Peter Webbs account suspended.

I wonder what %age of users user cards to deposit, hmmm

Apparently all you cretins on here who just accepted the gap post without question.
Also Viva I would tread very carefully about whether BF can simply access card connected accounts without clear unambiguous authorisation.
There are very clear laws on this.
This whole 3 million PSP issue is not about anything like that btw.

Viva
Stop trying to buy your popularity on here by being one of the boys.
It demeans you.

Brendanuk
It went off the PW issue well before I posted.

stop trying to buy unpopularity on here by kneejerk defence of BF regardless of the subject or your knowledge of it.

Anyway an important issue has been cleared up, so over to you all you gossip merchants now.

Also Viva I would tread very carefully about whether BF can simply access card connected accounts without clear unambiguous authorisation.

----------

do you even read what people write before you reply?

Viva
I'd love to argue with you ( after all that's the joy of my life isn't it) but I can't if you don't sort of help me by making some sort of sense.

But let's start a dedicated thread perhaps ( just you and me, should be nice), and not continue to hijack this one ?

bit late for not hijacking this and numerous other threads ffs

I started reading this thread last night. 47 new posts today so I thought I'd have a read. Surprise surprise another thread has been ruined.

Start your own thread and post your views on there. You are preventing people from discussing the issues at hand.

I'm not stopping or ruining anything by posting.
Post up facts and I will never intervene.
Post up misleading bs and I will.
Up to you.

Yes, give it a rest, eh?  If Betfair are suspending accounts and denying access to funds without explanation or right to reply, it's something I'm pretty concerned about, as will be many others.  No-one is interested in all this nonsense, though.

viva el presidente!
06 Aug 11 12:12   

cut and paste where anyone said BF went into a non-card connected account.

or is this just your usual "defend the queen!" bullsh!t?

  FAFH, understandably you completly ignored this request.

Why won't anybody just answer my simple question ?.
I've just wasted an hour trying to look up the answer to this question, and have come up with the following thoughts, which may or may not be useful.
a) The terms and conditions allow Betfair a considerable amount of discretion
b) The casino has different rules to the exchange so what happens there may not be relevant
c) Some customers are under the law of Gibraltar, some are under Malta and some Tasmania, so it may be that what is allowed for one customer is different to another
d) Gibraltar law is based on English common law and as they don't have so many statutes as the UK some old case laws in England that have been largely superceded by statutes may still apply to UK customers, such as Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877)
e) TSE (Clients) Limited that holds customer money is still an English company and holds clients money in trust under the law of equity, which being common law is presumably the same in Gibraltar as in England and Wales (equity does not exist in Scotland).

FINE AS FROG HAIR 06 Aug 11 12:29
Anyway an important issue has been cleared up, so over to you all you gossip merchants now.

There was never an issue !

Like most others, I want to know about Mr Webb and why he's effectively banned from Betfair - he runs BetAngel, imo Betfair's ambassador for goodness sake!

Peter Webb (like him or hate him) was the most talk about successful betfair punter, in the media

I really beleive, betfair can not have any successful accounts, because those accounts could hurt betfair new sportsbook

otherwise, this is just crazy on betfair part

how do these accounts hurt the sportsbook ?

You have to ask which ought to be the better 'ambassador' for Betfair - Peter Webb, a prominent and successful user of the exchange who does and could continue to inspire others to try exchange betting.  Or Lee F-cking Dixon.

The fact one is banned and the other is being paid handsomely to make godawful adverts tells you all you need to know about Betfair's direction.

Betfair's direction

& directors

how do these accounts hurt the sportsbook

because betfair want to offer the mugs, more in-play markets (not H2H)  but their never enough liquid in those side in-play markets for the mugs to play....

Now think about it..Betfair is going to start a new sportsbook, but betfair has as customer, some of  the worlds best sports punters..betfair can't let those punters, betting into betfair new sportsbook

from betfair
We are developing an integrated Exchange and sportsbook product that will allow us to provide more in-play markets as well as giving customers guaranteed execution in less liquid markets. We believe this liquid Exchange and sportsbook combination will be unique to Betfair and will allow us to capture a greater share of wallet from existing customers as well as attracting new ones


I think this is what it's all about...

Nairda, I don't understand why successful botters aren't already willing to step in to provide liquidity in all side markets.

The only thing I can think of is that so few bets would get matched, putting the money in these markets wouldn't be worthwhile.

If bf did it themselves they wouldn't need to commit capital of course. Even though hardly anyone will bet on these markets, a greater level of choice might attract more leisure punters.

I think they should just continue growing the exchange rather than splitting up in the way. They're going the way of Mansion now.

betfair wants to be a bet365 or paddy power...they are few bets but high margins bets

I think you're right Invester2...but betfair thinks

The Exchange allows us to offer customers better value and greater choice and – since liquidity and technology investment are key to its success – gives us a defensible competitive advantage

I think, we will all get to see if this is true over the next 6 months

TheInvestor2 Joined: 28 May 11
Replies: 328 06 Aug 11 16:41 
Nairda, I don't understand why successful botters aren't already willing to step in to provide liquidity in all side markets.

-------------

some markets are hard to model, and if they're illiquid automated IP market-makers are going to get picked off by people who can read a game.

I wouldn't mind BF putting up IP offers in some of these markets IF they didn't close them to other layers and competed on a level playing field.

two big ifs, I admit.

Viva...they will be pick off by people who are on 60% PC....so betfair getting getting money back anyway

I believe betfair will have a hedging arbitrage going on....it just betfair Multiples (cross trading unit) getting bigger, this is there new sportsbook

that would be more or less my guess too nairda.

but if so, it doesn't really address illiquid IP markets, because they're primarily the ones that you can't derive from the main ones.

than in that case...betfair be using the same in-play software that bet365 and other bookies use, even more reason to p!ss the winning accounts off

and this would make since why their PC groups.. 2%-5% is now 60% PC   the 5.1% to 10% is now on 50% PC   and the 10.1% to 20% is on 40% PC

the problem with that is, the bookies make that work by shutting down winning punters.

do we really see BF not only taxing, but actually closing winning accounts?

but in a way betfair have closed winning accounts Viva...by taxing them 60%

Is there some law against PC avoidance? Who do Betfair think they are - the Inland Revenue?

Wee Mac 06 Aug 11 21:33
Is there some law against PC avoidance? Who do Betfair think they are - the Inland Revenue?

Well thats the whole point, they will have to clarify what exactly PC avoidance is.

No law....so I think we will see a court case when betfair take money out of some new account , on a bases that they are PC avoidance

Nothing good will come out of this for betfair, only bad

is it just me who is hugely surprised by the emergence of two (fecking relentless) contrarian trolls who've become prolific posters on the GB forum since the announcement of PC2?

Both seem to have calmed down today. . . .

it makes you want to give feck a big gold shining sheriff's badge.

he may be off the mark now and again, occasionally speculating wildly on topics he's not completely familiar with, but he has a core agenda which has great merit when applied correctly.

Bridgeboy 06 Aug 11 22:48 
Both seem to have calmed down today. . . .


they probably don't get paid when they're out of the office.

I think one of them may be licking his wounds after his spat with Lori and the other one has just run out of steam. . .

one joined the day before it began admits he has not had a bet since he joined the forum and has posted nearly 700 times on the subject

and he was so eager to join to start posting on the subject that he spelt his name wrong

One day,a group of people will start legal action to reclaim any PC paid.I have no idea what their arguement or chances of success would be,but in a few years time the amounts involved would be so large
that they will think it worth the risks.It wouldn't necessarily cost that much and they could easily get 50/1 or more for their money.

But the risks for Betfair would be huge---If the courts found the charges unfair/illegal,Betfair would have to return every penny they've taken in PC with the possibily of intrest added on.

JML

One day,a group of people will start legal action to reclaim any PC paid.

Read the Terms & Conditions

Yeah lawyers will be advertising on tv:

"Have you been the victim of PC charges in the past. The government has now ruled these charges unfair and the result of monopoly pricing power. We can help you to reclaim them and you receive 100% of the money, as we get paid by the other side.

Call us now to see how we can help"


Hmm, maybe not.

No lads, not upset or sulking, not destroyed by your compelling counterarguments.
But no more posting from me, because I have seen the error of my ways.
I'm just wasting my time.
So I'm going to join the intelligent majority of BF punters who have always apparently realised the absolute stupidity and pointlessness in engaging in intelligent debate on here with a pack of self interested, biased, whinging, whining defeatists.
I do of course wish you all the best of luck in your efforts to save BF from itself apparently.
You all sort of remind of those tea part crazies in the US.

"--tea party crazies."

sorry, when you say you're just wasting your time, i assume that you originally had a clear agenda or set of points you that you wanted understood.

because if that's the case, you're right, you have been wasting your time. you come across as nothing more than a rather obvious (and boring) troll.

incidentally i'd love to hear your opinions on the subject of this thread.

Read the Terms & Conditions

doesn't matter what they say and betfair T&G...only matter whats happen before in court, with cases like this...

[b]Eat_your_greens 06 Aug 11 23:05 


Read the Terms & Conditions
[/b]

Many people read the Terms & Conditions of the banks that made excessive charges--Did that stop them reclaiming millions? 

The banks wern't keen to go to court with their T & C.

Why are banks now repaying millions in payment protection when what they did was covered by their T & C.   

You joined and agreed to the T & C on June 5th.

Obviouslly the T & C have changed since then---Did betfair make any attempt to inform you of these changes or do you only know about them
by reading the forum?

i assume that no one wants to go to court to attempt to recoup pc charges because those with the most to gain fear it would lead to account closure.

nairda
06 Aug 11 23:39
Joined:
05 Jan 07
| Topic/replies: 846 | Blogger: nairda's blog
Read the Terms & Conditions

doesn't matter what they say and betfair T&G...only matter whats happen before in court, with cases like this...



Do you agree to the Terms & Conditions or not? I would suggest it's the former, if not then you wouldn't place your money in their bank account and make a wager. Just the cold hard truth that you have signed up to and agree to by being here.

but that not the way things work in UK and australian courts...

Betfair may have a T&C that say that betfair can take any fee it wants any time it wants...but I bet you betfair will lose in australia court if it try it

anyway...where do you think Peter Webb was betting today

JML
06 Aug 11 23:44
Joined:
10 May 05
| Topic/replies: 302 | Blogger: JML's blog

Many people read the Terms & Conditions of the banks that made excessive charges--Did that stop them reclaiming millions?

The banks wern't keen to go to court with their T & C.

Fair point, but to stick with your analogy, the banks are now getting one over us in other ways,
it could be argued that what you say was a bit of a smoke screen to give the general population a point. They [Banks or Betfair] will take their cut in whichever shape or form it comes in.
The point is, are you going to stick around and give it to them?

And they can change their T&C anytime without telling you.


We reserve the right to make changes to our site and all guides and policies included on our site, including this Agreement at any time. You will be subject to the guides, policies, conditions and agreements in force at the time that your bets are matched. It is therefore your responsibility to check the guides, policies and this Agreement from time to time to ensure that you agree with them, and your continued use of the Services will be deemed to be your acceptance of any changes we may make.

The only way you know what T&C you are operating under is to read the whole agreement every day you place a bet.

makes you wonder why they created a separate site with a mandatory login and confirmation button

could be a clue in the URL they used for it as well.

charlatan 06 Aug 11 23:47 
i assume that no one wants to go to court to attempt to recoup pc charges because those with the most to gain fear it would lead to account closure.

That's a very good point charlatan.

They would probably test the waters by only claiming a relative small amount from a dormant account to begin with-----they wouldn't risk losing a profitable account.

Good point DStyle---what other company would make a major change to their T&C and make every effort to hide it from 99.9% of their customers?

it's more the fact that they have gone to very particular lengths to make those liable for the charge acknowledge it.

i would be interested to know if anyone who didn't click on the "i've read it" button on terms.betfair.com was contacted by bf before the 18th.

I wrote this on another "discussion" 7 hours ago.

You,ve written more rubbish in the above 2 paragraphs than DStyle has in many years of posting on Betfair.

It will come as no surprise to you that the person on the recieving end use to post on here as Premiumpayer.

DStyle
I feel sobliged to make a further parting post specifically to you in reply to your last two posts addressed to me, as I  do hold your mathematical talents in fairly high regard.
I have never had an agenda per se as my raison d'etre for posting on here, except perhaps a broad intent to try to highlight obvious situations where people are posting either deliberate untruths or posting half truths or opinions as facts.
If I did have a specific agenda of any sort it would probably be to try to gain support for changing the business model of BF to one that concentrated solely on sports betting, and excluded all casino and other sideshow games of chance.
As far as my view on the PW banning, I don't really have one as I'm not a user of or familiar in any way with his bot product.
If it is a product that merely permits people to automate their own bet selections, then I would off the top of my head say that if there are a certain number of people making the very same bets at the same times, then it would certainly suggest a degree of collusion. But whether this is PC avoidance or just a betting circle of friends combining their time and talents, I just don't know. BF is just investigating at this time isn't it ?
As such as I'm not in possession of any facts on this particular matter, I have no pro or anti position on it.

You know DStyle I also don't mind CCTV cameras in public places.
I never commit crimes and as such I don't care who is tracking or investigating my actions or movements ever.
The principle of them being around is of no concern to me at all.
Same here with the PW thing.
The principle of BF suspending PW's account while they investigate a suspicion of PC avoidance, does not worry me one bit at all.

It would worry you if you relied on BF for your livlihood and had done nothing wrong

Yeah that is a fair point.
But I think this investigation should be over pretty quickly if all is above board, and can be clearly demonstrated as so by PW and the others involved.
Perhaps it might have been better for BF to let him carry on betting in some sort of suspense account, if he wanted to do that,  assuming he was totally confident that all his actions have been totally above board.

Yeah I reckon it's fair to let someone carry on earning a crust until they're proven to have committed an offence

WHAT IS PC AVOIDANCE?


Hopefully a full and true definition will be explained, if not then it's plan B.

I have got an alternative stream of income, have you?

Are you prepared?

Do you have 6 months supply of urchins and clothes pegs?

ffs, ffs, what is the world coming too?

(could be a sportsbook emerging, with all the bells and whistles of the ever changing goal posts)

WHAT IS PC AVOIDANCE

it's what ever Betfair wants it to be

FAFHno more posting from me, because I have seen the error of my ways. I'm just wasting my time.

MEHoorah!

FAFHI feel sobliged to make a further parting post

MEOh God..

This new discriminatory price structure is opening a new can of worms by Betfair.

If I'm a 60% PC payer and I have a bot that makes £250k a year that never has a losing market then shouldn't I be able to rent it out to my brother or sister for 200k for a year?

I know of an arber on here who is £3,000,000 down on Betfair. His account is now worth a fortune if it can be utilised. If he was going to retire from arbing on Betfair tomorrow then why can't I rent it to him for £2,250,000 over the next 13 years and he'd be a £1,000,000 better off because of it.

I've logged on to my account from other friends computers who are Betfairians but not PC payers in the past. If I do it again will Betfair link our accounts and suspend us?

They will if you keep blabbing about it on their forum

The solution is to not have any friends and to never see your family.  Most of us pro gamblers have been implementing this for years.

FAFH In his own words "final post" logged at 23.16 followed by one at 23.17 another one at 1.01 another one at 1.10 and the you guessed itanother one at 1.16 will someone please send Billy Goat Gruff ronud to sort this troll out. . . . .

I'd be fairly confident that a top lawyer could pick plenty of holes in the appropriate terms and conditions.

"we may elect, in certain very limited circumstances, to act as counterparty in respect of bets or offers for bets. If we do so, we will take reasonable steps to bring this to your attention"

Hmm.

good post GOM.

the issue isn't a retrospective legal charge to the PC, which would have no chance whatsoever of succeeding imo.

the issue is BF arrogating the power to itself to act as judge prosecution and jury in linking and charging accounts.

my guess is what will happen is this:

someone will go to law to get back money taken due to accounts being linked for PC purposes. at that point, BF will quietly pay back the money, BUT close both/all accounts.

Has there been any updates to this???

Have Betfair given reasons???....

However, viva el presidnente!, if someone successfully reclaims PC from Betfair and they pay up, will that not encourage others to do the same? With the banks there was a test case, and then the floodgates opened.

Why do all of you saying that they are 60% charges.
1. If you are a PC payer there is no possibility to pay more than 40%. Just because you will be: Lifetime commission generated to gross profits ratio > 10%. Old PC are included in all the calculation. So 40 % will be paying for all of old PC payers. Yes it is a huge ammount of money.
2. Why all of you are defending these account suspension. These betting patterns (transefring funds between accounts with the main pourpose to loose money in one account and win in other) are very easy to see with not armed eye. So if you are transfering funds between accounts you have to have the responsibility for such an action. It is very easy to do such an action and that is the reason why most of the PC payers are trying to do it. Offcourse we have to try but if you are get cought you have to pay.

Old PC paid are not included in the calculation.

Offcourse they are. Just do write to Betfair and ask them. I have an answer from the very same day they have announce the new PC.

gap Joined: 20 Dec 01
Replies: 8 08 Aug 11 14:13 
However, viva el presidnente!, if someone successfully reclaims PC from Betfair and they pay up, will that not encourage others to do the same? With the banks there was a test case, and then the floodgates opened.

--------------

yeah, but there's some pretty big differences. firstly, everyone who sued the banks knew they could go elsewhere for their banking, and didn't rely on them for their income. if the quid pro quo of getting some PC back on a linked account is having your access to the site terminated, many would think twice.

plus, as I say, I don't think there's any chance of the actual PC itself being ruled retrospectively illegal. the only issue I think they'd quietly give way on would be their right to link accounts on their own authority and retrospectively impose charges based on that. and the only way in which i'd expect them to give ground would be to refund charges based on the linkage (unless it was strongly provable), but simultaneously close the accounts concerned.

Sorry, I should clarify, old PC charges paid are not included in the ratio calculation to find out the rate of your Premium Charge (40/50/60), but they are included in the lifetime calculations to work out how much you have to pay each week.

I can not confirm/denied right now. Currently i am not under PC2. My point was Betfair to explain clear as is possible like they did with the Premium Charges - method, examples.

jabmast you are right. The pld PC are just included in the calculations but not in ratio calculation.

old PC not can't....


it commission paid  on Lifetime net profits....I was on 13%  (20% when PC 1 came in)   that ment my new PC would be 40%...6%-10% you would be on 50% PC, and 2%-5% on 60% PC

Does anyone kmow if this has been sorted yet?

Peter has said on his twitter account, that he has the accounts back

@betangel
Bet Angel
@puntdotcom - I have my account back but I wasn't using it much anyway at 60%+

I wonder what happened? Maybe he dramatically lowered the number of bets placed on 60% charges, and this was at the root  of bf's suspicion?

Or maybe he just wasn't indulging in any nefarious practices after all and BF, after due analysis, came to that air and objective conclusion and let him continue " as is " ?

"---fair and objective conclusion --- "

Nice to see the PONCE utterly exposed here.

Tis easier just to block tho,that feature alone is probably worth 1% on commission.

FINE AS FROG HAIR
Date Joined: 12 Mar 07
Add contact | Send message
When: 12 Aug 11 00:15
Joined:
Date Joined: 12 Mar 07
| Topic/replies: 4,060 | Blogger: FINE AS FROG HAIR's blog
Or maybe he just wasn't indulging in any nefarious practices after all and BF, after due analysis, came to that air and objective conclusion and let him continue " as is " ?


Isn't that what I said?

61%-72% net is effectively closing your account anyway unless you were making serious ammounts of cash very easily.  If I had a 67% account I wouldn't give a monkeys if they closed it.

Seems it was due to them linking his wifes account to his according to his replies on the ba forum. Bit of a shocker, never imagined he'd be married :)

Basically they want to link my wife's account to mine for the purposes of calculating the premium charge. My wife has an account which is in profit but it's a tiny tiny fraction of my lifetime profitability. Basically it looks like they want to apply the £250k limit on a broader basis. Essentially they want to stop me using my wife's account or her using my knowledge or instruction to profit.


Postby andyfuller » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:20 am

Just to be 100% clear, you have never used your wifes account yourself I assume?

And what did you have to do to prove the above to Betfair if anything?

It would be impossible to say I have never used it, I may have at some point it's been active for many years. But especially since the 18th we have deliberately kept all activity separate. Nothing dodgy going on either such as churning or swapping money between accounts. I guess it was the drop in activity on my account that made them suspend accounts, pending investigation.

They keep referring to the charge being applicable to an 'entity' and that is what I am waiting on them to clarify. What is an entity under their definition and what boundries does the word 'entity' have.


He sounds like a politician to me. "Oh, I slipped over and the penis of a young man that who was also using the public toilet slipped inside me". Peter has been nabbed!

It would be impossible to say I have never used it, I may have at some point it's been active for many years. But especially since the 18th we have deliberately kept all activity separate. Nothing dodgy going on either such as churning or swapping money between accounts. I guess it was the drop in activity on my account that made them suspend accounts, pending investigation.


See FAFH! See!

Let me get this straight...Peter Webb is assuming that Betfair suspended his account because his activity dramatically dropped after they increased their prices by 200%?

What school of economics does he assume Betfair go to?

If Tescos increase the price of a bottle of Chardonnay from £5 to £15 will they suspend my account because I suddenly stop ordering it?

erm no....and I find it hard to believe Peter Webb believes that either

I do find that quite plausible clydebank, anyone who is making large profits and suddenly stops betting, will either have quit (temporarily), or they are trying to find 'other ways' to access the exchange.

If someone is making large amounts of virtually risk free money, which is probably the case for 60%ers, it will look strange if their betting stops.

Someone could be running bots that require very little further input/effort. If they go from making £2,000 to £500 a day, it would still look very strange if they suddenly stopped bettting.

If someone was betting in such a way using the API or bots and making large amounts then it should be quite obvious if he was betting through an alias and it would be that rather than any lack of activity on his own account that would raise the alarm. 

I know a 60%er.  He hasnt bet since the first week of June as it happens.  None of his money is virtually risk free and he has big losses from time to time.  It's all hard earned and bot free.  His response to the unfortunate Bf operative given the task of ringing round was along the lines of "you realise this effectively closes me down" to which the Betfair operative said something along the lines of "we realise that will be the case for several people"