnings are zero ).
So the only source of extra revenue logically has to come from the " not so modest " net winners.
Hence the PC.
Now the 1st shot at this with it being set at 20% on all net winners has not produced the increase in revenues required by BF.
Hence they need to increase it further.
But once again they have decided not to apply the increase across the board to all net winners, that is they have introduced the 250,000 lifetime earnings threhhold.
Isn't that in turn fair and reasonable also to all the net winners as a whole body ?
Therefore, I'm having trouble understanding from all the posts on here what else BF can do.
It doesn't appear to me to be an API related problem as there are many big winners who apparently still don't even use a bot and thus the API.
It's purely a problem that many smart people, and more dangerously to BF an increasingly many, are achieving very high strike rates in their betting strategies and thus are depleting the betting pools too quickly for too little commission return to BF.
They could have decreased their costs by about 45 million if they hadn't chased non hopers.
Imagine if they had spent the 30million they spend developing and propping up their stock platform on attracting a larger share of the bookie market to Betfair?
Imagine if they had spent the 30million they spend developing and propping up their stock platform on attracting a larger share of the bookie market to Betfair?
Betfair saying people are losing too quickly is akin to a government saying there's too much immigration. Maybe they're that daft they think it's not their fault.
In fact their LMAX platform screwed us from the start
If it does well they cream the profits and give us, the investor, nothing in return
If it does poorly they cream our profits to prop it up
If it does well they cream the profits and give us, the investor, nothing in return
If it does poorly they cream our profits to prop it up
FAFH- i've never understood why BF didn't realise the problem years ago. In 2003/4 eg this would have been a problem, right ? Big winners draining the pool ?
Maybe a scaled set of charges at that time should have been intro'd .
Starting at 20% for L/Time profits of 50k ,25%-100k , 30%-150k and so on for example. It would have a tleast allowed for projections,instead short term announcements create animosity.
It seems to be a bigger problem of late ,why is this ??
Maybe a scaled set of charges at that time should have been intro'd .
Starting at 20% for L/Time profits of 50k ,25%-100k , 30%-150k and so on for example. It would have a tleast allowed for projections,instead short term announcements create animosity.
It seems to be a bigger problem of late ,why is this ??
I reckon the fact is the problem doesn't exist. Winners draining the pool = a well thought out explanation for growing greedy.
I wonder at what limit do the industry regulators help set the charge with BF do you think ? could they get away with any charge ?
And I should have added maybe we should all pray to God that BF's PC solution works.
Because if it doesn't by virtue of ( say) the shrewdies totally deserting the exchange en masse and going to the really only existing just about viable alternative exchange ( they can't go to the HS bookies, they won't have them at all), then the same problems will just arise over there in time, and they ( the alternative exchange) will be forced to do excatly the same as BF has done. That is super tax the big winners.
That is nothing will change.
Thus, it seems to me that the exchange model ultimately breaks down under the weight of there being an inbalance of people becoming big winners due to abnormally high strike rates being achieved through computer derived skills, be it using the API or using excell spread sheets to collate and analyse large banks of historical data.
This is something the founders perhaps didn't actually foresee at all, or certainly didn't foresee to the depth it has evolved to.
This whole matter is then compounded because, unlike other exchange models like the stock market, it cannot be solved by never ending growth in liquidity, either organic or artificially made by someone like the US Fed Reserve Bank or B of E here.
Because if it doesn't by virtue of ( say) the shrewdies totally deserting the exchange en masse and going to the really only existing just about viable alternative exchange ( they can't go to the HS bookies, they won't have them at all), then the same problems will just arise over there in time, and they ( the alternative exchange) will be forced to do excatly the same as BF has done. That is super tax the big winners.
That is nothing will change.
Thus, it seems to me that the exchange model ultimately breaks down under the weight of there being an inbalance of people becoming big winners due to abnormally high strike rates being achieved through computer derived skills, be it using the API or using excell spread sheets to collate and analyse large banks of historical data.
This is something the founders perhaps didn't actually foresee at all, or certainly didn't foresee to the depth it has evolved to.
This whole matter is then compounded because, unlike other exchange models like the stock market, it cannot be solved by never ending growth in liquidity, either organic or artificially made by someone like the US Fed Reserve Bank or B of E here.
FAFH that is only true if you take Betfairs developments as absolutely necessary. And they aren't
A new exchange doesn't need a stock trading platform.
A new exchange doesn't need a stock trading platform.
Can't disagree with that Rocket.
They should also get rid of all the arcade bullsh!t if they want to convince the serious sports gamblers on here that they are not generating sufficient revenues to run the sports betting activities.
That is they should at the very least be starting to prove to us ( the sports bettors) that we are not being asked to pay the price/subsidise either their failures at worst, or the heavy start up costs at best, of their non sports betting activities.
They should also get rid of all the arcade bullsh!t if they want to convince the serious sports gamblers on here that they are not generating sufficient revenues to run the sports betting activities.
That is they should at the very least be starting to prove to us ( the sports bettors) that we are not being asked to pay the price/subsidise either their failures at worst, or the heavy start up costs at best, of their non sports betting activities.
Of course they will probably argue that these arcade games bring in the " mugs" who then gravitate to the sports betting side of things.
If they do say that, then I would seriously challenge them to prove that for sure.
If they do say that, then I would seriously challenge them to prove that for sure.
Can't say I've noticed a drastic drop in liquidity which would point to this myth that the well has run dry.
Betfair must be laughing their socks off at the Ducks ineptitude though FAFH
Btw Rocket I hope you did notice that I actually can on occasion post up " I can't argue with that ".
John 23
Maybe they're projecting that it will dry run dr if things don't change radically and quickly.
But I admit I'm dealing with incomplete info here.
I'm just trying to put a rational explanation to all that BF is doing.
I essentially know no more( in fact probably a lot less) than most apparently do on here.
John 23
Maybe they're projecting that it will dry run dr if things don't change radically and quickly.
But I admit I'm dealing with incomplete info here.
I'm just trying to put a rational explanation to all that BF is doing.
I essentially know no more( in fact probably a lot less) than most apparently do on here.
Coach
Yep they sure must.
Let's hope the shrewdies cannot be easily and quickly comfortable over there.
As I say it would essentially change nothing in the long run, just upset and unsettle things in the short run.
Yep they sure must.
Let's hope the shrewdies cannot be easily and quickly comfortable over there.
As I say it would essentially change nothing in the long run, just upset and unsettle things in the short run.
I did notice that FAFH.
But even then you managed a further 4 paragraphs
Plus another post to top it off.
Haha, fun and games with all of us now with BF heading the way they are
Coach, Betfair must be in stitches. The only reason I can think for Betdakk being so glaikit is Betfair taking them over. If that isn't the plan then they are finished. If they can't capitalise on this major screw up by their only competitor then they are finished aren't they? So it makes you ponder.
But even then you managed a further 4 paragraphs
Plus another post to top it off.
Haha, fun and games with all of us now with BF heading the way they are
Coach, Betfair must be in stitches. The only reason I can think for Betdakk being so glaikit is Betfair taking them over. If that isn't the plan then they are finished. If they can't capitalise on this major screw up by their only competitor then they are finished aren't they? So it makes you ponder.
Duncan Disordorli
When: 07 Jul 11 18:02
Joined:
Date Joined: 10 Jul 01
| Topic/replies: 106 | Blogger: Duncan Disordorli's blog
I`m certain Feck will have much to say on your last posting Investor sir..
But you could be talking about a different game to me. No disrespect but do you not realise that some of us have zero interest in trading out to either reduce risk or even eradicate risk ? We are gamblers...we welcome risk..we have exposure....and despite that we win. 1.7% of BF clients win on here either by your methods and mathematics or as we oldtimers do ..by punting.
Sure, actually I welcome risk too. As a PC payer volatility of returns is actually useful (giving up a small part of your edge to smooth returns is more expensive due to PC)
`Positive expectancy`..? that`s a City term for keeping our fingers crossed in my book. Every bet is struck with that but you won`t get far if you take the wrong path especially by the sharks on here who will blow positive expectancy out of the window and the finger crossing will soon fail as well.
Your quote of "The pure gambler is not going to be able to beat commission." forgets to add `imo` because it simply is not true. You haven`t really addressed my post...how do I win here if I ignore positive expectancy and have never traded a race in my life.. ? that of course does not include running for cover and taking a loss either on racing or football which are my only two sports that I bet on.
I should clarify that this was a hypothetical example where the market is efficient. In that case it will be almost impossible for the pure gambler to profit (only at certain increments as highlighted previously), whereas traders and market makers still can profit under these circumstances. Of course I understand that in the real world there will alwasy be enough anomalies to make straight betting profitable for some.
Some of us actually bet by feel and instinct you know...it is not all about number crunching where as you rightly point out if the prices are correct or `efficient` we simply cannot win with the commission.
Even more so by adding the PC to that equation... we are committing financial suicide....it is beyond my comprehension that winners and losers alike are not unanimous about that.
I really think we are playing a completely different ballgame on here...my methods may make you shiver, but you can`t dismiss them so easily with examples as you have attempted above.
I do get that. If had the skill to read matches and develop a feel for how games are developing will affect the probabilities and combined that with what I'm already doing, my profits would no doubt shoot up very quickly.
-----------
Sandown
When: 07 Jul 11 19:49
Joined:
Date Joined: 06 Dec 01
| Topic/replies: 815 | Blogger: Sandown's blog
Off the top of my head, I can think of only two scenarios where it is best to gamble rather than trade:
1) The market is highly liquid, but wrong. You're going heavily against consensus and will be unlikely to have a chance to trade out as it won't correct.
2) The market is highly illiquid and you can't trade out at a fair price.
Good Grief. You may know your onions Investor with what you do but you are a complete ignoramus when it comes to gqmbling
offsetting the position by laying at 4.2 simultaneously or at some later stage offers a huge and obvious advantage.
It's this type of thinking which is bringing the site down
You are at one end of a very long spectrum \Investor and your methods are not the only path.
I'm not saying it's the only path. Just that if you don't trade when it is optimal to do so, you are effectively throwing money away. I get that in certain markets straight betting might work better; a price might be way out of line and never correct, in that case, the only opportunity you have is to gamble. I guess I could add a third point 3) Trading could require too much time/effort versus placing a single bet.
If that or something similar is the case though, there is obviously room for improvement.
When: 07 Jul 11 18:02
Joined:
Date Joined: 10 Jul 01
| Topic/replies: 106 | Blogger: Duncan Disordorli's blog
I`m certain Feck will have much to say on your last posting Investor sir..
But you could be talking about a different game to me. No disrespect but do you not realise that some of us have zero interest in trading out to either reduce risk or even eradicate risk ? We are gamblers...we welcome risk..we have exposure....and despite that we win. 1.7% of BF clients win on here either by your methods and mathematics or as we oldtimers do ..by punting.
Sure, actually I welcome risk too. As a PC payer volatility of returns is actually useful (giving up a small part of your edge to smooth returns is more expensive due to PC)
`Positive expectancy`..? that`s a City term for keeping our fingers crossed in my book. Every bet is struck with that but you won`t get far if you take the wrong path especially by the sharks on here who will blow positive expectancy out of the window and the finger crossing will soon fail as well.
Your quote of "The pure gambler is not going to be able to beat commission." forgets to add `imo` because it simply is not true. You haven`t really addressed my post...how do I win here if I ignore positive expectancy and have never traded a race in my life.. ? that of course does not include running for cover and taking a loss either on racing or football which are my only two sports that I bet on.
I should clarify that this was a hypothetical example where the market is efficient. In that case it will be almost impossible for the pure gambler to profit (only at certain increments as highlighted previously), whereas traders and market makers still can profit under these circumstances. Of course I understand that in the real world there will alwasy be enough anomalies to make straight betting profitable for some.
Some of us actually bet by feel and instinct you know...it is not all about number crunching where as you rightly point out if the prices are correct or `efficient` we simply cannot win with the commission.
Even more so by adding the PC to that equation... we are committing financial suicide....it is beyond my comprehension that winners and losers alike are not unanimous about that.
I really think we are playing a completely different ballgame on here...my methods may make you shiver, but you can`t dismiss them so easily with examples as you have attempted above.
I do get that. If had the skill to read matches and develop a feel for how games are developing will affect the probabilities and combined that with what I'm already doing, my profits would no doubt shoot up very quickly.
-----------
Sandown
When: 07 Jul 11 19:49
Joined:
Date Joined: 06 Dec 01
| Topic/replies: 815 | Blogger: Sandown's blog
Off the top of my head, I can think of only two scenarios where it is best to gamble rather than trade:
1) The market is highly liquid, but wrong. You're going heavily against consensus and will be unlikely to have a chance to trade out as it won't correct.
2) The market is highly illiquid and you can't trade out at a fair price.
Good Grief. You may know your onions Investor with what you do but you are a complete ignoramus when it comes to gqmbling
offsetting the position by laying at 4.2 simultaneously or at some later stage offers a huge and obvious advantage.
It's this type of thinking which is bringing the site down
You are at one end of a very long spectrum \Investor and your methods are not the only path.
I'm not saying it's the only path. Just that if you don't trade when it is optimal to do so, you are effectively throwing money away. I get that in certain markets straight betting might work better; a price might be way out of line and never correct, in that case, the only opportunity you have is to gamble. I guess I could add a third point 3) Trading could require too much time/effort versus placing a single bet.
If that or something similar is the case though, there is obviously room for improvement.
FATH: What can it do to increase its revenues apart from increasing its commissions ?
It can grow its volumes (or try to).
It can grow its volumes (or try to).
Which means attracting new players which they say they need more commission revenues from existing players to do.
They can't extract more out of existing losers and modest winners, so they have to look to extract it from the others. Hence the PC.
That's my simplistic take on the whole thing.
I am simply looking to be shown the way as to where my thinking is way off.
They can't extract more out of existing losers and modest winners, so they have to look to extract it from the others. Hence the PC.
That's my simplistic take on the whole thing.
I am simply looking to be shown the way as to where my thinking is way off.
at the same time FAFH i also read a lot of money has been wasted on projects outside of sports betting -
Investor
Don't you think the risk/return ratios of really successful gamblers are totally out of whack with the real world?
Apparently from debates in past I've had on here with many, it's not unusual or unexpected to be able to make 100's of thousands of pounds pa on here with capital bases in the low thousands.
When I questioned and challenged this, I was told in no uncertain terms that I was being an idiot to do so. That I knew nowt about gambling.
Thus if it is true and unchallengeable, how does an exchange model handle these types of gamblers without becoming seriously unbalanced and perhaps not ever viable at all long term ?
Don't you think the risk/return ratios of really successful gamblers are totally out of whack with the real world?
Apparently from debates in past I've had on here with many, it's not unusual or unexpected to be able to make 100's of thousands of pounds pa on here with capital bases in the low thousands.
When I questioned and challenged this, I was told in no uncertain terms that I was being an idiot to do so. That I knew nowt about gambling.
Thus if it is true and unchallengeable, how does an exchange model handle these types of gamblers without becoming seriously unbalanced and perhaps not ever viable at all long term ?
Coach
I think I covered that very salient point in one of my other posts.
In essence I think BF owes us sports bettors a good explanation on that matter.
But if they have lost serious moonies on these other ventures, then the monies gone and we will unfortunately just have to pay for it.
I mean what's the alternative to them or us ?
I think I covered that very salient point in one of my other posts.
In essence I think BF owes us sports bettors a good explanation on that matter.
But if they have lost serious moonies on these other ventures, then the monies gone and we will unfortunately just have to pay for it.
I mean what's the alternative to them or us ?
FAFH - i still can't fathom how a few elite (70 or so ) can cream off so much in the first place without any serious competition .
FATH: They can't extract more out of existing losers and modest winners
I think they can and will.
David Yu in his statement to investors said that bf was looking to take a greater gross win i.e. a proportion of their customers' bets and 'pricing changes are one way we will do this'.
I don't think he meant the new pc.
I think they can and will.
David Yu in his statement to investors said that bf was looking to take a greater gross win i.e. a proportion of their customers' bets and 'pricing changes are one way we will do this'.
I don't think he meant the new pc.
My sense at least to some degree is that bf has not really gone after some markets like IR football b/c it wd cannabalize the offerings of business partners i.e. liquidity suppliers who trade / hedge w/ them in highly predictable ways.
It has been content to be the back office of customer-facing internet bookies.
It shd change tack and make a big play for fresh blood in the markets where there is an opportunity.
It has been content to be the back office of customer-facing internet bookies.
It shd change tack and make a big play for fresh blood in the markets where there is an opportunity.
Askari
How do you get more out of losers and modest winners.
They are already paying a monumental amount of commission if measured as a percentage of their net winnings, if they have any such net winning positions that is.
There's nothing left to get out of them is there ?
How do you get more out of losers and modest winners.
They are already paying a monumental amount of commission if measured as a percentage of their net winnings, if they have any such net winning positions that is.
There's nothing left to get out of them is there ?
FINE AS FROG HAIR 07 Jul 11 21:49
And I should have added maybe we should all pray to God that BF's PC solution works.
----------------------------------------------------------
er FAFH no, in actual fact I pray to God if He is listening that BF`s PC solution [b]fails.[/b]
and I bet I`m not alone.
And I should have added maybe we should all pray to God that BF's PC solution works.
----------------------------------------------------------
er FAFH no, in actual fact I pray to God if He is listening that BF`s PC solution [b]fails.[/b]
and I bet I`m not alone.
Froggy, the answer unfortunately is to replace the winners with their own machinery. This may not be easy though.
Duncan, fortunately there is no god [;)]
Duncan, fortunately there is no god [;)]
Indeed Catflappo...and if July 18 sees the exodus that is deserved, then there could be no BF too.
Todays shreholder forum comments -http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:BET.L&display=discussion&it=le
FATH, you get more out of losers and modest winners by increasing the comm. base rate on selected markets or by introducing more steps on the comm. ladder, wh/ wd have no effect either on v. big players or small recreational flutterers.
I wd not surprise me if there are plans afoot to do either of these.
What David Yu actually said was that he was looking to improve the company's margins (he may just have meant they wd be spending less e.g. on advertising) and that he also wanted to take more of the betting funds of his customers.
(In my case, at the moment he gets all of my arbing money, some trading positions but only a tiny fraction of my outright bets--as his prices just aren't good enough. I cd give you six or seven horses at the Newmarket July meeting, inc. the winners of the first three races, who never traded on bf at the prices advertised and available in the shops in the morning or evening before.)
I wd not surprise me if there are plans afoot to do either of these.
What David Yu actually said was that he was looking to improve the company's margins (he may just have meant they wd be spending less e.g. on advertising) and that he also wanted to take more of the betting funds of his customers.
(In my case, at the moment he gets all of my arbing money, some trading positions but only a tiny fraction of my outright bets--as his prices just aren't good enough. I cd give you six or seven horses at the Newmarket July meeting, inc. the winners of the first three races, who never traded on bf at the prices advertised and available in the shops in the morning or evening before.)
Ok last post on here for me.
Clearing the account after this weekend of every penny and genuinely hope never to darken Betfair`s doors again. Like most defectors we can only hope that purple has the ability to accommodate us..they will never have a greater chance of becoming number one. It would be comforting to imagine that Betfair will realise after July 18 what a rick they have made and welcome us back with a restructured commission scale that enables us to rethink but that is pie in the sky. The charge is set in stone, and watch out losers and under 250K winners the net will be closing, mark my words.
Admit to a certain sadness that after 10 years here I have virtually been shown the door as I`m sure many others are. Unimaginable to those like me that were there at the start with Flutter and Betfair open in two windows and helped make this place become what it has done only to see the dreaded word `flotation` become inevitable...and its obvious implications for all of us winner or loser.
Thanks and good luck to all who contributed to this thread..so much wisdom, so much input, so much pure common sense...shame on Betfair for not heeding a single word.
DD
Clearing the account after this weekend of every penny and genuinely hope never to darken Betfair`s doors again. Like most defectors we can only hope that purple has the ability to accommodate us..they will never have a greater chance of becoming number one. It would be comforting to imagine that Betfair will realise after July 18 what a rick they have made and welcome us back with a restructured commission scale that enables us to rethink but that is pie in the sky. The charge is set in stone, and watch out losers and under 250K winners the net will be closing, mark my words.
Admit to a certain sadness that after 10 years here I have virtually been shown the door as I`m sure many others are. Unimaginable to those like me that were there at the start with Flutter and Betfair open in two windows and helped make this place become what it has done only to see the dreaded word `flotation` become inevitable...and its obvious implications for all of us winner or loser.
Thanks and good luck to all who contributed to this thread..so much wisdom, so much input, so much pure common sense...shame on Betfair for not heeding a single word.
DD
Why this weekend rather than next Duncan? Does the charge apply to next week's profits?
See you in the new world DD
God bless you my friend
God bless you my friend
Thank you Johnny...appreciated.
Feck..no, just going away for a week`s holiday but it will start before my return.
Be lucky..will get in touch and see if we can organise that drink with Sporty.
Feck..no, just going away for a week`s holiday but it will start before my return.
Be lucky..will get in touch and see if we can organise that drink with Sporty.
Duncan, did you see the General betting summer drinks thread? Are you and sporty in your winter retreats by the time that Hamilton meeting comes round?
Still in Glasgow Feck....will speak to Sporty.
I`ll put my name down..should be a runner.
I`ll put my name down..should be a runner.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539