General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
16 Jul 11
20:21
Joined:
Date Joined:
15 Mar 01
A lot of greedy peo0ple trying to take advantage of markets..
Show More
But that cd be a definition of successful betting, againstthecrowd.
The new charge makes no distinction between the various ways that people can make money. Someone who is offering genuine liquidity (bets that might not otherwise at that point in time get matched) is treated equivalently to someone 'taking advantage' in yr term through a fast feed or more prompt market market info. or access.
That to me is one of the worse aspects of the charge.
The new charge makes no distinction between the various ways that people can make money. Someone who is offering genuine liquidity (bets that might not otherwise at that point in time get matched) is treated equivalently to someone 'taking advantage' in yr term through a fast feed or more prompt market market info. or access.
That to me is one of the worse aspects of the charge.
But Betfair have shareholders and have seen share price halve since launch...
So the obvious answer is to get rid of main winners/customers/ supporters and try & create a totally new customer base..
If you're gonna fake troll, then you're gonna have to do much better I'm afraid to say.
A lot of greedy peo0ple trying to take advantage of markets..
Very few of them would exist were it not for betfair allowing them to mug their customer base. If betfair were Doctor Frankenstein they'd try to tax the monster rather than destroy it.
Very few of them would exist were it not for betfair allowing them to mug their customer base. If betfair were Doctor Frankenstein they'd try to tax the monster rather than destroy it.
Well, the way to respect it wd be to leave...
I'm not sure that bf want all their existing customer base to desert.
And a lot of the stockbrokers put bf on the p/e they did because they thought the exchange model had a lot of headroom and might eventually supersede the fixed odds & overround model. w/ bf slowly abandoning the exchange model, some stockbrokers are going cool on the stock (and being one reason behind the price sinking).
I'm not sure that bf want all their existing customer base to desert.
And a lot of the stockbrokers put bf on the p/e they did because they thought the exchange model had a lot of headroom and might eventually supersede the fixed odds & overround model. w/ bf slowly abandoning the exchange model, some stockbrokers are going cool on the stock (and being one reason behind the price sinking).
HA HA... uh....
Listen.... show respect... their shares are down 15% since they announced PC hike ..but at least they are trying..
Listen.... show respect... their shares are down 15% since they announced PC hike ..but at least they are trying..
And stockbrokers are renowned short term thinkers and renowned for getting it more wrong than right.
Lol... FaFH..
So they should not prop up the price at £6.50 then ?
So they should not prop up the price at £6.50 then ?
I don't believe in corporate share buy backs period, for whatever the reason.
Let the market settle these things without undue interference by insiders.
Let the market settle these things without undue interference by insiders.
againstthecrowd 16 Jul 11 20:38
Lol... FaFH..
So they should not prop up the price at £6.50 then ?
D'oh...
When a company floats on the stock exchange, the market decides its value, not the company.
Lol... FaFH..
So they should not prop up the price at £6.50 then ?
D'oh...
When a company floats on the stock exchange, the market decides its value, not the company.
Im a bit worried about Monday... I have a few quid in my account and am worried there will be a run on funds..
There is a group encouraging people to withdraw money..
And stockbrokers are renowned short term thinkers and renowned for getting it more wrong than right.
thats what I'd term cliche bullshine
thats what I'd term cliche bullshine
See That reply from Unemployable .... 16 11.. 2042
Thats the best advice you will ever get re shares .. and i agree 100%
Thats the best advice you will ever get re shares .. and i agree 100%
Your opinion Clyde.
I'm only going from personal experiences with them.
Never really met a good one yet. Almost all just commission driven I'm afraid to say.
Perhaps just been unlucky.
Maybe of course I've not been an important enough client.
Truth hurts.
I'm only going from personal experiences with them.
Never really met a good one yet. Almost all just commission driven I'm afraid to say.
Perhaps just been unlucky.
Maybe of course I've not been an important enough client.
Truth hurts.
A lot of greedy peo0ple trying to take advantage of markets..
The Soviet Union tried to fix that problem.
As I recall it ended rather badly.
The Soviet Union tried to fix that problem.
As I recall it ended rather badly.
againstthecrowd 16 Jul 11 20:21
A lot of greedy people trying to take advantage of markets..
Have you ever heard of tulips?
A lot of greedy people trying to take advantage of markets..
Have you ever heard of tulips?
In response to the op original question, why cant people respect what rapists are doing ? ? ?
I'm no legal expert but i have a feeling that rapists tend to break the law.
Betfair have the right to charge whatever.
People have the right to complain, voice their concerns.
Don't like Betfair don't use them.
Don't like people complaining, don't live in he uk.
Don't like Betfair but feel you have to use them, then moan about them a lot on their forum.
Case closed.
Betfair have the right to charge whatever.
People have the right to complain, voice their concerns.
Don't like Betfair don't use them.
Don't like people complaining, don't live in he uk.
Don't like Betfair but feel you have to use them, then moan about them a lot on their forum.
Case closed.
Don't like people moaning about them in a knee jerk fashion, then do the opposite.
Case closed.
Case closed.
If people are taking advantage of markets (courtsiders, etc) then Betfair should do something to stop them doing it and prevent people stealing money from others.
Instead, the PC just seems to be Betfair saying "You are winning too much. Give us some of it". How does that help anyone but Betfair?
Instead, the PC just seems to be Betfair saying "You are winning too much. Give us some of it". How does that help anyone but Betfair?
It all depends on how they spend the extra monies raised I would think, don't you ?.
Lots on here are saying that their track record on this is pretty appalling, and that is a valid matter to be debating sensibly.
But just to say that BF wants these monies for some sort of pure greed target is just nonsensical imo.
Lots on here are saying that their track record on this is pretty appalling, and that is a valid matter to be debating sensibly.
But just to say that BF wants these monies for some sort of pure greed target is just nonsensical imo.
I'm no legal expert but i have a feeling that rapists tend to break the law.
The technology is way ahead of the law, combine that with the regulatory loopholes in the EU and the the rather murky legal status of UK overseas territories (such as Gibraltar) and you have a legal swamp that only those with very deep pockets will enter.
The situation in Australia is rather more straightforward and that is where a legal challenge will occur.
The technology is way ahead of the law, combine that with the regulatory loopholes in the EU and the the rather murky legal status of UK overseas territories (such as Gibraltar) and you have a legal swamp that only those with very deep pockets will enter.
The situation in Australia is rather more straightforward and that is where a legal challenge will occur.
And that's where money talks.
The Packers will kill it dead.
Note in all its history of rampant inside trading, Australia has never really had a big time inside trading/corporate fraud conviction.
Alan Bond was about as big as they have managed. Not too impressive to say the least.
The Packers will kill it dead.
Note in all its history of rampant inside trading, Australia has never really had a big time inside trading/corporate fraud conviction.
Alan Bond was about as big as they have managed. Not too impressive to say the least.
Why cant people respect what Betfair are doing with Premium Charge
What BF are doing is wrecking their core business in an effort to con the stock market.
It can only end badly
What BF are doing is wrecking their core business in an effort to con the stock market.
It can only end badly
I'm only going from personal experiences with them.
Never really met a good one yet. Almost all just commission driven I'm afraid to say.
You said they were renowned.... no disrepect but, if you are only going by personal experience how can speak on behalf of the public?
Never really met a good one yet. Almost all just commission driven I'm afraid to say.
You said they were renowned.... no disrepect but, if you are only going by personal experience how can speak on behalf of the public?
Betfair was priced initially more on their long term potential than their short term results. The implication that stick brokers are renowned for their short term thinking (which is an assumption you've made up)...I'm not sure how you are applying it as exemplified Betfair since they are priced on long term forecasts.
The assumption that stockbrokers (obv you mean advisory stockbrokers as distinct from execution only stiockbrokers) are renowned for getting it wrong more often than they get it right, is another assumption you've made up. If you think about it, then for your assumption to be true, people would in the main, only seek their advice so as to do the opposite of what is recommended. I don't think that's likely imho, although it wouldn't surprise me if it was more profitable than doing what they advise.
The assumption that stockbrokers (obv you mean advisory stockbrokers as distinct from execution only stiockbrokers) are renowned for getting it wrong more often than they get it right, is another assumption you've made up. If you think about it, then for your assumption to be true, people would in the main, only seek their advice so as to do the opposite of what is recommended. I don't think that's likely imho, although it wouldn't surprise me if it was more profitable than doing what they advise.
Clyde
Yep you're right.
I was incorrectly extrapolating my personal experiences into a generalisation covering everybody's.
Sorry for that.
Still, however, would like to meet one or two who don't fit my personal profile of them.
I now use a buffer of portfolio mgrs to handle them all.
Not that the buffer itself is always that much better and/or objective.
Everybody always seems to have some conflicting motive(s) when it comes to making me money. Just reality I suppose.
Yep you're right.
I was incorrectly extrapolating my personal experiences into a generalisation covering everybody's.
Sorry for that.
Still, however, would like to meet one or two who don't fit my personal profile of them.
I now use a buffer of portfolio mgrs to handle them all.
Not that the buffer itself is always that much better and/or objective.
Everybody always seems to have some conflicting motive(s) when it comes to making me money. Just reality I suppose.
There is a standard formula for calculating a stock's price - Discounted future cashflow.
Essentially, its current profit to the nth power of its annual growth minus some discount. Where n is typically 20 (years).
Clearly even small changes in annual growth predictions will have a large effect on the stock price.
What you are seeing in the stock price is the effect of reduced expectations for future growth.
Essentially, its current profit to the nth power of its annual growth minus some discount. Where n is typically 20 (years).
Clearly even small changes in annual growth predictions will have a large effect on the stock price.
What you are seeing in the stock price is the effect of reduced expectations for future growth.
Dominant on-line site increases charges and customers being put out of business......E-Bay .
PXB - Exploiting legal loopholes is very different to breaking the law.
But i am interested in why there would be some kind of legal challenge as i don't see the benefits. Please can you advise where I am going wrong as I do not have your corporate law knowledge. My assumptions can be summarised as follows:
Punter - Your charges are unfair i'm taking you to court.
BF - No they are fine, go away.
Punter - They're not, courts here I come
BF - Look there's no need to do this let's settle out of court and here's a sweetner for not going to court
Punter - OK, woo hoo take that BF. Victory for the little man.
2 weeks pass
BF - Dear Punter we have decided to close your account and reimberse you your account money to you as you are a right pain and we don't like you. Please go away and never come back as you are no longer welcome here.
Punter - Oh bum, maybe i should have just accepted the charges.
But i am interested in why there would be some kind of legal challenge as i don't see the benefits. Please can you advise where I am going wrong as I do not have your corporate law knowledge. My assumptions can be summarised as follows:
Punter - Your charges are unfair i'm taking you to court.
BF - No they are fine, go away.
Punter - They're not, courts here I come
BF - Look there's no need to do this let's settle out of court and here's a sweetner for not going to court
Punter - OK, woo hoo take that BF. Victory for the little man.
2 weeks pass
BF - Dear Punter we have decided to close your account and reimberse you your account money to you as you are a right pain and we don't like you. Please go away and never come back as you are no longer welcome here.
Punter - Oh bum, maybe i should have just accepted the charges.
Punter - Ok screw you, I will take my account and liquidity to another exchange, where there is no pc at all, and even the normal commission is less.
Australia has an unfair contracts laws.
Essentially it voids any 'fine print' clauses that allow the vendor (BF in this case) to avoid fulfilling the primary conditions of a contract.
The only real defence BF would have is to explicitly inform customers about the pc and they haven't done that.
Essentially it voids any 'fine print' clauses that allow the vendor (BF in this case) to avoid fulfilling the primary conditions of a contract.
The only real defence BF would have is to explicitly inform customers about the pc and they haven't done that.
Punters in Australia have contracts with BF ?
BF in Australia is deemed to be a vendor of services to punters ?
Really ?
I'm no lawyer but that all certainly reads very strange to me.
BF in Australia is deemed to be a vendor of services to punters ?
Really ?
I'm no lawyer but that all certainly reads very strange to me.
Australia also has the Tasmanian Gaming Commission supposed to regulate Betfair.
That outfit made the amazing ruling that the Sport of Kings isn't a sport - well maybe it is for Princess Mary.
However I have found that that outfit is hell bent on not ruffling Betfair's feathers so if anyone succeeds in getting any action from it, they are better than I.
That outfit made the amazing ruling that the Sport of Kings isn't a sport - well maybe it is for Princess Mary.
However I have found that that outfit is hell bent on not ruffling Betfair's feathers so if anyone succeeds in getting any action from it, they are better than I.
The TGC weren't the ones that decided that (if you are referring to in-play)
The TGC weren't the ones that decided that (if you are referring to in-play
Who cares if you are right?
It's one of the daftest decisions around and I doubt too many will be trying to take credit for it.
The TGC certainly did not prevent it.
Who cares if you are right?
It's one of the daftest decisions around and I doubt too many will be trying to take credit for it.
The TGC certainly did not prevent it.
It is not a decision, it's written in the Interactive Gambling Act
FINE AS FROG HAIR
16 Jul 11 21:47
It all depends on how they spend the extra monies raised I would think, don't you ?.
Lots on here are saying that their track record on this is pretty appalling, and that is a valid matter to be debating sensibly.
But just to say that BF wants these monies for some sort of pure greed target is just nonsensical imo.
And I say that anyone who doesn't think greed is the main reason for PC is very naive.
16 Jul 11 21:47
It all depends on how they spend the extra monies raised I would think, don't you ?.
Lots on here are saying that their track record on this is pretty appalling, and that is a valid matter to be debating sensibly.
But just to say that BF wants these monies for some sort of pure greed target is just nonsensical imo.
And I say that anyone who doesn't think greed is the main reason for PC is very naive.
Joel,
having just wasted my time perusing that Act I am none the wiser.
And I still don't know which of us is right.
And I don't care.
Whether it is some garbage that Senator Harradine inflicted on us, or other garbage the TGC did, it doesn't really matter.
It's still garbage.
having just wasted my time perusing that Act I am none the wiser.
And I still don't know which of us is right.
And I don't care.
Whether it is some garbage that Senator Harradine inflicted on us, or other garbage the TGC did, it doesn't really matter.
It's still garbage.
Why?
My initial remark was an aside.
If you genuinely agree that the Sport of Kings is not a sport, then that is your deluded right.
My initial remark was an aside.
If you genuinely agree that the Sport of Kings is not a sport, then that is your deluded right.
I do agree with you it is a sport, in the IGA they list Racing, Harness, Greyhounds and Sport as different things, but when they list things prohibited for inplay it is just sports....I am guessing when the IGA was written they did not even conceive that people would bother betting on racing inplay.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539