A poser for non PC payers

the implicit assumption in your question is that the company is privately owned.

NO.

Using a term such as " very best 'facilities' " is going to bankrupt a business.

Any "facility" can be improved if enough resources are thrown at it. No business can afford to write blank cheques to keep on improving the service to customers.
Need to look at cost V reward on any investments. Often offering a good service is enough so not much reward in spending money to offer an excellent service.

mexico

if a normal facility is offered to all, then I agree

but if you can be 'x' times more profitable as a business if you ensure some customers are 'looked after' better than others, then doesn't it make sense to do it?

Birch

The finance team would want to know how much will it cost to look after this group of customers. What the reward is for this expenditure and any possible risks.
Then will make the decision.

Clearly will need to know numbers.
If it costs £10k to set up and generates an extra £10k a year and risks are minimal the board would consider this option.
If an idea costs £100k to set up and generates an extra £10k a year the board will be less keen.

Behind most business decisions is the idea that it will generate a profit - so need to know numbers. They may want more details on what "looked after" means.

Honestly, the 20% players would be a second to persueding 'losers' to try again.  Without a constant feed of new money there would be no 20% .....leeches, there i said it.

PAY YOUR SHARE

I can see I need to spell this out............

If a 40%PC payer wants a bet matched for £100 and a non PC payer wants the same bet matched for £100 -  and the bet is successful, which one would give BF the greater commission?

By 'looked after', I mean for example, putting PC payers in front of the queue

I take the point that takethestand makes, but without a constant feed of new money the exchange would not exist - so 'new money' is a given

The moment they turned on the Xmatching unannounced has always had me wondering what depths/liberties they may take with their customers - so, underhand it may be - but possible also!

According to betfair PC2 will be used to generate this 'new money' allowing the exchange to exist for everybody.  Many of the thhreads seem to suggest PC2 will go direct to bottom line profit of company.

The moment they turned on the Xmatching unannounced




Could you elaborate please birch2

stewarty b

approx 2 or 3 years ago they turned on the cross matching algorithm on certain sports (not horse racing at that time) with no announcement whatsoever - ie they were skimming over and above the norm commission  -  they were taken to task by posters on here ( I really think they thought we wouldnt notice!), and quickly arranged a forum to try to deflect the flak - I seem to remember them promising never to introduce any changes to market T&C's, without prior announcement, following that. Anyway it was a total PR disaster, that will always make me look on them suspiciously.

Hence, 'allowing the exchange to exist for everybody' is a statement I take with a pinch of salt

Thankyou for that birch2.


I particulary concur with your last sentence.

Hello there Birch2.

You stated "If a 40%PC payer wants a bet matched for £100 and a non PC payer wants the same bet matched for £100 -  and the bet is successful, which one would give BF the greater commission?

By 'looked after', I mean for example, putting PC payers in front of the queue"

I don't think this should happen myself for 2 reasons.

Firstly in your example above you are looking at the bet on a stand alone basis but that isn't really the case. Let me ask you this.

Player A is PC payer and on average has £130 profit and £20 loss for the week. Player B is not a PC payer and makes on average £1150 profit and £1000 loss for the week. Which person is more valuable to BF?

Secondly this may sound a bit weird but I don't believe that BF actually want anyone to pay any PC. What I actually mean by this is that ideally BF actually want everone who would be eligible to pay PC to churn money back into the system have more wins and losses and so ultimately push their percentage out so they don't have to pay PC. Interestingly that's what a lot of the punters think as well as they don't want to pay the PC so it works quite well.

By doing what you suggest you are incentivising people into paying the PC and not churning money back into the BF system which I think they ultimately want.

birch2
Date Joined: 01 Jun 02
Add contact | Send message
When: 02 Aug 11 15:55
Joined:
Date Joined: 01 Jun 02
| Topic/replies: 566 | Blogger: birch2's blog
I can see I need to spell this out............

If a 40%PC payer wants a bet matched for £100 and a non PC payer wants the same bet matched for £100 -  and the bet is successful, which one would give BF the greater commission?

By 'looked after', I mean for example, putting PC payers in front of the queue

I take the point that takethestand makes, but without a constant feed of new money the exchange would not exist - so 'new money' is a given

The moment they turned on the Xmatching unannounced has always had me wondering what depths/liberties they may take with their customers - so, underhand it may be - but possible also!


This is where Betfair have created a conflict of interest. Obviously, for the health of the exchange, it would be best if obtaining q-position was as close to random as possible. Now Betfair stands to profit from the people who consistently get q-position due to technology instead of looking for ways to level the playing field.

In a commission only model, Betfair is best off if the markets are as close to efficient as possible. Now Betfair stands to make big bucks from its customers that get a poor deal time after time rather than helping them get a better deal.

UA

Before PC2, I would totally agree with your post -

but now the pendulum has swung - even in your example, player A would never be a 40% PC player  - so now I believe, the 'commission efficiency' argument is flawed

with 40%+ players, Betfair would be mad not to look after them in the manner I suggest

Which is where I started this thread - that if q jumping is true, then non PC payers are being discriminated against - and if q jumping is a myth, BF & PC payers are not the real losers, following this change

When the PC came in initially I spoke to a friend who used to work there and aid to him what a terrible marketing move ..... His response was that if lasts a month its here forever and will only get higher and higher. How right he was!

Regarding crossmatching (I prefer "skimbot"), I remember them fudging the best execution issue and claiming that the software required was more complex but would be introduced in due course, as it is on another exchange.
Just for the record, we're still waiting.

Surprised to hear you say Betfair made that promise 1.01 Layer.

I remember Betfair saying that they still provide best exection when for example you back at 15 when you could be laying the inverse at 1.07, because it wasn't possible to back at 15.29 in the first place.

Don't know about publicly but I remember them telling me that on the phone when I asked why if the "other place" did it, couldn't they.

Ok i'll try another argument for you as to why they shouldn't do it if you don't like that one.

Every other punter will be peed off with BF if they did this. It's very bad PR. Losers hate winners and winners hate bigger winners as it is, especially if bigger winners are given an advantage that makes it harder for everyone else.

Here's a simple argument FOR them to do it

They make more profit

UA
" Every other punter will be peed off with BF if they do this.--- "
By my count only about 30 -40 of them, being the noisiest anti PC posters on here that is.
Or do you think that thereis a silent majority ?.
Btw the silent majority probably are peed off with any and all charges, no matter what they are called.

FAFH - one small point - I am not sure 30-40 is a good estimate. There is a lot of noise away from this forum.

Hazel
I'm sure there is.
eg Facebook ?
Something I'm not at all familiar with.
But I would think it is all going over the head of the majority of punters, if for no other reason that most people, rightly or wrongly, just want to cross bridges when they get to them.
It is a total wet dream of most punters to get anywhere near earning the 250,000 pounds from gambling on BF inoreder to be penalized by PC2.
Most people probably say that it is a problem they would like to have, a bit like paying high marginal tax rates.

Hello there FAFH

You can't use people not posting as a sign of compliance. This suggestion is also be different to PC. Let's face it most people are only concerned about what affects them, and pc only affects a few. Bring in some new rule that says some people get priority over you when offering up prices this affects every single person who is not a PC2 payer and offers up a price rather than just taking what is on offer. That is a huge increase in people.

My personal viewpoint is that it would not increase profit as they would lose more business from people being annoyed with this change and going elsewhere than they would gain from the pc2 payers who have decided not to use them but are enticed back purely on the basis of this advantage. But that's just my view.

Many of the people who complain do so as they have no alternative and is a way of venting their frustration. If there was another site just like BF with just as much liquidity but with no pc charges I personally believe their would be less complaining on the forum. Why, because people would just up and go to the other site and be done with it.

What would happen if the PC player's queue jumping bet lost?

JTG

A few PC2 players bets lose  - overall most of them win - hence he earns £250K +

UA

Totally agree with your second para  -  what I'm pointing out is that an unannounced method of rewarding PC2 payers would not be apparant to non PC2 payers.

Of course the PC player has an edge but it's probably very small on any individual bet,soI can't really see why an exchange would raise integrity questions over its whole business for what,to me, appears a small increase in profits.

JTG

soI can't really see why an exchange would raise integrity questions over its whole business for what,to me, appears a small increase in profits.
It would be reasonable to assume that Johnny  -  the problem for them is that they have done exactly that before!