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:
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. |
|
By:
Old PC paid are not included in the calculation.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
Does anyone kmow if this has been sorted yet?
|
|
By:
Peter has said on his twitter account, that he has the accounts back
|
|
By:
@betangel
Bet Angel @puntdotcom - I have my account back but I wasn't using it much anyway at 60%+ |
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
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 " ?
|
|
By:
"---fair and objective conclusion --- "
|
|
By:
Nice to see the PONCE utterly exposed here.
Tis easier just to block tho,that feature alone is probably worth 1% on commission. |
|
By:
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?  |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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 :)
|
|
By:
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! |
|
By:
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! |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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" |