General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 181 comments are related to the topic:
Peter Webbs account suspended.
Peter Webbs account suspended.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 181
|
By:
eggman
All I have ever been arguing about is the general misleading statement that BF can debit your bank account any time for any reason. I'm at least relieved to hear that at least now it is only card connected accounts we are talking about. As far as the rights and wrongs of BF going into card connected accounts, I'll let the law of the land handle that. |
|
By:
^ sound of fafh covering his embarrassment by claiming victory on a point no one else was even arguing about.
what kind of cretin would think BF could access a non-linked bank account without your authorisation? |
|
By:
 I wonder what %age of users user cards to deposit, hmmm |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Viva
Stop trying to buy your popularity on here by being one of the boys. It demeans you. |
|
By:
Brendanuk
It went off the PW issue well before I posted. |
|
By:
stop trying to buy unpopularity on here by kneejerk defence of BF regardless of the subject or your knowledge of it.
|
|
By:
Anyway an important issue has been cleared up, so over to you all you gossip merchants now.
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
But let's start a dedicated thread perhaps ( just you and me, should be nice), and not continue to hijack this one ?
|
|
By:
bit late for not hijacking this and numerous other threads ffs
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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). |
|
By:
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! |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
how do these accounts hurt the sportsbook ?
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Betfair's direction
& directors |
|
By:
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... |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
but in a way betfair have closed winning accounts Viva...by taxing them 60%
|
|
By:
Is there some law against PC avoidance? Who do Betfair think they are - the Inland Revenue?
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
Both seem to have calmed down today. . . .
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. . .
|