General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 176 comments are related to the topic:
To All people who think Pc is a good thing
To All people who think Pc is a good thing
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 176
|
By:
Viva, your punters are imaginary - anyone involved in the early days was rewarded with much greater margins than were available in 2008.
|
|
By:
Also punter 2 might only have been 5 years old when BF started.
And punter 2 is now going to be paying PC1 as soon as he/she gets into profit, and so he/she will net a helluva lot less from the first 250,000 in GP he/she makes than presumably did punter 1 who is now subject to PC2. |
|
By:
Posts crossed again cat.
We must stop doing this. Your posting finger always appears to be slightly faster than mine. The reflexes of a cat ? |
|
By:
But a frog should be able to "jump in front" so one can only imagine that Mr frog has been on his Lilly pad after swimming and had a tipple[;)]
|
|
By:
Froggy, if you can't out-finger me after I've had this much beer there is no hope for you [;)]
|
|
By:
What is it with evening posters in this forum and drinking?
 |
|
By:
bf-fanatic => welcome to my ignore list.
An outstanding opening post, reminiscent of the halcyon days of this forum, circa 2006. PS I hope you didn't lay Love Devine that day  |
|
By:
A lot of the pc cost will be passed on to people who don't pay it and think it's a good idea. But they do pay it, they just don't notice the slightly worse returns thet will now get everytime they bet.
|
|
By:
PKS II,
I made the very same point, to a very successful player on here, who doesn't pay PC, as he also plays elsewhere. I respect his betting prowess, and was shocked that he didn't realise that PC2 affects ALL players, as the manner in which most markets here are seeded [by the big-hitting 480, previously] will change, with the replacement market-makers being "The House". A critical point has been reached in the way in which markets, here [and hence the industry, as pricing is driven from here] are compiled. What's worse, is that the subsequent sub-otimal pricing [which BF will un-doubtably use] & reduced liquidity [via the increased PC2 "rake"; and the XM-skimmer] will mean less value for the very lemmings screaming that such an implementation is a "good thing". It's been a prime example as to why only 1.7% [á la Mark Davies] make the game "pay"... |
|
By:
...because the understanding of price-definition, by 98.3% of exchange-players, is non-existent...
|
|
By:
bf-fanatic => welcome to my ignore list.
--------- yep - he's only the second person to get on mine, too. |
|
By:
Steering
Whilst you are generally correct in your low assessment of the skills of the vast majority of punters, I think you may be overassessing the importance of precise value calculations, inorder for a reasonably intelligent, controlled gambler to win long term. In sports betting there are a number of different ways to skin the cat, and some of them can succeed with prices that are actually very far from perceived correct value. For example they may, either be fast speed in running momentum type strategies or may be excell driven regressive analysis strategies that discover exceptionally high strike rates in small subsectors of the general market and so on . The introduction of personal computers to the gambling world has created enormous changes in what can be done successfully in gambling, all of which are quite new and unrelated to traditional value price ways of winning. |
|
By:
What's worse, is that the subsequent sub-otimal pricing [which BF will un-doubtably use] & reduced liquidity [via the increased PC2 "rake"; and the XM-skimmer] will mean less value for the very lemmings
screaming that such an implementation is a "good thing". ---------- I've never understood this argument. two questions seem to follow from it: 1) if market-makers can get away with offering worse prices to compensate for PC, why didn't they do that before and make more money? 2) if they do offer worse prices now to compensate, why won't other non-pc payers, or players with different styles, front-run them to push the book to 100%? |
|
By:
Yeah I'd like a good answer to that too Viva.
|
|
By:
It is pointless postulating effects upon a complex model such as a sporting exchanges future liquidity and market accuracy after the implementation of a charge as the possible variables can only be postulated and not truly defined.
Doubtless there will be an effect but there is as much reason to postulate a positive result in both liquidity and market accuracy as there is negativity in values. Most Postulations refer to a moving of major liquidity providers to alternative service providers on the basis that the premium charge will allow them to make more money than they would in remaining by such action, this clearly is never going to be the case, no alternative can either allow winning profit at the same margins as betfair post pc2 or provide it! Profitable Alternatives at the market size of betfair are wishful thinking and non-existent. A more likely scenario and one cleverly calculated by betfair market projection annalists is that Liquidity will increase to attempt to offset the charge and to increase the ratio of commission charge paid over lifetime profits to alter the customers effective rate from highest 60% through 50% to 40%. |
|
By:
FAFH,
I definitely underestimated your capabilities when we "parlayed" several months ago! As you have admitted yourself, you are a bit better at this game then you let on [á la Geoff Banks in the RP a few weeks ago] Maybe I am over-emphasising the precise price definition, but you still need to be getting 2.10 about the toss of a fair coin to make it pay LT [ignoring commish]. Obviously, anything greater than that means you are going to land the counter-party laying you in the poor house. I do however, doubt,the ability of the 98.3% to apply such a concept. Sure, the theory they scoff at as knowing, but a variet of reasons - ill-discipline; physchology; poor staking; chasing, etc - means they will never exploit such circumstances... ...which do exist "on the machine"...you just have to exploit them... Good post from you, sir. |
|
By:
The bigger picture for both aka" lquidity providers" aspirations and exchange provider aspirations is the bigger profit, smaller profit for both parties is not there target and will be proven by there actions.
|
|
By:
its a turf war
|
|
By:
Hiya Viva,
Here goes so:- "1) if market-makers can get away with offering worse prices to compensate for PC, why didn't they do that before and make more money?" Whole variety of reasons spring to mind: - how can we assume that the worse prices they lay will be matched?; - the offers may be left in the market for too long, meaning they no longer are value [the last furlong in a race when the track players hoover, for example]; - other market agents playing the same edge [but not yet at the 250k threshold] can offer better prices ahead of the 480 player in the same queue; - "The House" playing the same edge off of 0% commish & no PC [hence offer better, but still "edgy" pricing]; Ultimately, they are priced out of the market. Remember, no rebates exist for losing weeks. "2) if they do offer worse prices now to compensate, why won't other non-pc payers, or players with different styles, front-run them to push the book to 100%? " There is something that already does this. It doesn't pay transaction or data charges; incurs no commish & will never pay PC1 or PC2. It's called the Cross-Matching bot. |
|
By:
PS bf_fanatic is now intentionally trying to derail the thread.
Usually a sign that we're posting good material. |
|
By:
Would a big stocks and share speculator go to a different country to play in a 1/12 market to avoid a 60% tax, no they wouldn't and no they never do, they might if they didn't make a profit or didn't understand how profit works and these player types may leave betfair to no effect as as many may join in there equal oblivion to market options and fiscal effects.
|
|
By:
The point is they won't leave betfair, but they will provide liquidity at the other market in the hope that one day the other makket will become dominant.
|
|
By:
You cant beat anything that has a numerical advantage in a numerical outcome, you may complain, evade, protest, even fight but in the end acceptance is the only winner.
|
|
By:
One other extreme school of taught would be to preversely offer better pricing to backers, thereby reducing the ratio of: comission implied/generated TO gross profit.
The kings of low margin/high volume exchange pricing [they are based in Scandanavia & helpfully publish accounts] are losing money at the moment though... |
|
By:
Yes PKSII - both exhanges will be seeded, I imagine, by these players.
Reduces dependency on here. The trick [as always was] is in getting matched elsewhere. |
|
By:
"2) if they do offer worse prices now to compensate, why won't other non-pc payers, or players with different styles, front-run them to push the book to 100%? "
There is something that already does this. It doesn't pay transaction or data charges; incurs no commish & will never pay PC1 or PC2. It's called the Cross-Matching bot. ------------ well, no - that doesn't really do it for me. the question is: if someone on PC2 can only make a profit by offering (eg) a 104% book, what is going to stop someone else coming in 1 tick above them on all runners to push it up a % or so? and, if they're not laying the field, what's to stop someone who is front-running them on their particular selection? in practice, I don't see worse overrounds since they brought this in, so where is the evidence for what you say actually happening? |
|
By:
"if someone on PC2 can only make a profit by offering (eg) a 104% book" AND by receiving rebates in losing weeks.
You also have the issue of actually getting matched; if the PC2 player can now only make it pay at 104%, then they are less likely to get matched, then say, when they made 250k+ by laying 102%. So they are getting matched less frequently, which has implications for the number of selections/outcomes per market in their book; and hence, profitability. The front-running will always occur - it's the primary reason for miniscule over-rounds on the machine; namely, the necissity to get matched. The book percentages haven't changed drastically since the PC2 was introduced...but I'd be a 1.01 backer that the market-makers getting matched HAS changed; as the lower book over-round, coupled with no rebates, makes it harder/improbable for the PC2 480-brigade to make it pay. |
|
By:
* "as the higher book over-round now required, coupled with no rebates..."
'Tis later & I'm tired - apols for typo. I'll be hitting the bed soon at this rate! |
|
By:
and why does it matter to BF if it's now different market makers getting matched?
|
|
By:
Because the cabal of 480 are now priced-out.
They were eating the fish too quickly. I suspect their edges have been broken; AND that they will be utilised vs.the mugs, via house money, on 0% commish accounts. |
|
By:
no, what I meant was, why is it a problem for BF if (some of) the 480 are replaced?
|
|
By:
If the 480 go there will be a huge drop in liquidity. Even if they are replaced straight away the new 480 will not be paying the new rate premium charge. So where will that have got betfair?
|
|
By:
Think we got our wires crossed somewhere.
It's late where I am - so I'll take blame for this! To answer the question you just posed. There is nothing to stop previously "mug" players being shrewd and beginning to eat the mugs i.e. a new wave of whales [taking the numbers up to a doubling ofg say 960 sharks]. They want the mugs all to themselves. |
|
By:
or, (some of) the 480 will be replaced by market-makers with different strategies that are less susceptible to variance.
|
|
By:
because those 480 have money and know how, to do the same thing over the road
|
|
By:
Can't believe you guys who are saying that it's ok to offer worse terms to someone who has been a customer for 10 years than to someone who has been a customer for 5 years when the customers in all other respects are identical. Thought at least 95% of the population would consider that immoral to be honest.
|
|
By:
Betfair are still leading edge in this industry, it is impossible to say what the competition will decide when confronted with the same set of circumstances and it's impossible to say whether they have made a good decision or not. My feeling is that pc2 is a natural development of pc1 and both are justified. How it will affect the exchange and the competition is yet to be seen.
|
|
By:
catfleppo
If pc2 is a natural development of pc 1 , then how long before their a pc3? Im sure betfair is saying there be no pc3, but didn't they say that after pc1 |
|
By:
Who knows? Not even betfair I shouldn't think.
It seems unlikely though that the charging structure will remain unchanged forever. |
|
By:
It seems unlikely though that the charging structure will remain unchanged forever
charging Structure  from 5% to 60%, not a small structure change |