Look I'm as affected as anyone by the PC.
I have a very profitable core strategy that generates charges well below at least the 10% level.
But I'm not naive enough to think that it can last forever as a "free" ride.
The PC is a tax I will have to bear and try to mitigate.
It has already made me implement many non core strategies that reduce my profitability substantially.
But I think that has been the point of the whole exercise by BF. I would do the same tbh.
I just get really sick and tired of mostly everybody who seems to bother to post on here being so self obsessed about their own particular agendas.

Well you will be forever really sick beacuse why should anybody on here care for anyone other than themselves?


When it comes to money...

Now that's a disappointing reversion to your old self FAFH.

But we all knew it was there all along.

Like I said - the smelliest character on here. Avoid.

-****
-Read into stock market trading
-Arbitrage
-Diversify, though on 1st impressions it seems very tricky to avoid this rise

Attack the man and not the ball.
Good motto Rocket.
Just a sign of weakness I'm afraid to say.

RMB ©
02 Jul 11 01:49 Joined: 23 Mar 08 | Topic/replies: 7,104 | Blogger: RMB ©'s blog
I can't work out the logistics of what they want to happen.

Increase PC because they want us to stay and pay more tax, or increase it to get us to f00k off their site. I know Betting Promotions would love several hundred shrewdies to feck off.

------------------

everything points towards them becoming active in their own markets imo.

I wonder if the next thing to go will be a level playing field regarding queue position.

OK Here goes:

FINE AS FROG HAIR
Date Joined: 12 Mar 07
Add contact | Send message
When: 01 Jul 11 20:58
Joined:
Date Joined: 12 Mar 07
| Topic/replies: 2,746 | Blogger: FINE AS FROG HAIR's blog
Then plan for the worst but hope for the best.
Btw do you really sincerely think that BF wants to put " winners" completely out of business by making it absolutely impossible for them to win any reasonable amounts ?

Many of us would now answer this question with: "I don't know".

I do think there is a certain " greed " factor underlying a large number of posters' agendas on here.
At least , BF is "claiming " that they need more from the big winners to fund their operations.
What are the really big winners claiming they need more than 40% of their gross profits for ?
To fund their luxury lifestyles.

BF don't 'need' more, they wan't more. It's not like the company is going bust and this is an emergency measure.

Now I know that the PC is also hitting many of those with modest winnings and lifestyles, and that is where I do come down to a large extent on the side of the protesters on here.
But the likes on contrarian, mr celebrity, et al. I don't think so.
Nothing personal really. They really must have plenty of slack to play wiyh.

When the original PC was introduced, I received an email saying I was unlikely to have to pay it in future, and was paying it three months later. This time round, I'm in a similar situation, and Betfair haven't even bothered contacting me at all! I've probably got at least a year left though.


FINE AS FROG HAIR
Date Joined: 12 Mar 07
Add contact | Send message
When: 01 Jul 11 23:11
Joined:
Date Joined: 12 Mar 07
| Topic/replies: 2,746 | Blogger: FINE AS FROG HAIR's blog
Nope.
Look the whole essence of the exchange principle is that it has to be self-sustaining.
If you have a small group of big winners taking inordinate amounts of money out of the system , and not giving the ordinary punter the slighest chance of ever coming out ahead, then it has to break eventually. Unless there is a bottomless pit of dumb, uneducated, clueless gamblersnot there.

I wouldn't call them 'dumb', 'clueless' etc., but there is a virtually endless supply of leisure punters out there. Without them bookies and casino's would not exist. For the majority of them it's about betting for fun, they get enjoyment/excitement and they will usually understand that the odds are slightly against them.

BF has given these big winners pretty much free rein up until a year or so ago, and they have simply taken more and more advantage of the situation.
They have not acted responsibly in the sense of reining in their greed, they have simply exponentially increased their operations and profits, without any concern as to the overall health of the exchange community.
Ring a bell ?

It seems you're turning the world upside down. I've gone from turning over £5k in 2007 with a margin just under 20% to a margin of about 0.2% on a turnover of £millions a month. What I believe makes the exchange healthy is winners competing with each other for the leisure punter's money by driving the margins down.

The ideal scenario for me would be to operate with margins so tight that no-one else can compete. If I was able to achieve this, it would mean leisure punting price takers would get the best deal possible on the exchange as the spread would be as small as it could possibly be.


Think Wall St and investment bankers and huge bonuses based on short term profits etc.
It's the same selfish, greed factor coming through.

Contrarian and others have highlighted concerns about long term viability of doing this. I for one would love to make a long term commitment if Betfair could do likewise. Those paying now and likely to pay in the future have to have a plan b now.


BF is now trying to give these players an option.
Start acting more responsibly in the gedneral interests of the overall betting community, that is start churning at low margins more, or we will tax you into submission and reluctantly force you into the type of roles you should be playing.

That's a decent theory, but we don't know whether it's correct. Is this the second step in a plan to get rid of winners, or is it really a way to make everyone pay their fair share? I'm not sure.

If the exchange concept goes out of business due to a lack of ordinary punters able or willing to continue subsidising the " big" winners' enormous, inequitable profits ( almost obscene in some apparent cases, considering they effectively are generated from an activity that contributes nothing to society in real terms), then nobody gains.

Yeah, I can see it now: "I'm not placing my £10 on next week's City match as I'm not willing to continue subsidising the big winners unless they pay 40-60% of their GP to Betfair, for which I get nothing in return."

The big winners will have no source of punters to fleece, and the recreational punters will have no option to "giving" their monies to the HS bookies for their bit of harmless fun.
There will always be net winners and net losers on BF, it just the margin of difference between the two that needs to be more balanced.
The debate should be about whether the PC achieves this rebalncing fairly and equitably.

The ideal situation for Betfair would be for all customers to churn funds on random bets at fair value losing only commission. Wouldn't be much fun though. Equality of opportunity is worth a lot more than equality of outcome.

It shouldn't be about the basic principle of whether or not the big winners should or should not be able to decimate the system without any self control, or responsibility to others who give them the pot to decimate in the first place.

Many of these winners are giving punters odds that are far better than they can get elsewhere (myself included, although I'm not quite a 'big' winner). If I wasn't there offering 'decent' odds, the next guy in the queue would get matched and so on. fun bettors benefit from competition amongst winners.

Investor
I would hardly think you fit the profile of the big, greedy winners I was referring to.
You seem to try to play in a manner that is responsible and good not only for you, but reasonably beneficial to others.
As such I would not think you are not one of  the prime targets of the "super" tax.
I am, however, somewhat puzzled about your references to the level of competition amongst the winners.
If it was that great ( and good for us all as you suggest) then how on earth are these various winners operating on such apparent high margins of profitability, so high in fact that BF even feels the need, let the alone have the belief or temerity, that they can get away with now taxing them at such " super " rates ?

Not really relevant, but a couple of months ago Contrarian you wrote that there was no challenge left at BF, implying you just turn your bots on and watch the winnings roll in.
Be careful what you wish for in future!!

I've never paic PC (not in top 0.5% but suddenley i'm in the top 0.1%[smiley:crazy]), can someone explain the point of churning non profit bets to increase their commission and reduce PC?
Am i wrong in assuming

if i win £100k in a year i will pay £40k in combined PC and comm. For example i pay 30% comm and PC just increases it to 40%?

That isn't a pure example Johnny, it's made up.

This is from FAFH (as posted above): "and not giving the ordinary punter the slighest chance of ever coming out ahead"

And how does any of the PC forms change that an ordinary losing punter will have the chance to come ahead?

An ordinary punter loses because he chooses the wrong runner, the wrong price, lacks discipline, easily goes into chasing mode, etc, etc ...

Someone also mentioned above that Betfair wants losing punters to lose more slowly. Again: How does any of the PC forms ensure that losing customers will lose more slowly?

If anyone is willing to deposit 2000 pounds and bet all of them in one go, PC isn't going to change that. And he will choose the same wrong runner, no matter if PC exists or not.

FAFH also says that things like bots couldn't be foreseen at the very beginning. Maybe not at the very beginning, but very clearly with the introduction of the API. Why not charging on API usage rather than having a flat 200 GBP per month? (no matter if the bot places one 2000 GBP bet or one thousand 2 GBP bets - and the stress created by the second is obviously tremendous)

PC, for anyone with common sense, has nothing to do with helping losing punters and has nothing to do with sustaining the Exchange.

It's 480 completely new entries johnny.

The number of 250k means that the 480 will grow over time, and rapidly too, but there's no reason to believe the 480 isn't accurate.

It's all about helping losers to lose more slowly than at present. They said so out loud, and even gave a rather disingenuously basic example of the principle in action. The commission generated for betfair by the churning of £1,000 by a 'loser' whose bank deteriorates much more slowly than at present far outweighs the extra PC betfair will generate.

wee mac, walofs that is from betfair. Most of the pc payers have either a time advantage, are taking advantage of interface quirks, are leeching from information betfair provide or are insider cheats. Betfair could stop all that at a stroke if they wanted the losers to churn more. It's like the mafia saying they're going to take a bigger slice of the protection money that's collected for them because it's not fair on the businesses that pay for it and this move will help those businesses flourish.

"I just get really sick and tired of mostly everybody who seems to bother to post on here being so self obsessed about their own particular agendas."

"Also truth be told, I do really enjoy p!ssing most of you off."

Getting enjoyment from causing upset to others is not an admirable trait. I also copied the other comment above as I enjoyed the irony of reading those 2 comments so close to each other.

I will be paying 40% and I will stay. I believe I can cover the charge by making more low margin bets. However, I had some good ideas for tote pool betting a while back and one good thing to come out of the new charge is that I am collecting data and will get it working. I think diversification is important and making good money elsewhere means if charges do get to the point where I've had enough I will still have a good income.

"Wee Mac
02 Jul 11 00:16

It's all about helping losers to lose more slowly than at present. They said so out loud, and even gave a rather disingenuously basic example of the principle in action. The commission generated for betfair by the churning of £1,000 by a 'loser' whose bank deteriorates much more slowly than at present far outweighs the extra PC betfair will generate. But in a magnificent 'double whammy', betfair gets to have its cake AND eat it."

Exactly right Wee Mac.

Checkmate to Betfair.

As the premium charge stands today, a fair minded person can't complain about only 480 people being affected and those at the bottom must have at least made £25,000 per year on average over 10 years.

The worry is as this plays out 1000's of people will start paying the charge. And those people over time would have been making £15,000 - £20,0000 a year. And in 15 years time people making £10,000 per year will be paying the charge. And anyone making £25,000 per year paying the premium charge is all but banned unless they make that money with no or very few losing weeks.

You must meet 3 criteria to pay the charge but in real terms the only criteria is getting to £250,000 net profits. Once you get to that you in most cases you automatically meet the other two.

To stop the number reaching 1000's, lifetime should be capped at a sensible number (5-15 years) Also more criteria can be added like:

1. Lifetime net profit of more than £250,000 (last 10 years maximum) This stops people making less than £25,000 paying the charge

or

2. Last 3 years profits more than £75,000 (this will eventually stop people making £20,000 a year paying the charge)

Also people who have paid 11% commission and people that have paid 38% commission both pay 40% of winning weeks. The sliding scale could be more gradual.

I am not a premium charge payer nor am I close to paying it. I am not against the premium charge. I think the high rollers should pay their share. My concern is that regular people that have been with betfair for years and make a few hundred pounds a week will have to one day pay this charge and be forced off the site.

JHENIN
02 Jul 11 19:54 Joined: 31 Aug 03 | Topic/replies: 10 | Blogger: JHENIN's blog
I am not a premium charge payer nor am I close to paying it. I am not against the premium charge. I think the high rollers should pay their share. My concern is that regular people that have been with betfair for years and make a few hundred pounds a week will have to one day pay this charge and be forced off the site.

This is my point exactly. In 3-4 Years the number of that players will increase so rapidly that I wonder who will pay that crazy charge. Maybe thats the Betfair point but I am also not among affected and I also dissagree. The normal succesful punter soon will be forced to pay it ? So they are not getting the money out of the rich. They are getting money of whoever they find!
Everybody who can count 2+2=4 can see how UNFAIR this PC is! I am excluding the Company men - its not unfair for them as they want to get their share of the punters money...

I am beginning to think you're a bot FAFH.

We just need him to malfunction Bayes... Isn't that everyone's dream...?