General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 107 comments are related to the topic:
liquiditiy will keep rising as the knowledge that winners are excepted though charged is positive
liquiditiy will keep rising as the knowledge that winners are excepted though charged is positive
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 107
|
By:
my forecast of recent events would be that the traders the main winners on here are churning more, here and else where to raise there game and turnover, so there will be a knock back effect that traders at war with each other to grab the profits, there is alot more general activity on all exchanges, so thats the basis of this thread
|
|
By:
Here's how I see it. Bettors who look to find value will if they get too successful be charged this new premium charge so say they think a horse should be a 1.8 chance and on here it's 2.0, that's a value pick being 5.55% better off. Now if they are charged at the highest rate of 60% commission then the profit you end up with will end up being the equal to betting on a 1.4 shot so now betting on the 1.8 chance has no long term chance of profit. Value bettors won't have a hope if they become too successful. Betfair take no risks but take the majority of pro bettors winnings. Pure greed.
|
|
By:
I realise that Fanantico and thanks for answering,I personally think maybe if it was pc alone you may have some case,but different factors are now in the equation which weakens your argument.
|
|
By:
jtothev, that wont be the case, the premium charge has no effect at all on the prices, back or lay in any market other than any observed change in liquidity by changes in the now charge rate to top earners.
its only your net or gross lifetime profits over 250,000 that mean you get reduced profit after the charge is taken out, i presume the charge will be taken every week like the existing one, maybe someone knows if this is the case? |
|
By:
and if betfair really need the money (which I think they do not) then there are many ways of getting it rather than this disasterous PR result for them
first 20 then 40 and possibly 60 the bad publicity only damages the company and it could have been handled so much better |
|
By:
I know it doesn't affect odds but when they take away 60% of your profits that's what it'll look like.
|
|
By:
Thanks for the reply, bf.
I'm a bit stunned to learn that you don't pay PC yet, but, judging by your huge knowledge of btfr, for one who seems to be so young, I'm sure it's only a matter of time. I can see your concern that folk don't abandon btfr, as it looks like the only way you can fail is if btfr fails. This must be your major worry, I guess. It's probably the reason why so many on here seem to think you are some sort of btfr campaigner. Btw, where you're going a little bit off is in the things you say about bookmakers - especially real, track bookmakers. I get the impression that real life racing has not been a big part of your personal rise to the top. Specifically, I cannot agree that bookmakers set whatever prices they like on course. To my eyes, the controlling factors comes from somewhere else. This isn't a good thing for racegoing punters , imo, but there ya go. I don't know as much about these Exchanges as your good self. |
|
By:
You're better off signing up to 20 bookmakers and spreading your money around thinly so that they won't end up blocking you. Yeah they have the overround but they actually risk their money unlike betfair which just matches up gamblers together and takes their profits for no risk to their bank account.
|
|
By:
jtothev
No so appropriate for IR. |
|
By:
why
|
|
By:
Wouldn't it be lovely if just one person ever came on here who knew exactly what it costs BF to run and expand the sports exchange and compare it to the the exact revenues BF gets from commissions from the alternative pricing structures 1) no PC 2) 20% PC 3) 60% PC. That might at least settle the pure greedy money grab by BF debate.
At the moment everybody seems to be posting from the perspective of their own tiny little gambling world. That is this is gonna kill me personally, ipso facto BF must be doing something wrong and greedy and is sure to come a cropper, or allthis is not really gonna hurt me, or knock me out of the game, and so what BF is doing is OK, though not necessarily liked, by me. The only even remotely oriented big picture posters on here, who would appear to be pretty well into the info loop in some real theoretical and practical sense, can perhaps be counted on the fingers of one hand. I of course mean posters like Magician, Sandown, Bayes, Contrarian etc . Pretty much all posts are being ruled by pure, unalduterated self interest. In this respect,I declare my self interest to be that there is nowhere else for me to bet except on BF ( purple does not offer my marksets in any breadth and the bookies won't deal with me at all). |
|
By:
What markets are you involved in??
|
|
By:
Only football.
|
|
By:
Yes but what particular markets??
|
|
By:
dashero
Rocket asked me this and I was a bit reluctant to reveal my exact concentration of interest. Suffice it to say that it is certain of those that purple does not offer on many (if any) football matches. |
|
By:
You have a point with your earlier post, the lack of information from the towers is brutal and is muddying the already filthy waters of of betfairs public reputation..The lack of communication and clear concise answers means that they either know they can't answer the difficult questions honestly or they just don't give a **** about their customers concerns and feel they don't have to justify their actions..
|
|
By:
dashero
The trouble could also be that all this type of financial info is also very valuable to and hard earned by the company, and would be extremely useful to any start up competition if disseminated freely and publicly. They're perhaps caught between a rock and a hard place ? |
|
By:
FAFH, nopw that they are a listed company I think all their num,bers are made public, maybe not down to the smallest detail, but you could probably learn a lot by just reading their financial reports.
|
|
By:
that maybe so, but why not communicate that message to punters, the PC has always been clouded in smoke and mirror tactics from BF..Both introductions have been handled poorly by the firm and because of that there is animosity and suspicion from customers towards BF which are only increased by the lack of concrete details justifying the charges.. How does it look when in 2008 BF introduce a charge saying it is needed to preserve the ecosystem and that 22.5% will suffice, adding that any suggestions of the charge increasing are risable..Then less than 3 years later BF announce that they are almost doubling and trebling this charge on certain accounts, not to mention the shifting of the goalposts on the original 2008 charge to catch more people in the net...
|
|
By:
My point is if the charge was justifiable in 2008 then how did they get their calculations so wrong in charging 22.5%??
|
|
By:
Their reasoning for introducing PC @ 20 % and now increasing it to 40 - 60 % has been nothing but corporate BS from day 1.
They say these winners drain the pool to fast and that they need more money from these winners in order to advertise more to get new (losing) customers to the site. And this is what the CEO states in this years financial report : Marketing and operational efficiency We will continue to control our marketing and operations costs tightly as the business grows. Our unique product gives us a very loyal customer base with high retention rates. This allows us to spend a lower percentage of revenue on marketing compared to other online gaming operators, as we do not have to replace a high proportion of our customer base each year lost through churn  |
|
By:
He also stated this, which I'm also pretty sure isn't compatible with the reasons for introducing and later increasing PC :
Customers Total active customer numbers grew by 15% over the year, with the FIFA World Cup attracting a large number of new players. During the second half we concentrated on winning high-value customers through a more targeted and efficient marketing programme. We also realigned our customer retention and promotions teams to focus on this segment. Specifically, we undertook a targeted campaign for the Grand National in April 2011 focusing on acquiring high value customers. . As a result we acquired 35,000 fewer customers overall for the Grand National and Q4 customer numbers fell year-on-year. But this was offset by a significant increase in average revenue per customer as we had more high-value activity. . This adjustment to our customer approach will also help to enhance our future margin performance as we achieve higher lifetime payback on our marketing spend. We achieved a better-than-expected cost per acquisition, reduced by 21% to £104. This cut the proportion of revenue spent on marketing to 24% – in line with historic levels and significantly below the prior year‟s 29%. |
|
By:
Perhaps as Rumsfield sort of said it's the things we know we don't know, or we don't know we know, those are zee problemas.
It certainly is a rat's nest of disinformation. |
|
By:
Rumsfeld would be betfair's kind of guy.
|
|
By:
And George W. presumably ?
|
|
By:
FAFH - I bought shares in Nintendo and Sharp (with quality research imo) just before the earthquake that crippled Japan. Rumsfield would be laughing now lol!
|
|
By:
*I should add a disclaimer in case that was seen as bad taste (but the truth) - I meant Rumsfeld would be laughing to be shown to be correct. I decided months ago though to give 25%+ of sale price to Japan charities when their value has recovered slightly (hopefully) that'll be when I sell them (or September whichever is earliest (spreadbet)).
|
|
By:
jtothev, that wont be the case, the premium charge has no effect at all on the prices, back or lay in any market other than any observed change in liquidity by changes in the now charge rate to top earners.
|