Gambler liquidity to massively decrease from yesterday

BF aren't fools and I assume BF want to widen spreads to make room for their traders who in the normal course of event would get squeezed by people like me.

If you have extra bets available for a market that have marginal expectation and your sole reason for placing them is churning, then how about placing them using a different (but PC linked) account.

As Mr Magoo says, you are effectively hedging/trading/whatever if you place them on the same account as your main bets.

Ultimately, for maximum commission (inefficiency), if you're usually backing several horses per market then use a different account for each horse.

Mad...

i can't remember when a casino or TAB raise the take out (tax) and turnover increase

Bayes,

With regard to Feck's example above, placing a greater amount on both of the selections in each race, at the same average price of 4.2, wouldn't appear to have any effect on the cg/gp ratio. Therefore, I have presumed that, by back both for more, you mean place an additional amount on both horses in each race at a lower price that retains a positive expectation after commission.

That would only be possible in Feck's example by backing either or both horses in each race at the price of 4.1 (4.038), allowing for the commission savings by backing two selections in each race, effectively 2.058/correct price 2. Assuming Feck is accurate in his assessment that the correct price of all the horses is 4, any available price in the horse racing markets lower than 4.1 would have a negative expectation after commission.

What if Feck was originally able to place the full amount that complied with Kelly, or Feck's own staking plan, on both horses in each race at an average price of 4.2? Under those circumstances, whilst possible, it wouldn't seem to be credible to suggest backing both horses for an additional amount at a lower price with the intention of driving the expected cg/gp ratio higher.

Further, consider the example of someone on a 2% commission rate who obtained the price of 32 on two horses in each race that should be correctly priced at 30. Under those circumstances it wouldn't appear to be possible to increase the cg/gp ratio above 0.4 on those markets by backing both for more without creating a negative profit expectation on the bets. The price 31 being unavailable ignoring cross matching possibilities and 30 being negative after commission.


Feck,

Despite my comments above (or perhaps reflective of the above if I've got my calculations wrong), I find your example and comments somewhat contradictory.

As you acknowledged, in your example you've no reason to back one and leave out the other. If you did so, your expected net profit after PC and all other charges would be less than by including both selections in each race.

You suggested that it may be possible for you to place your lower margin bets through a different account. If that refers to a linked account, I'm not convinced that it would be likely to increase your overall net profit (despite noting the seeming agreement of Fred and others with you on this matter).

If you're implying the use of an unlinked account, that strikes me as a spurious argument. On that basis anybody could avoid the regular and higher rate PC entirely, regardless of the liquidity they supply and the manner in which they bet. This assumes the accounts remained unlinked and they could obtain new accounts at will, which I presume is unlikely.

Your argument that, if you simply stopped placing your low margin bets, you might recoup those losses through savings in pc's strikes me as somewhat weak.

You need to get a master/sub account setup going then you place your two bets through two different accounts and your problem is solved.

But surely the answer is to back both for more until you drive it to the point where your expected cg/gp is exactly 0.4?

Bayes, in a discussion elsewhere I suggested increasing my stakes. This would generally result in accepting lower odds for the additional stakes which in turn would increase my cg/gp much as you're suggesting. Horse racing's not a game where you can have a lot of faith in the accuracy of your tissue though. Lack of information, corruption, selective watering and not being able to see the horses in the paddock or going down tend to temper confidence.



As you acknowledged, in your example you've no reason to back one and leave out the other. If you did so, your expected net profit after PC and all other charges would be less than by including both selections in each race.

pxb, the example I used was mainly about keeping things simple and illustrating the increased cg/gp by cutting down on the number of bets. I wasn't suggesting I would in practice leave one of those two out. I should also probably have pointed out that many of my lower margin bets will be for a much smaller take out. e.g. in a large field I might have bets to take out 20K, 10K, 3K with another 3 or 4 returning the overall stake of 2K. The lower take out bets are more about cushioning the effects of losing runs (I'm prone to suicidal ones) than expecting any great profit. Obviously excluding these "savers" would lead to more losing markets and boost cg/gp and I'd be fairly confident wouldn't decrease gross profits by any great amount. I would guess almost certainly not by the additional 15% of gp's the pc will take.

When I suggested the second account (I was meaning a separate one not in my name) I was aware of the "well why not just use that to escape the 40%" but I was working on the basis that the 2nd account wouldn't attract the same attention particularly as my main account would still be on the go but I'm not even sure it would be worthwhile anyway.         

My main worry would be what effect the reduced liquidity would have on my normal commission rate but even if it went above 2% it would be no great disaster given I'm on 40% pc. I mean if my normal rate went to 3.2% and I didn't change my betting in any way that would just make my cg/gp around 0.4 in any case.

I've got a database of all my bets so I'll get round to checking all this out when I can.



Fred & Pumpkin, are sub accounts not just linked in every sense (i.e. normal commission & pc)?

Sorry, that middle part should've been directed at jt45 not pxb.

Sub accounts are not linked in terms of commission paid. Each account pays commission on bets on that account alone and has no knowledge of bets placed on other accounts.

Thanks pumpkin. I take it they are linked for pc?

Everythings linked for PC feck :(

The main advantage with sub accounts is that all wins/losses with count towards your comm rate whereas separate accounts will have their own comms rate based on activity.

Joe, are you saying that with sub accounts my commission rate will be the same in account A & account B and that rate will be based on the sum total of commission points over the two accounts?

That is correct feck, and they are combined as regards to the pc too.

Yes, the points in sub accounts are accumulated in the master, so you share your discount over all sub accounts.

I don't really see the problem here Feck.

To paraprase: "If I back more runners in a race than I currently do, lowering my margin of safety, but still having a profit expectancy on every bet, my returns will become more 'trader like' and I will therefore pay a greater % of profits in charges."

The point is that you'll be increasing your profit expectancy by a greater amount than what you're paying in additional charges, without using a penny of extra capital to do so... Using sub accounts, would be better if it's not too much hassle, but even doing it on one account is better than not doing it at all.

So that shows the value of churning. If I could choose between £50k GP and paying 20% in charges and £100k GP and 50% in charges for roughly the same effort/investment, the choice would be pretty obvious to me.

Basically where Betfair used to encouraged trading 100%, they've now gone to a charging structure where a mix of trading and outright betting is optimal.

If you don't trade by taking value on both sides when you can, you are throwing money away.
if you don't place outright bets at value when there is a risk of not being able to trade out (fast markets or low liquidity), you are also (probably) throwing money away.

These charges skew the natural relationship between risk & reward.

TheInvestor2  a very good point  . My thoughts exactly .

Can anyone be @rsed confirming these figures


cp = commission paid, I'm on 2% rate, 40% pc.

Assume in every race I find two 4.2 shots that are true 4.0.

Staking 0.5 on each using the same account, per race I'd expect

gp = 0.05, cp = 0.011, cg = 0.013, pc = 0.007


Staking 0.5 on each using 2 accounts, per race I'd expect

gp = 0.05, cp = 0.016, cg = 0.01925, pc = 0.00075


So total commission paid through 1 account would be 0.018 and through two accounts 0.01675 meaning you'd get charged 7% less using two accounts?

not checked your calculations but it doesn't appear you have considered the affects of a lower net pnl by going though the 2 seperate accounts as the offset commission won't be applied.

Getafix, if you mean gp - cp then it is lower for the 2 seperate accounts.

Feck, are you working with 20% pc or 40%?

40% as stated in the post catfleppo.

What I am getting at is, though there maybe a reduction of 7% (if calcs correct) what is the percentage difference between the net pnl for the 1 account versus the 2 accounts?  Then what is the difference between the differences?

Feck

Given the need for in-depth anaylsis for serious horse racing bets, the likely imprecision of estimated chances, and the need for net value to be present to win l/t in any given race, I doubt that the effort required to go in this direction is really worth the candle.If it is practical, which I doubt, is the effort justified?

Iwould argue that the fundamental reason why traders seem to make a success of things almost immediately is because of the simple reason that they are prepared to cut their losses. My own calculations tell me that cutting back losses (stop loss) leads to a better return than a straight postion play and that this is a better route to go than churning - for opinion players that is.

Sirry getafix, don't understand. net profit = gp - cp - pc. What is it you think I'm missing out of the figures?

Sandown, my problem with that is the bulk of my money ends up on horses that just don't seem to shorten or shorten very little (I don't get much on gambles). If ir was a level playing field I'd certainly be putting up lays at various odds. I totally understand and agree with what you're saying though.

Sandown, you are correct, however, by trading you create less commission (overall) and thus are more likely to fall into having to pay PC.  Also more difficult to keep your commission points at a more favourable level.  IMO, it is much better to pay higher commission and avoid PC if possible.  Simply because you may never manage to make it back to your previous profit level (if for example edge lost), or it make take a longer time (with less funds), after your most recent 40% PC charge.

Feck, I would rather pay more commission than PC for reason above. So that was what I was getting at.  I.e., with one account you would create more profit but less commission for multiple bets; but under 2 accounts you would create less profit but more commission.  I was just trying to ascertain whether it would be "more" costly to run one approach than the other.  If there was little difference I would always prefer the higher commission paying route ;)

Using Single Account:

Race 1(WL): GP = 1.1; CP = 0.022
Race 2(LW): GP = 1.1; CP = 0.022
Race 3(LL): GP = -1; IC = 0.03
Race 4(LL): GP = -1; IC = 0.03

Totals: GP = 0.2; CP = 0.044; IC = 0.06; CG =(0.044+0.06)/2 = 0.052;
PC = 0.4*0.2-0.052 = 0.028; Total Charges (including PC) = 0.044+0.028 = 0.072; Net Profit (after all charges)= 0.2-0.072 = 0.128

Per Race: GP = 0.05; CP = 0.011; CG = 0.013; PC = 0.07; TC = 0.018; NP = 0.032

Using Two Accounts:

Account1:

Race 1(W): GP = 1.6; CP = 0.032
Race 2(L): GP = -0.5; IC = 0.015
Race 3(L): GP = -0.5; IC = 0.015
Race 4(L): GP = -0.5; IC = 0.015

Totals: GP = 0.1; CP = 0.032; IC = 0.045; CG = (0.032+0.045)/2 = 0.0385; PC = 0.4 * 0.1 - 0.0385 = 0.0015; TC = 0.032+0.0015 = 0.0335  NP = 0.1-0.0335 = 0.0665

Account 2:

Race 1(L): GP = -0.5; IC = 0.015
Race 2(W): GP = 1.6; CP = 0.032
Race 3(L): GP = -0.5; IC = 0.015
Race 4(L): GP = -0.5; IC = 0.015

Totals: GP = 0.1; CP = 0.032; IC = 0.045; CG = 0.0385; PC = 0.0015; TC = 0.0335; NP = 0.0665 

Combined Totals: GP = 0.2; CP = 0.064; IC = 0.090; CG = 0.077; PC = 0.0030; TC = 0.067; NP = 0.133

Per Race: GP = 0.05; CP = 0.016; CG = 0.01925; PC = 0.00075; TC = 0.01675; NP = 0.03325


Therefore, I concur with your figures Feck. On that basis, I should also acknowledge that you, Fred, Pumkinslayer and others appear to be correct in asserting that the use of two linked accounts can result in lower charges and a higher net profit.


I trust that this anomaly will rectified shortly to stop the parasitic multiple account using Ferengi middlemen taking advantage!

jt45 It isn't so straight forward because its value relies on strike rate etc.  BF won't do anything because as long as they are getting their cut they aint bothered.  With regards to "Ferengi" I assume you mean traders?  It is of little use to the majority of traders because their type of betting will require the use of leverage which can't be used across accounts!

Hope all this intricate posting is not distracting you guys from your everyday research and analysis of punting opportunities ?

Oh you can multitask.
That's good to hear.

Am I always such an @rseh0le ?
You bet I am.

Thanks jt. I was messing about with some other figures earlier e.g. 4 @ 25.0 (true 20.0) split over 4 accounts and that was disappointing (only 1.5% saved). TBH I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this sh1te. The fact it's so complex only goes to prove how out of touch with reality betfair are. As I said on another thread, if betfair had started sky then instead of sky+hd boxes we'd have one of Del Boy's Russian video recorders with instructions in Chinese.

Perhaps it deliberately meant to be complex, as more simplistic solutions do not model out satisfactorily.
Or would that perhaps be attributing far too many " smarts" to the BF executives ?

FINE AS FROG HAIR
pls. get off these threads - your snide comments add nothing. They were OK for a while but just annoying now.
All the best with your gambling - move on please

Feck,

It's a topic that interests me so I'm grateful for the opportunity to test my understanding of the PC and my arithmetic.


Getafix,

My calculations referred purely to the example posted by Feck. I haven't yet compared the effect of different rates of commission, margin and strike rate but I'm sure that you're correct on that.

My sign-off comments about Ferengi were just a joke (relating to Feck's often stated views on traders and the bf interface etc).

I knew what you meant really jt45 :-).  I suppose I just feel sorry for some of the traders as from what I have read, this change has put some of them out of "business" at the blink of an eye, or will do in future.  Which in all honesty I fear will eventually apply to all of us.

Getafix
How can you go out of business if a charge to gross profits is less than 100% ?
As for all this churning analysis isn't all just simply a case that if you employ a sideline non-core strategy that breaks evens after commission, then your charges to GP ratio will increase, and you will then have less PC deducted from your bottom line net profit, which thus should increase ?.

* Which in all honesty I fear will eventually apply to all of us.

Especially considering the fact that no group of individual betting types are discerned for with new PC.  I would have thought Betfair would have preferred to keep the market makers, old fashioned bettors on side as they provide most liquidity imo... (probably wrong thread to air this on lol).

My major concern for betfair is, myself and others who are value takers will place equal bets in *all* available exchanges - we have nothing to lose.  If they get matched elsewhere we don't pay pc on the match.  So we will end up seeding other exchanges (very little extra work once implemented).  I am sure other will disagree with me, but traders etc require us value players in order to work!?  I feel saddened by the whole situation, I am happy to pay the extra - but in the real world who pays extra when there are possible alternatives that could be cheaper?

RAPS
Maybe I'm just trying sometimes to bring all this stuff down to a level of practical usefulness and interest to the average punter ?. It does all tend to get up itself at times.
However I'll try more to model myself on your constructive posts. OK ?
Also all the best in your gambling too.

FAFH - the main point is "churning" is too risky.  I will work on diversifying portfolio (as I have in the past) and look at increasing profits in different sports.  It just won't work for non "value" based stategies, so price traders are screwed!

> How can you go out of business if a charge to gross profits is less than 100% ?

I won't currently but what is lurking around the corner?

I disagree.
I have old strategies that made very low profits on high turnover.
As a manual trader I discarded them as having too low reward /time ratio, not because of any loss potential.
Now with the PC I have become less lazy and have reactivated them, to the benefit of all that is both BF and other punters looking for trades.
And I'm only ever a pre-off position punter.

FAFH >As for all this churning analysis isn't all just simply a case that if you employ a sideline non-core strategy that breaks evens after commission, then your charges to GP ratio will increase, and you will then have less PC deducted from your bottom line net profit, which thus should increase ?.

churning is simple too risky.  Winning strategies are hard enough to come across never mind "break even" strategies. Especially when you have to consider affects of losing runs that persist (longer than a week)!  Whether they work into the future also.


I disagree.
I have old strategies that made very low profits on high turnover.
As a manual trader I discarded them as having too low reward /time ratio, not because of any loss potential.
Now with the PC I have become less lazy and have reactivated them, to the benefit of all that is both BF and other punters looking for trades.
And I'm only ever a pre-off position punter.

Are you one of the 480 then? You talk like it is easy?

*churning is simply too risky.

No unfortunately not a member of the super elite.
Took me over 3 years to even learn how to win consistently.
My non core strategy is not seemingly risky at all.
They're not easy to find, but they're there.

I'm sure they are out there, otherwise I would own betfair lol.

One has to objectively decide out of all the options what is the least risky.  Churning is at the bottom of my list, I can think of many better alternatives in the short term - which I fear will be BF's undoing!

As I said earlier we all basically have our own self interests at heart.
And mine is for BF to stay healthy and to keep offering me the opportunities to bet in the manner I do, which opportunities do not exist for me anywhere else, currently at least.

Don't get me wrong I love betfair and everything it has done for me over the years, fortunately for me, I am not as affected as others (at this point in time) but will still have to cough up the 40%.  I just hope for a fairer environment for the masses for the future, it has suddenly got much more difficult for the "beginner" player especially if  "churning" is what everyone will be doing.  The smaller players will have less value to obtain so more difficult to prosper against the already 2% players.

I just want it to survive.
Not for the sake of others, just for the sake of me.
Value is always relative. That I'm never worried about finding, even up against the pros.
As long as the overrounds don't get too ridiculous, I can prosper.

Also... read Betfair's annual reports, Betfair are not struggling by any stretch of the imagination - sure they have invested in some bad eggs - as with most companies, but the idea that the new PC payers are substituting the cost of marketing for new players is incorrect... read it for yourself.  It's all public domain.

I know enough about reading company reports to know that it's what is NOT in them that really matters and is of true interest.

I know enough about reading company reports to know that it's what is NOT in them that really matters and is of true interest.
Maybe you can instill us your wisdom?  I am all ears.

*us with

Well if I knew what wasn't in them, then I would tell you ( if that makes any sense ).
But we all know how even perfectly normal standard accounting practices can often mislead more than they inform.
The point being really Getafix, that in all the mumerous postings on here, I never read anything that truly factually pins down the nuts and bolts of the detailed costings, revenues, cash flows etc etc of setting up, running and growing a sports exchange.
If you think you know all this from reading the company accounts then you are far more skilled in such matters than I am.
I've been out of the business world for quite a long time now, and would be the first to admit that my balance sheet/income statement/cash flow analytical skills have seriously eroded over time and they probably weren't all that good in the first place. I always found it to be a real chore ever to have to focus on such matters tbh.

So in fact I could reverse it all on you, and say that I am all ears.

FINE AS FROG HAIR
Date Joined: 12 Mar 07
Add contact | Send message
When: 20 Jul 11 22:40
Joined:
Date Joined: 12 Mar 07
| Topic/replies: 3,463 | Blogger: FINE AS FROG HAIR's blog
Getafix
How can you go out of business if a charge to gross profits is less than 100% ?


Well I can answer that, for 2011, 'the pie' looks like this for me:

GP is split as:

Betfair 30%
Other expenses 26%
With 44% left to 're-invest'.

So there is a limit where Betfair's share of GP and other expenses that are not tied to GP can exceed 100% of... GP.

FAFH: I did some research and posted this a few days back:

By: Getafix
Date Joined: 13 Jul 10 Add contact When: 18 Jul 11 14:23 Just had a look through the annual reports to try and finally see what is really happening...

1) http://corporate.betfair.com/investor-relations/~/media/Files/B/Betfair/Annual%20Reports/betfair-annual-review-2009.pdf
2) http://corporate.betfair.com/~/media/Files/B/Betfair/press-releases/2011/2011-06-29.pdf?

Here is a summary of Net P&L (millions):

*2011 : 35.1
*2010 : 22.7
2009 : 34.6
2008 : 32.6
2007 : 22.8
2006 : 29.2
2005 : 16.8

*Also I quote the 2010 and 2011 the "underlying" figures which

"Underlying figures are stated after making a number of adjustments in order to aid comparability between periods. These adjustments involve the exclusion, where relevant, of: the revenue and EBITDA from the High rollers segment; exceptional items; equity settled share-based payments; profit on sale of financial asset; and the associated tax effect of these adjustments. A reconciliation of reported figures to underlying figures is set out in Appendix 1"

the "reported" figures are:

2011 : 23.0
2010 : 15.1

so to my *untrained* financial mind and considering 2005 - 2009 are "reported " figures(?), this suggests it is the listing on the stock market ("Exceptional items") that the main loss in revenue in 2010 and 2011 was caused by (looking at page 31 in document 2 link above)?  Maybe someone can confirm?

This to me implies that Betfair are not struggling - that the debate regarding not enough money from new clients etc is not true...  They just want to squeeze out more profit which I can understand any business would do if able.

I do not want to spread conjecture and would like to be proved wrong, but it seems pretty clear to me from the above?  Please someone prove the above wrong... esp you FAFH, you sound like you have more detailed knowledge of how to read these reports.

Sorry Investor I don't understand your last post.
My post to which you are apparently responding to, was in relation to traders being charged PC up to max of a 60% of total charges to GP ratio.
Thus as long as this is less than 100%, how can they be put out of business by it ?

Getafix
In essence you have to be able to reduce everything to real cash inflows/outflows ( both actual and projected).
That is publicly reported earnings figures per se are not all that indicative of the true operating cash flow status of the company.
Now if somebody more skilled, or perhaps more motivated, than me can do all that and present a precise  cash flow statement on here , then I would really love to read it.
And if proves unconditionally that BF is generating more than enough cash revenues from its current nonpremium PC pricing structure to run and grow the business satisfactorily, then I will do a very gracious mea culpa.

FINE AS FROG HAIR
Date Joined: 12 Mar 07
Add contact | Send message
When: 21 Jul 11 03:13
Joined:
Date Joined: 12 Mar 07
| Topic/replies: 3,465 | Blogger: FINE AS FROG HAIR's blog
Sorry Investor I don't understand your last post.
My post to which you are apparently responding to, was in relation to traders being charged PC up to max of a 60% of total charges to GP ratio.
Thus as long as this is less than 100%, how can they be put out of business by it ?

Because there are other expenses involved for us. In my own case: internet, backup internet, satellite, software, hardware and most importantly opportunity cost. I'm putting a lot of time and money into this, and if my profit was reduced to let's say £2k per month, it would just be silly to continue. I might still be able to continue betting, but if so it would entail diversifying away from Betfair.

Look at a company like betting promotion operating on here. Their non trading costs operating expenses are about £500k per quarter. Assuming they'll now be on 40% (maybe they have a special deal), that means they need a GP of about 833k to cover operating expenses.

So if they make £700k GP, and Betfair take their "40%", they will be left with £420k net betting profit. However, after operating expenses, they will be left with -£80k and this pattern would see them go bust where previously they would have survived.

It's quite extreme, but as Betfair increases charges, these kind of scenarios will become increasingly likely. Smaller players like myself will obviously have tiny 'operating expenses' by comparison, but they will also have smaller profits to offset them.

If you can't cut costs or increase profits the game's up.

Froggy.  Take somebody making 25k per year trading, generating around 5% commission.  They have been doing this for 10 years.  Now, they have to pay ~55% of their profits to BF.  Their "income" will have gone from 25k to 11,250.  Not sure if you think that is being put out of business or not.  What about 50k per year?  Now they will make 22,500....

There is a limit on your stakes, you can't simply double them and make double the profit.  The market is affected, your value gone.  This doesn't just affect the "elite", this will put a lot of people that have plodded along for many years trying to make some coin, to now be told that their time has been wasted and to go out and get a job.  Wonder if they will give a reference.

Both the last two points make fair enough points as regards the impact of PC on the bottom line profitability of betting for a living using BF.
But that is not BF's real corporate responsibility or concern is it ?
Their concern is to ensure that the exchange they're running remains viable from their own bottom line perspective, not their customers' perspectives.
Now that sounds very brutal , but it is the real world of business.
They are not intrinsically in the business of making their customers either rich or even self supporting or able to feed their families, or whatever other emotional string you want to pull..
They are in the business of providing a betting platform for any and all who wish ( voluntarily) to use it, that's all.
For sure if BF has no customers then its basic business of providing a platform will fold, which in essence is saying that if their prices are too high nobody will but their product, which is exactly the same as in any other non gambling type business.
But they have no inherent responsibility to keep their prices either low, or even competitive, except to the extent that they want to stay in business.
And part of that wish or need to stay in business, is the requirement for them to keep attracting new betting monies into the exchange to replace those being taken out by highly successful punters.
Note that these monies are not even necessarily being taken out of BF's "greedy" pockets, they are being taken out the pockets of "mug" punters.
BF has to find more and more " mug" money day in day out to keep the platform alive.
The extremely successful punters themselves are sure as hell not going to out and about soliciting for new BF clients, except by a bit of word of mouth to their " sucker " friends perhaps.

"--- if their prices are too high nobody will buy their product----"

And to pre-empt certain types of inevitable replies, I of course don't like this reality any more than anybody else does.
I would just love things to go along as they have done in the past.
Would suit me just fine and dandy.
But in the world where I made my money, that sort of dream run always comes to an end.
Some of you seem to think not only does BF owe you some sort of a living, but also BF would not be here today without you.
Don't flatter yourselves.

But they do have responsibility to their profitable customers, at is those who are providing the liquidity for the "mugs" that you are suggesting they are trying to attract.  Getting bets matched is all people want, without the ability to do that, they will go elsewhere.  Apart from that, the profitable punters are generally smarter (at least in regards to gambling), and as such won't simply accept things if there is an alternative.  So while they don't have any responsibility to keep people profitable, they are certainly not increasing their revenue if they are driving certain people away.  They are a broker, the more bets that get placed, the more money they make.  Get rid of people providing most of their liquidity and they lose the money they create for BF.

As for seeding their own markets, that at least will not be happening in Aus.  If they want to be a bookie here, they have to seperate that from the exchange.  They are a broker and a broker only, so any liquidity that is moved from profitable punters certainly can't be created by BF.

Some of you seem to think not only does BF owe you some sort of a living, but also BF would not be here today without you.

i see the pr is starting to get a little more agressive/obnoxious on here.....pr meltdown before weeks out i'm guessing...!

A childish and puerile reply which will no doubt be typical from many on here.
I don't mind the good debaters on here who argue strongly and persuasively that BF is not making good or wise business decisions on the PC matter.
I just totally detest the argument that BF is not making some sort of fair business decision, mostly based on total personal interpretations of what is or isn't fair.
What they really mean of course is fair to them individually, though they never honestly admit that.
They dress it all up in some dream type collective fairness to all punters, expert and/ or mug.
What place fairness has in the cut throat world of gambling for a living is totally beyond my comprehension, let alone what place it has in the business world in general. Honesty yes, but fairness ? What utopian business world does that play a primary role in ?

To iz of course.
BJT
Your reply and point of view I respect and appreciate.

I just totally detest the argument that BF is not making some sort of fair business decision

share price crashing down 58% in a year; where did you buy in froggy?

And if anybody wants to question why I'm stil on here at this early hour of the morning, I am simultaneously putting in some prices on tonight's football games.
You know early bird catches the worm, that sort of thing ?.
Maybe some of you might consider doing that every now and again.
Those with bots are doing it anyway, getting ahead of the game.
I'm referring more to the poor " mug" manual players like me, trying to beat the pros at their own game sometimes.

Didn't go anywhere near it iz .
I hope you didn't too.

I just totally detest the argument that BF is not making some sort of fair business decision, mostly based on total personal interpretations of what is or isn't fair

What is your definition of a fair business decision???

Btw iz, you'll never get through my green slimy skin, so don't even bother trying.

ok, so you want us all to beleive that even though you have posted 100+ comments on the 'wise' business decision by betfair, that you have no interests in the company besides being just a 'customer'.

like i said - pr meltdown before the weeks out.

No such thing in my sort of business world dashero.
Honest has a place certainly, but fair is twaddle.

You wrote it???

I've never said that the latest PC hike was wise.
I have just said that I don't think is a pure money grab by BF to support its share price.
It could quite well turn out to be their " Ratner" moment as many like to forecast, apparently with great glee. How the hell would I know ?. I can't see the future.

Just read exactly what I wrote.
Others talk about fairness, I don't.

You are digressing big time here, you wrote about betfair's fair business decision. What did you mean by that???

I do talk about fairmindedness though.
But that's different. That means at least trying objectively to see and undestand why another person/party is doing what they're doing.

I said that I detest the argument by som/many that BF is not making some sort of fair business decision.
That's not anything like me saying that BF should be making fair business decisions.
If it is then we have a serious communication problem.

WTF??? So they may not have made a fair business decision???

Anyway done my bets now, time for me to retire for the night, and let you all rip me apart in my absence.
Have fun.

Anyway done my bets now, time for me to retire for the night, and let you all rip me apart in my absence.
Have fun.

yep.....another pr bot outed.....cue the next one.

TBH I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this sh1te



Sorry to interject Feck but I think the above statement sums up your situation. As you know I have little knowledge of bots and PC's.


Having said that, why don't you bin all this maths and fully automated system malarkey (imo) for good.

Now you may think to yourself, 'what does sb know about it'?

Well this I do know. It wasn't all that long ago that you were posting record profits using, (I presume) your knowledge of the game and being a good reader of the form.

I know the PC charge has scr  ewed up a lot of peoples minds, but you can always split your money between exchanges.

Basically, to cut a long story short, perhaps it's time to get back to basics. (It's never let you down in the past)

It's too time consuming stewarty. Having to sit for hours on end drip feeding money into markets because of this ridiculous parasite friendly interface drives me insane. It's also maddening to see some push button, drip feed detector's bot then jump in front of me. At least I'd be able to use that time for form study and improving my programme. I might give the purple a manual go during Goodwood though if only to see how bad it is or isn't.

FAFH, it's not Betfair's responsibilty true. You have to wonder whether the signal Betfair is sending out with its actions is good for the long term business though.

The way I see it is this:

We are going to charge you as much as we can get away with, and to top it off we may boot you off altogether at any stage in the near future and seed the markets ourselves, abandoning the exchange model altogether.

Due to this, I will not be making long term investments in improving my results, and will focus more and more on making as much as possible right now.

The rhetoric of needing more money to bring in new customers just doesn't fly. Any business can charge whatever it wants, but this justification just doesn't make sense to me (the figures are there for all to see). There's also the fact that betfair can get away with monopolistic practices as a betting exchange, as they can legitimately claim to be competing with other bookies, even though many of the Betfair customers would not use traditional bookies.

Ever since the PC was originally introduced, I felt that Betfair should create a stable charging structure. The fact is that no-one knows what Betfair will do next. In 2012 it could be 80%. It could be that they just bid winners adieu. None of us knows. A commitment from Betfair not to increase their charges for say 10 years, would allow for long term planning.

I also wonder about things like data request and transaction charges. Naturally technology improves at an exponential rate. Sometimes you run into bottlenecks and start from the ground up, but improvement is always there. That means it should be cheaper for Betfair year by year to handle this. This should be reflected in the pricing. Unlike PC these other charges are (perhaps) used to cover a very specific cost for the users involved (strain on the platform). It would just be weird if in 5 years time these charges haven't been lowered. Unless there is something other than cost offsetting going on...

PreBF the sports trader with his automated bots just didn't exist. He/she is a new category of player, one which BF has cultivated and encouraged to grow.

Likewise, the IR player didn't exist and I doubt that it was even a gleam in Bert's eye back then.

Many of these new players boast very  levels of consistency in making a profit week in and week out and at complete odds with the experience of traditional backers. I doubt that legislators had any conceivable idea that a regular stream of earnings could be generated through gambling.

I believe that BF have seen the total amount lost to these players, compared them to their own profits and concluded that they are missing a trick. They could do what these new people are doing.

So, they have introduced a charging structure, so imprecise in its targeting, that all sorts of "collateral" damage is occurring. It is easy to be caught in the net using traditional opinion plays.

It is this which is really the mistake that BF have made. The consequence is that they have changed perceptions of how likely it is to make money.

BF should have left the commission system as it was for the traditional players and introduced contracts with the "business" users which would involve license fees, profit sharing and admin fees. I also believe that this user group will come to be regarded  a "business" for the purposes of tax, either personal or company.

I just don't think Betfair are concerned about hitting traditional punters with this. If you are paying less than 40% in commission placing straight bets (max one per market), you are doing phenominally well if this is over a very large number of bets (say tens of thousands depending on odds range bet at).

And of course, if you are placing multiple bets in the same markets, your returns will take on trader like characteristics anyway.

This is effectively a profit share agreement. For all intents and purposes anyone hit by this can consider themselves as having entered into a profit share agreement, you effectively don't pay commission anymore as any strategy that does better than break even at GP level will be good to add to what you are doing.

Investor

Different game. Bets in hundreds pa maybe, but not tens of thousands. Almost certainly not a wide odds range, most likely top 3 or 4 in market. True for horseracing, don't know about other markets.

TheInvestor2

i'm placing straight bets..had just over 10,000 bets and pay about 13% of my profit in commis...with the last PC , now it around 20%

i belive what Betfair said after last PC (20%)that need money to break even, but now i know it bullsh!t

I'm even lower than your 13% nairda, so on that basis I should be complaining louder than you.
You just cannot expect to be "taxed" so lowly on such a high strike rate and thus highly net profitable activity for ever and ever. Just not realistic.

Btw nairda you must have just about as much fun, and lack of success, as I do in getting on with the HS bookies.
You surely don't want BF to fail, do you ?

there more places then HS bookies...Asian books for soccer...pinnacle matcbook for USA sports...

betfair has rasied the tax to high..capital will move somewhere else

When I hear the word 'Fair', I know someone is gouging or ripping me off.

BF's sports market is the most profitable business operated by a UK public company.

Despite BF frittering away tens of millions on various gaming failures.

FYI, I managed to trade more at the Purple place than here on the Test match.

When I hear the word fair I think of coconut shys and candy floss.

the words premium charge have made a bigger impact and explosion in the betting world and been the most talked about thing since the first atom was dropped, who would of thought the chain reaction
started all those years ago when 2 guys decided to start an exchange that would increase the likely hood of winning by creating a much fairer market than traditional betting firms.

If betfair dont control the rate of explosive power the main 500 have and moderate it we could have a
nuclear meltdown and the fall out would effect us all!

bf, the 500 affected are not the 'main' 500 users.  There are quite small operators affected whilst some big players are not. It's quite clear from a lot of your posts that you don't understand this.

*smallish, I'm not sure you can call someone who has made over £250k a small operator.

Over the past 4-5 years, I've made about a grand a week on here.  I'd consider myself small (relatively) and they want 50% from here on.
As my initial entry into any betting market is fairly price sensitive, it's more or less finished for me on here now.  If anything, the 20% PC probably did me a favour as it made me leaner and meaner on here but 50% means that I can only afford to pick up genuine free money (effectively cheating), which generates no liquidity, I can't risk laying anything now at a sensible price, just in case I'm left holding an awful value bet. 
For the paltry amount of PC that it would sacrifice, I can only assume that the reason bf don't make say £500 a week, PC free is because they want to fill the gap that I was and they don't think my liquidity will be missed.

Welcome to the new BF... losers and cheats welcome.  Doesn't sound so catchy.

In the world of the shell and pea merchant, the loser is known as the 'mark'.

So how about 'Marks for sharks'?