new premium charge 60%

Just because someone's 250k up on bf, doesn't mean that's how much they've made betting either.  Plenty of people on here will lay off a liability on another exchange or on the high street to make a guaranteed profit.  Invariably the value end of the arb is on here so this is where they win most.
This strategy is obviously out of the window with 50% pc but it's quite possible to reach that point, while not having made that much... and yes I am talking from experience.

I see layer good point and a lot have good points on here, I am out of my depth on some matters and mostly in respect to those who have been directly affected by charges, as fafh said to me once"treat them with respect as they are a bright bunch".

By: 1.01 Layer
Date Joined: 23 Aug 03 Add contact | Send message
When: 26 Aug 11 14:11 Joined: Date Joined: 23 Aug 03 | Topic/replies: 2,590 | Blogger: 1.01 Layer's blog
Worth thinking about beforehand imo.  I had bets on Man utd next manager market years ago, and US next president which will now only pay out half, as bf will take 50% off me.  If I'd known, I wouldn't have bothered.  I won't touch long term markets now.  Who knows what they'll charge in 6 months time.

........................

fwiw when PC1 came into effect I had a good position on BBC Sports Personality.  I was told quite clearly that bets placed before the charge came into effet would not be subject to the charge.  (I had made a helluva song and dance of it on the forum mind which may have forced their hand)  As it happens because of the way they "calculated" it which was completely incorrect I didnt get the full refund, but that's another story.

Yeah, but any difference is effectively offset against future PnL.

That was in response to:
nbdbscms
Date Joined: 12 Oct 04
Add contact | Send message
When: 26 Aug 11 10:11
Joined:
Date Joined: 12 Oct 04
| Topic/replies: 179 | Blogger: nbdbscms's blog
Investor 2-this is only   correct if you win and lose in the same Monday to Sunday period.

They even had the cheek to say they refunded me too much.  Got me very angry at the time.  I said at the time I'd take it to IBAS.  Betfair said it was a matter for the Gambling Commission not IBAS.  I got in touch with the Gambling Commission about it who said it was a matter for IBAS

I didn't pursue it at the time but I did consider going to the small claims court out of principle.

Why shouldn't winning punters not pay 60% (reported) on their
profits ? I have paid around that in the years I have been
on BF, the difference being my contribution to the Betfair
coffers is called commission, not a Premium charge.

I am getting my own back on BF, i have installed under cover a vending machine in there HQ canteen that goes up to 50,000 quid for a cold drink to coincide when the heating goes up to 60 degrees celcius, reckon the recent pay rises will help me sell a few hundred more cups then were round to empty it, kah chiiing.

you pay 2-5% kenilworth.

As it happens you'll pay more than me for placing exactly the same bets.  That's actually illegal in business in the EU.

Just to clarify when I say that's illegal in business in the EU, I mean the general principle in EU law is that you can't charge 2 people different prices for the same thing if it puts them at a competitive disadvantage to their competitors.

I've no idea whether what Betfair has done with the PC contravenes it, but I'm sure as dammit no one gives a monkeys about a few gamblers so I guess it's largely irrelevant.

It'd be nice if they had to refund all PC taken to date
Not sure the shareholders would be too chuffed tho'

Clydebank, you are of course correct, that I pay 2-5% per winning
bet but it's a fact that total commission paid by me is higher than 60% 
of my gross profit.

TheI2,
  I may have misunderstood somewhere,but if I have one bet of £100 in a week   and it loses that is all lost.If I win £100 next week then Iwill win £40.I get no credit for the previous week's loss.Or are we at cross purposes?

kenilworth

maybe you should have done more work and cut out alot of your losing bets/trades...

but now , no need to become better and make more profit...you will pay 60% of your profits for life to betfair

nairda, I don't trade, maybe green up or red up occasionally
but that's all. I bet to my opinion and work to about 6% at
best, for instance, backing 53 1/1 chances from 100 bets gives
you a profit 6 points minus 2.65 commission, the eqivelent
of around 40% of profits. Some people would die for that and
I'm not complaining GL.

the difference being your commission is paid bet to bet whereas somebody on 60%PC doesn't know exactly where they stand until the end of the betting week

nobody will stay on 60% unless they use the API

The difference between kenilworth and a PC payer is he pays less for placing exactly the same bets.  It's not rocket science

PC payers don't make the same type of bets as I do. They trade, I simply
bet.

I bet.

kenilworth Joined: 04 Nov 05
Replies: 5738 26 Aug 11 23:31   
PC payers don't make the same type of bets as I do. They trade, I simply
bet.


Many PC payers bet.
Many non-PC payers trade.

I'm a PC payer and have more than one losing week in three. People talk as if it only applies to people who are operating risk-free, which is clearly ridiculous.

This is the point that many ill-informed people don't understand.Unless I have a reasonable amount of profit in the early part of a week it is not possible to offer odds on the smaller markets,as I have done in the past,as the 'risk' is too high on 60% PC.Unless you see your own individual scenario it is not possible to generalise.I am not looking for sympathy,just pointing out the PC is much more complex than many think.

How does anyone know about others ? If I was paying a PC on
my betting I would close my account straight away. Of course
there will be people who bet straight and pay PC but I'm sure
it's a very, very small percentage of PC payers. FWIW, why do
those people not go elsewhere for their betting ? The cries
of protest remind me of an old joke...
Man; ''When you make an uncomplimentary comment about women
they take it personally''
Lady; '' I don't''

By: kenilworth
Date Joined: 04 Nov 05 Add contact | Send message
When: 27 Aug 11 11:17 Joined: Date Joined: 04 Nov 05 | Topic/replies: 5,740 | Blogger: kenilworth's blog
How does anyone know about others ?

By: kenilworth
Date Joined: 04 Nov 05 Add contact | Send message
When: 26 Aug 11 23:31 Joined: Date Joined: 04 Nov 05 | Topic/replies: 5,740 | Blogger: kenilworth's blog
PC payers don't make the same type of bets as I do. They trade, I simply
bet.

PC3 hits all types of players.  It also hits the small winning punter.  I would love to win £100 next week.  But 62.5% deductions make that a dream.  And all because you are fortunate enough to have a good winning strategy in the early days of Betfair.  I have come to the conclusion Betfair don't wont the small winning punter to stay on this site.

Hazel,
  I am in the same situation.I have exceeded the £250k amount by a small margin over several years betting.I used to make more in the early years and have found it much more challenging over recent times.I will continue short-term for a bit of interest when watching various sports but with 60% deduction there is no longer any point in working hard at it.All good things come to an end sooner or later,just glad to have had a good run at it really.

CLYDEBANK29, I'm not sure what point you are making.

kenilworth

I don't trade...and almost never green out....I bet on single bets...and aim for 4% to 5% POT...but I have cut out those small POT bets, as I don't use bots or API

why should I pay more fees to betfair, just because I do the same job better then you...

nairda, BF expect a certain % from your account, at least
as much as you get. You clearly have no where else to go
with your business otherwise you would have gone by now.
GL to you.

My understanding is long term max you'll pay is 40%. The 60% is only to accelerate some people towards the 40% target, once they've paid enough it'll stabilise at 40. Correct me if I'm wrong but there seems to be some confusion in this thread.

Kenilworth

I have not had a bet at betfair since PC 2 (or PC 3) came in..But I know, money is still leaving betfair to pay me

what you don't understand, this PC doesn't level the playing field for you.Those PC payers will be paying their PC with extra money taken from you, you will end up winning much less then you do now, and be paying more in commis to profits in 6 months time 

So , Good luck to you

Just Checking,
  Unfortunately,no.I have been paying 60% ever since the last change.It is you who is confused.At this point I would be pleased to be paying 40%!!!

Fair enough nb, happy to be corrected ;) I thought the PC/PC2 people paid counted towards the calculation, which makes sense. If the PC you pay DOESN'T count towards the calculation, that's pretty unfair..

nairda, if I only bet when my pick is a certain
price or higher, and no bet unless, how can I
pay extra, unless the commission it is now ?
Perhaps certain prices don't reach my minimum
in which case I wouldn't know would I ? I may
have less bets but I won't be taking lower prices
in my view.
BTW, if you are not betting, why are you on here now ?

hazel
27 Aug 11 12:03
Joined:
15 Jun 01
| Topic/replies: 237 | Blogger: hazel's blog
PC3 hits all types of players.  It also hits the small winning punter.

--------

tbf, it's hard to categorise anyone who's made 250K+ net as a small winning punter. that comes to a minimum of 25K a year, tax free. ie significantly more than the average wage.

Ken, you're right....you will just keep getting the same value on each bet

"tbf, it's hard to categorise anyone who's made 250K+ net as a small winning punter. that comes to a minimum of 25K a year, tax free. ie significantly more than the average wage"

Erm, far be it from me to point out a possible flaw in that argument, but they could easily have lost 200k with the bookies, meaning they were making only a few hundred a month...and that's not including other costs like petrol, internet, cable tv etc etc....

i have a few stupid questions that i would really appreciate if someone would answer

1. if betfair charge 5% commission on EVERY bet, how could they not be making very large amounts of money, even if some players are withdrawing their winnings? We see many many markets that exceed 1 million pounds every single day (they are getting 50k from each of these markets!!). Almost every UK race reaches at least 500k traded. Then football etc all have millions traded and BF are taking 5% for themselves. Surely they are pulling in million PER WEEK just with the 5% commission charge???


2. Why has no alternative exchange popped up and got bigger due to BF introducing the charges? Seems like 60% is a massive amount to pay to BF and if I was a PC3 player I would be off to an alternative exchange.


3. Are winners not welcome on BF now? It would seem that winners are not welcome. 60% is a joke.


I just can't understand how BF can't be making MILLIONS with 5% commission in place. Why the need to charge 20% and then 60%? Surely they will eventually force the rise of a competitor exchange when people move to that exchange to escape the 60%.

Can anyone answer my simple Qs?

pulio

1) commission isn't charged per bet, it's charged on a winning market. So if you back Man Utd at evens for £1,000 and then lay them at evens for £1,000 you will not have made or lost anything, and you will pay no commission.

2) it seems to be the case that the exchange with the most liquidity attracts yet more liquidity, so it is difficult for others to compete. Betfair's consistent tampering with the charging structure does create some uncertainty though.

3) apparently they are, but it's a precarious situation.

yeah, they could modj, but in reality they very probably haven't. for an arber to be 250K net up on bf but only 50K up overall is pretty unlikely.

pulio, BF is after everybody's money. In extreme cases (I imagine) there
are some who are betting in, and profitting in such a way, they are paying
very little by way of commission. These punters are of no interest to BF as
they are sucking away money that BF has to replace, and when they identify
those people who 'pay' BF very little, the PC is their way of making them
pay more. They don't mind people winning but from every £ they win, BF wants more
than 5p in the £1. 60p seems to be their target, those are the facts as I see it.

Just wondering how many people are caught to pay the 60%. I would imagine they will give betduck a go

About 0.001% I suspect.

kenilworth
30 Aug 11 09:26 Joined: 04 Nov 05 | Topic/replies: 5,793 | Blogger: kenilworth's blog
They don't mind people winning but from every £ they win, BF wants more
than 5p in the £1. 60p seems to be their target, those are the facts as I see it.

BF gets more than 5p in every pound, the figure bandied around on here is that they currently make 72p on every pound deposited into the site. I guess you need to work up from there for their target...

betfair has p!ssed away so much of it's profits on non core sh!t, that betfair need to rape the betting exchange for every little cent

inner city sumo

72p in each pound...betfair sounding like that song "Hotel California"   you can win any time you like, but you can never leave (with the money)   :))))

viva, my scenario may not be usual but it happens a lot more than you might imagine. Many arbers find that the "value" side of the arb is on betfair, so winning decent amounts here whilst losing lots to a bookie is certainly reallistic. Of course as nobody has any idea what price they will get paid out here after pc, due to not knowing what other bets they will place later on in the week, that type of arbing is all but impossible.

Yet another reason why the pc is a total farce.

yes, but the value side isn't necessarily the winning side.

I just don't think that any arber who's 250K net up on BF is likely not to have arbed millions to get to that point.

and you can't really describe someone like that as a "small winning punter", imo.

none of which is to defend the whole thing, of course.

If we had any sense at all, we would walk away from it.

Exactly the point in a virtual monopoly ken, you can't.

No different to having a single electricity supplier with no regulator, who just hikes up it's prices whenever it wants, and you have no choice but to pay whatever they say.

Modj, my arbs are down on bf to a sum closer to six figures than to five figs.

This is a very valuable buffer as it's prevented me from ever paying the pc (even on a defined contribution, defined return pool betting account w/ others).

I only play horses and the odds are more accurate on here than the lines the bm s put up first thing.

unfortunately though modj, people need electricity, whereas they don't need exchange betting.

that and the fact that as gamblers people have the option of the traditional firms mean the de facto monopoly argument whilst true will never get any traction imo.

But the traditonal firms just ban you if you show signs of knowing what you are doing, so that isn't an option really. They will happily accomodate mugs who do ten match accas with 112% overounds, but dare to beat them and you will be shown the door.

Point taken that you don't "have to gamble" although for some it is their job. (not me, sadly / fortunately!)

The reason why I use exchanges is for the simple reason
of convenience, and I feel I could walk away from it, but
I do enjoy playing in a live matches, whatever they r.I do
make it pay albeit in a modest fashion, don't pay PC so
that is not a problem, although I pay the equivelent by
way of commission, that is a PC charge under a different
name. I use to go racing a lot, not so much nowadays but
still enjoy betting with bookmakers on course, I'll never
let go of that. Regards the 60% payers, BF don't want them
it's as simple as that and that's the reason for the seemingly
high charge IMO, and as I pay the equivelent, I don't have any
sympathy for them. GL.

well, I don't think there's ever going to be a benefit gig for gamblers who've made a quarter of a million plus, kenilworth.

"and as I pay the equivelent, I don't have any sympathy for them"

Or in other words, because I don't have a system whereby I can bet efficiently enough to pay a lower amount of commission comensurate with profits made, nobody else should be allowed to either

I think Betfair is a place for fun players only.
It looks as if winners have had their day in the sun.I suppose
people could see it as just a hobby like stamp collecting.
Many people will just come for the banter and have a fun bet and not worry about
winning.You see the money in diverted away from the winner now seamingly to
pay for the infastructure and other things.

I think Betfair is a place for fun players only.
It looks as if winners have had their day in the sun.I suppose
people could see it as just a hobby like stamp collecting.
Many people will just come for the banter and have a fun bet and not worry about
winning.You see the money in diverted away from the winner now seamingly to
pay for the infastructure and other things.

I think Betfair is a place for fun players only.
It looks as if winners have had their day in the sun.I suppose
people could see it as just a hobby like stamp collecting.
Many people will just come for the banter and have a fun bet and not worry about
winning.You see the money in diverted away from the winner now seamingly to
pay for the infastructure and other things.

I think Betfair is a place for fun players only.
It looks as if winners have had their day in the sun.I suppose
people could see it as just a hobby like stamp collecting.
Many people will just come for the banter and have a fun bet and not worry about
winning.You see the money in diverted away from the winner now seamingly to
pay for the infastructure and other things.

pmbets

I think you're right...Betfair is now just like bet365 but with more social media

Modjadji .   
"and as I pay the equivelent, I don't have any sympathy for them"

Or in other words, because I don't have a system whereby I can bet efficiently enough to pay a lower amount of commission comensurate with profits made, nobody else should be allowed to either

Incorrect, 99% of punters on here bet straight, but some have found a
loophole in the system and are exploiting to the cost of the 99%, so if
that loophole has been closed, I am not surprised. Do those paying the
60% surcharge have sympathy for those paying 60%+ commission, also the
losers ? Don't make me laugh.

Seems like a lot of bitter people around.

It's just business. A service provider increases prices - it happens everywhere everyday!

If your business model is wholly reliant on a sole supplier then you never had a long term business model in the first place.

Always have a plan B.

Adapt or die.

Ken, as a profitable punter yourself you are exploiting the 99% as well. Unless no-one is allowed to win and lose on here, someone is being exploited. It does come across that as far as you're concerned anyone who wins at a faster rate than you is 'at it' in some way. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are not the glass ceiling of human endeavour in straight gambling, no-one has that position.

In terms of sympathy towards people who pay 60% commission from PC2 payers, what sympathy do you have to people who pay 99% commission, or who lose money on here to you? None I suspect by virtue of the fact you are still on here making bets trying to take their money. It's a bit late to try and apply some vague communist ideals to a concept like a betting exchange you've also made money from.

ics, people who are being charged a PC are not recreational
punters backing winners and losers, sometimes winning, more
often losing, overall the commission beating them in the whole.
PC payers are exploiting a loophole in the system and are
exploiting it to the extent that the are keeping 95% of their
profits and the brokers (BF) were never going to stand for
a group of people giving them 5% of their profits as payments
for the use of their creation. We are not talking about people
who are good at picking winners but something else, and BF were
never going to stand for that. I don't think BF ever envisaged
this happening and are now doing something about it. It may be
that if the trsders, PC payers disappeared, the prices I back
at may get better, I don't know, but I do know that I am not
better of while they are creaming mone out of the market day
after day. On my betting, I have paid over the years 64% of my
gross profit and most of that has been in the most recent
years, to the point where I now bet less and less as backable
prices are harder to find. I'm doing the same as I was 5/7 years
ago but nowhere near as successful, so something has happened
to the markets. I'm not jealous of PC payers, and could do the
same as the do but I choose not to, all I say is don't complain
now the loophole has been closed. Just an opinion, and what I
think won't make any difference, or do you think BF will be
influenced by my opinion ? If I am doing better than some others
I am doing it betting straight, not what PC payers are doing.

Of course the average winner on here would be better off if a large group of other winners 'dissappears'.
Wasn't any 'loophole' that existed already closed with the original Premium Charge?

There are financial traders who are billionaires paying less than 30% in trading fees (some even pay a minuscule fraction of that). I don't hear any of their brokers imposing a 10fold increase in charges over 3 years, because they couldn't. There is a healthly level of competition.

This has nothing to do with 'loopholes' being closed and everything to do with a lack of healthy competition among betting exchanges.

Ken, how would you feel if the ultimate loophole is closed and long term winners are charged 80% or 90% of winnings.

It's ok when some small minority of other people are adversely affected, but people have a habit of changing their tune when they are affected themselves.

These people don't 'bet' in the conventional way, so the
exchange would be better of without them, they weren't
anticipated in the first place, and I believe the imposition
of the PC, 20% and 60%, are steps to remove them. The first
charge didn't work, maybe the 60% will work though. It may be
a small minority of other people but I am sure there
is a lot of money involved.

Ken, I am in the PC2 net. I don't trade, I don't bet in running, I don't courtside, I'm not using robots, 95% of my bets are lays, I'm not subject to insider information, I have a full time job, I have sizeable spells without winning. What is this mythical loophole I'm exploiting? Because whatever it is, I suspect you are doing it also, just at a slower rate.

It is a tax on rate of winning not strategy used, because those two can be disentangled in a matter of minutes. Similarly there will be plenty of people who never pay PC who do untold 'damage' to the site- there might be a trap bettor who catches a few people out and ensures they never come back, but never ultimately makes the PC cut. There might be someone who operates micro robots that deter people from placing bets in markets, why try and back or lay on here when your bets get immediately covered, might as well just use a regular book, and so on.

ics, I am generalising so if everything you say is true,
then perhaps I am referring to all Super PC payers bar you. You
seem to be a special case, take it up with Betfair.

If I can do it, it's a certainty there will be others in the same situation.

It would only be worth taking it up with Betfair if it wasn't intended to be a tax on rate of winnings.

The loopholes were never closed, that's the problem. The PC didn't close the loopholes, it legitimised them. It legitimised all of them, the illegal, the quasi-legal but definitely unethical, and the mildly distasteful arbers and traders.

Now that BF is taking the majority share of the profits, what incentive do they have to close any loopholes? In effect they've gone from being an accomplice to the ringleader, reaping the lion's share of the profits from the various nefarious schemes.

Anyone who wins at a faster rate than kenilworth HAS to be cheating.

(It's physically impossible to do so otherwise)

**** END OF THREAD ****

"and the mildly distasteful arbers and traders"

Not sure why you would say that, as these are among the biggest providers of liquidity on the site, without which "normal" punters would find it harder to get their bets matched!

By the way, ICS is not a special case, he is just one of a totally-predictable unfortunate minority.

Remember this: if a hundred monkeys each made two totally random bets a week on betfair, after 10 years/1000 markets at least TWENTY monkeys will have a lifetime profit and less than 40% commission paid. Yes, you heard right. More than 20% of big betters will pay PC even if they have absolutely no betting strategy at all.

These PC-paying monkeys must exist, statistics dictates it. Why don't we hear from them? Because they don't know they are monkeys. They think they have found a winning formula, naturally. Anybody would think that, having made £250,000 in over 1000 markets.

It seems a cord has been struck with modjadji.

I do not trade. When I first came on here it puzzled me when, after taking a price the money for that price was more or less replaced straight away. Of course after a short while I realised that it was people trading back/lay. Its not often I post on here these days but it seems to me that all types of punters are needed to make the whole thing work fluidly.

ken if i understand you correctly, the exchange would be better off without PC paying winners?

If the current batch of winners was removed, people like you would on average become more consistent winners (you will be getting matched at better value, as there is less 'smart money' around).

What I do want to know though, is what your reaction would be if betfair decided to get rid of the PC payers that according to you they would be better of without and this sequence of events occured:

1) current batch of PC payers is removed.
2) kenilworth and friends quickly start to make much larger and more consistent profits as the ratio of smart money / mug money has shifted massively in their favour
3) kenilworth wins too consistently and is removed.


Like I said, I think you would be ready to change your tune very quickly.

You could of course take measure to win 'less consistently' but this is what current PC payers are already doing anyway!

kenilworth

I im just a punter..I don't have fast TV, inside info, and don't trade....but if I didn't get better at my punting each year , i would not be now making a profit

IF you believe the PC help you get a better price, your a donkey

Two good posts sun.

Not sure why you would say that, as these are among the biggest providers of liquidity on the site, without which "normal" punters would find it harder to get their bets matched!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

very good chance Im the lucky monkey....It better to be lucky then smart

[b]Investor2[/b], You have a very vivid imagination and I think
I will just give it a miss, as I don't feel like attempting a response
to such hypothetical situations, especially when you seem to be trying
to take the p!ss.

That's a shame Kenilworth, as from where I see things, TheInvestor2 has a very valid point.

getafix, you answer it for me, giving you a chance
to use our imagination. An imaginary answer to an amaginary
question.

It's called contingency planning ken.

In a nutshell: You'll be singing a different tune when you're the one affected.

how anyone can defend the 60 percent charge? if they are they definitely not paying it or only thing left works for bet unfair

Kenilworth, I don't need to use my imagination, I now "shop" before placing my bets.  In the past it would have been 100% betfair (even if price better elsewhere (but still value at bf prices)).  Not all PC2/3 payers though are fortunate to be sole backers/layers/value players; therefore they will get replaced by the next 250k limit band (or "new" accounts/alter egos of those who have used up their allowance already - there will be no risk in being rumbled).  Don't be so naive to think it is just Sumo who is affected.  There will be a quite a small chunk of "ordinary" players (not monkeys lol).  This is proved simply by looking at the difference in purple's pre race liquidity.

Investor, I won't be singing any different tune, as
it's not that important to me.

Rs1, They don't have to justify it, the are happy
knowing they have no where else to go, and if they do,
they BF, will consider themselves well rid.

Sorry if that seems harsh, but it's realistic.

The increase in purple's/other exchanges liquidity imo is partially down to the pc players such as myself now offering bets at multiple places. There is very little risk comparatively to the costs of paying PC.

Getafix, I really don't know, or care how many are affected by the
PC. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here and have no agenda, I just
say it as I see it, sorry if it ruffles you. You say there are
a lot of 'ordinary' players, and you may well be right and BF
know exactly how many. They, BF, will do what they think best for
the company, and you shouldn't expect them to do anything else.

there is no where to go ... but that doesn't mean put up an unfair charge out of greed

harsh reality we stuck with it an even may get worse ...

I'm still hoping something else comes along .. if it does it won't be bet  c a c k or some W ankers B ollox Exchange

you know what i mean ...

Fair point, it doesn't generally ruffle me, the only point that does is the general notion that only cheats are paying pc2/3 this is definitely not the case and it affects the "normal" (or should I say regular type bettor (no trading whatsoever)) punters too.  It is just another obstacle for me and am happy to pay in order to use betfair but I will try and reduce costs wherever possible.  My fear is for betfair themselves, as I believe the shift of "value" players placing bets at numerous exchanges will be more costly to betfair than the amounts they were hoping to receive in new pc payments.  If pc2/3 fails then it will only get worse for everybody as I believe it will just mean new bf charges dreampt up and applied!  That is, of course, if the argument that the exchange in its pre pc2/3 status was not sustainable - which has not yet been proved. Only time will tell!

sun
02 Sep 11 16:23   

By the way, ICS is not a special case, he is just one of a totally-predictable unfortunate minority.

Remember this: if a hundred monkeys each made two totally random bets a week on betfair, after 10 years/1000 markets at least TWENTY monkeys will have a lifetime profit and less than 40% commission paid. Yes, you heard right. More than 20% of big betters will pay PC even if they have absolutely no betting strategy at all.


sun, I haven't done any calculation on this, but I consider myself to have a very good understanding of maths and probabilities and I refuse to believe this could be correct unless you come up with some kind of proof.

Eddie I did a simulation of this, 1000 coin tosses of a fair coin paying 2% comm when winning and 3% implied.

This strategy was in PC territory 9 times out of 200, with lowest comm generated of these 9 times 29.26%. That might be exceptionally low though, as the other 8 were above 36%.

Someone should run a simulation tens of thousands of times to get more accurate figures.

Seems like out of the 100 monkeys about 4-5 will pay PC rather than 'at least 20'.

Wait, I'm gonna do this properly [;)]

Nah what I posted before was completely wrong sorry

Hi Eddie
You can check for yourself that a punter at 2% comm betting flat stakes at odds of 2.0 will have to win 516 out of 1000 bets to have paid less than 40% of profits in (deemed) commission. The chances of this happening can be looked up in Binomial Distribution tables or Excel as 16.35%

But that is the best case scenario. At odds higher or lower than even money, the chances increase. For instance, if all the bets are at odds of 11, 97 wins makes you liable for PC3, odds of 26.62%. Similarly for odds-on, eg at 1.1 it's 915 wins, chances 27.92%. And punters backing 1.01 shots have nearly a 50% chance of being liable for PC 'by accident'.

If, as is likely, the stakes are not all the same, then that will also increase the probabilty of having to pay PC3 compared to the level-stakes examples above.

Having checked this, I am sure you will agree that any simulation with 1000 bets of mixed stakes and odds will almost certainly produce a 'accidental PC rate' of more than 20%.

Because of the £250,000 threshold, the above only applies to punters making very large bets. It should certainly apply to anybody on 2% commission.