I don't know the t&c's of the PC debacle, however, if I lose 52k this year....

There aren't any simple yes or no's with the PC, all depends on what your lifetime rates and percentages are at the end of this year after losing that £52K.

Ghetto Joe has a point, but I would answer your question with a :
  No, in all likelyhood it will not.

No

PC will be at a much lower level next year as Purple and co increase market share.

IMO..!

Under the following assumptions you would be paying your first PC payment by week 3 or 4

1) You start as a 40% PC payer with a PC buffer of 0.
2) Your commission is 5%
3) You place one bet at evens for the 52k loss.
4) Subsequent weeks are 1 bet only (which win) at odds of evens for £1k.

I think this will explain why there is no definitive yes/no answer.  It depends!

How can he possibly pay P.C. until he reaches a new high in gross profit.

The answer is NO 100%.

Losing,and then winning £52K puts him in a better position regarding P.C.   

He now also has a buffer equal to all the commission generated during
this time.

Apologies, I was definitely wrong. For some reason I hadn't incorporated the lifetime gross pnl buffer into my thinking (long day)!

JML if someones starting from scratch obviously the answers no but stewarty's been here since 2002, so without the full figures you can't really say one way or another.

Someone with lifetime net profit of £750K could lose £500K in a year and still end up being liable for PC the next year. Takes a lot implied comms of 3% on losing bets to get you over that 40% limit.

If purple and co increase market share the pc change on here will be reduced drastically IMHO.

JML, as I said the answer will in all probability be no, but there are scenarios where one could be liable for PC2 at some point during next years recovery.

Before he started on his £52K loss the charges on his account would have been fully paid. i.e (60%) Gross profit £2m Total charges £1.2m.

There is no way for him,from this point,to lose £52K and then win £52K
and pay P.C.

Even if you take the worst case senario, where he loses £52K without any wins, and wins £52K net without any loses.

On 2% his gross profit would increase by £1061 with £1310 generated in commission.

On 5% the figures are £2736/£2148.

In both cases the commission generated is more than 60% of gross profit

Ghetto Joe 30 Aug 11 20:16 
Someone with lifetime net profit of £750K could lose £500K in a year and still end up being liable for PC the next year. Takes a lot implied comms of 3% on losing bets to get you over that 40% limit.

Obviouslly he could be liable for P.C. the next year but not before he won back the £500K.

Thanks for the replies lads. It was a somewhat hypothetical example I gave, but it proved to me a few things.

Firstly, those who genuinely know how the PC charge works are very thin on the ground.

Secondly, when PC1 was introduced I was on the phone to BF straight away as I was on a good run at the time and they assured me I would recieve an E.Mail a week in advance informing me if I was going to be liable to pay 20% of my hard earned.

This was of no use to me and I started giving purple more of my buisness due to the increased liquidity there, due to the mass migration.......

The mass migration didn't pan out as I thought but I tried to stick to my guns more as a matter of principle more than anything else, however sometimes it felt like being on the picket line and being trodden on by scabs...

Now that PC2 has been invented by the 'sharp minds', liquidity has definitely picked up and I'ts very seldom I don't get matched to satisfy my needs.

I still give BF some buisness, especially on the place markets, however, luckily for me it's a 1.01 chance that I'll ever pay the PC charge, and in the unlikely event I do, it will only happen once....

As for the clients who say it doesn't bother them paying it(after all, they're the big winners) all I can say to them is, b0ll0x.

it's a 1.01 chance that I'll ever pay the PC charge, and in the unlikely event I do, it will only happen once....


*That should read 999/1 chance.

Wish I'd laid that 1.01-you were a bit slow to correct the error!!!

I never slept well last night, making me a bit foggy headed. Plus the fact I was having a nightmare that I was having a really bad run of seconditis.

On awakening the nightmare turned out to be true!!

That's not very businesslike, stewarty.  You can say b0ll0x to me if you like but I'm happy to keep playing on here while I'm still making a profit. I understood all along that the terms of doing this are volatile and if I have to pay pc (I haven't yet) it's cool with me.  If I start making a loss, I'll stop.

Are you a trader catfliipo? The reason I ask is that maybe you can't get accomadated elswhere?


As for.......and if I have to pay pc (I haven't yet) it's cool with me.


Well it might be cool for you, but it wouldn't be cool for me. (each to their own) I was celebrating when they done away with the 9% betting tax. I just cannot fathom how anybody can be cool giving away 20% and upwards of their winnings, plus commission.

*accommodated!!

No, I run a bot.  As betfair contribute significantly to my ability to win I see it as how the winnings are divided between us rather than them taking my winnings from me.  If they are happy with the deal it much more sustainable.

But I fully appreciate that you see it differently as I probably would myself in different circumstances.

You run a bot? In that case, you'll have to excuse me as I'm not that techy minded. Is your bot for punting, trading or a bit of both? (if that makes sense)

Also, can't you run a bot elswhere?

JML, he didn't say he would lose 52 k from this point, he said this year.
  He could have lost most of that 52 k before July 18th and still have to be topped up to 40 % that day.
  If that were the case he could very well be liable for PC2 at some time next year.

Yes, that does make sense.  It does bits of everything, I wrote it to emulate what I was doing manually on the site.

That is not the case Eddie, as was explained,by catfloppo, in your thread "Question about the PC portal".


The only loses ,from this year, that are not covered are those from Sat Jan 1 and Sun Jan 2. They might already be accounted for from winnings
earlier that week.

In theory, he could have lost £52K this year(Jan 1 & 2) and have no buffer.

Good luck with your venture catfliipo. I wish you continued success.

Also, there are rumours about Betfair closing losing accounts that suddenly start winning.

An arber that has lost half a million on Betfair, suddenly has a very valuable account. I've heard of cases (though not sure if true) where these accounts suddenly started winning and were subsequently closed, most likely due to the fact that bf suspected a PC2 payer had 'bought' the account. That story was somewhere on the 'premium charges fiasco' site on facebook.

so even if you are a long term loser, you account will be closed if you find a winning strategy -

You too stewarty :)

Betfair's effectively a closed shop now.

in no way defending betfairs pc2 move but regarding the rumours posted by investor2,  why would accounts that suddenly make profit thus create more charge for betfair be closed down, thats the loss of good liquidity and com charge.

they would close them if they think they are being used for PC avoidance, which is what Investor said.

in no way defending betfairs pc2 move but regarding the rumours posted by investor2,  why would accounts that suddenly make profit thus create more charge for betfair be closed down, thats the loss of good liquidity and com charge.

Because Betfair would be assuming that those accounts were being used by people who are evading PC2. If those people are forced to use their real accounts, Betfair will make a lot more.

You can't have your cake *and* eat it BF. Study the following statements..

1. Successful bettors are bad for Betfair, because they take money out of the main pool and transfer it to their own bank accounts, making the Betfair model unprofitable.

2. Successful bettors are good for Betfair, since they create strong liquidity and pay plenty in terms of commissions.


You, the p*ss artist formerly known as Fine-As-Frog-Hair, and Betfair seem to keep arguing for statement 1. If 1 does hold, it would make a lot of sense for Betfair to close down accounts where the holders have magically turned from mugs to money making machines overnight, since there's a good chance those accounts will have been sold to disgruntled PC2ers. Since these accounts are now in the hands of the same successful bettors who are, according to your logic, destroying the Betfair model, they must be stopped.

Of course, it could be that the many posters arguing for statement 2 are right after all. In which case it makes no sense to close down these accounts.   However, you can't argue for statement 1 and then also argue against the idea of closing down the said accounts. There would be a clear contradiction there!

Well, my Lord, unfortunately your post is fundamentally flawed as it's point rests on the assertion that success on here equates to pc liability.  This is not true, there are successful players who don't pay pc and moderately successful players who do.

The fact is, now bf have introduced the pc, all users are valuable since they are all 'paying their dues'.  Except those that have left of course, unless you consider an uneconomical user who has migrated to a rival to be an asset of some kind [;)]

I can't see successful PC payers trying to avoid paying by using losing accounts as surely all winnings would  be creditted to that account's bank.that person would then have to credit the PC payers bank.Would need a lot of trust on both sides and would risk money laundering allegations I would have thought.Also,there may be tax implications if gambling winnings were to besubject to income tax in the future.

betfair is fat and lazy company....so betfair is a f-cked company...Pink slip for betfair employee soon

start betting in the offices on who be in the 1st group of employee to go

Lord bobbin why retort to fowl language and accusations that I work for bf or that I am aka fafh
as they are pure diversion tactics from the real debates on here.

In respect to yours and many wild claims that betfair dont want winners how come no one has
mentioned the possible real reason why betfair has been forced to raise its charges on operators that use betfair that are indeed bookmakers and persons running there accounts in profit may well be interpreted as bookmakers as they are impart acting as bookmakers without a license on the will of
any exchange that takes them on at the expense of reduced marginal profit turnover of monies.

To compond my very valid point that its bookmakers that are leaching exchanges dry please read this
peice of information that follows from wikipedia on betdak and take note to the time that bookmakers started using betdak and what happened to the way they then had to charge, also remember that
the bookmakers then turned to befair shortly after and in 2008 betfair had to raise charges on winners that were perceived to be bookmakers.

Please also take into account that bookmakers have a wealth of contacts to arrive at what is going to win and lose races and that there LBO have pages for warnings taking bets on arranged good things.

THE WIKIPEDIA DATA ON BETDAK AND THE LINK TO BOOKMAKERS CHANGING THE PROFITABILITY OF EXCHANGES.

Interviewed as he left BETDAK in February 2005, Hartnett made several comments about the company's initial launch and development. The company's initial aim at the high-roller end of the market "had allowed the competition to get a market leap on us", and "Our technology wasn't as good as Betfair's in those vital early days of building volumes and building the brand. So when we moved into the UK and the horseracing markets, we began a step-by-step improvement. But we were still behind — that was what the market was telling us."[4][dead link] In a rare interview the preceding month with Racing Post journalist Jim Cremin, Desmond had accepted that BETDAK "is not profitable yet" and had "cost him a fortune", but had stated that he "believes the medium-term prospects are encouraging".[5][dead link]

In September 2005, **** reached the point that, in the words of Racing Post journalist Howard Wright, it could "no longer sustain a low commission rate for customers" leaving its "one discernible commercial advantage over the dominant market leader Betfair [...] gone".[6][dead link] The company which, according to fellow journalist Bruce Jackson, had, when it had been first launched, prided itself on a 3% rate and offering zero commission, had "failed to match Betfair in the publicity stakes, along with liquidity on most markets" and moved to imposing a higher 5% tax rate on winners.[7][dead link]

In November 2005, William Hill transferred its hedging activities from the racecourse to betting exchanges, primarily BETDAK, prompting commentators to speculate that the "Big Three" bookmakers could take control of BETDAK in order to undermine Betfair's market.[8][9][dead link] Hartnett had been quoted in a 2005 interview speculating that a company such as BETDAK could provide an ideal entry point to the betting exchange business for bookmakers such as William Hill and Ladbrokes.[10]



MAKE WHAT YOU WANT FROM THIS BUT REST ASSURED THERE IS A PROFOUND EFFECT MADE ON REVENUES WHEN BOOKMAKERS USE EXCHANGES AND THE THEN PROFITS MADE SO THIS SHORTFALL WHICH IS LOSS OF FUTURE INVESTMENT HAS TO BE FOUND FROM SOMEWHERE!

that what a f-cking exchange is meant to do....bookmakers hedging would mean the exchange is working....a exchange is not meant for betfair to try and keep 100% of all f-cking money

Catflippo, clearly Betfair feel that even the original PC isn't enough. That's why they've introduced the PC2. Now, as long as everyone pays the PC/PC2 when due, they can supposedly be said to be doing their part to maintain the Betfair model.   But if they come to an arrangement with a losing player to take over the latter's account (and nbdbscms, I'm not personally saying whether I believe such a practice is taking place or not), then they can theoretically make lots of money without having to pay any form of the PC.   Under those circumstances, they could be taking considerable amounts of money out of the system without 'paying their dues'. Hence they wouldn't be 'valuable'.

If they are trading using somebody else's losing account, they aren't paying the PC. Therefore they're not 'valuable'. But they could be still taking money out of the system if they're good. I'm afraid, dear Cat, your agument is the one that's flawed!


PS: I do appreciate there are different types of user who may or may not be subject to the PC. But here I'm covering the rather general principle that BF appears to be getting in a mix about.

Anyone one that doubts the big 480 customers at betfair may be bookmakers is living in cloud cuckoo land, in my younger days I remember seeing a manager from william hills placing a wad of bets on at ladbrokes and this sort of thing is well known, also take into account how many contacts the big three bookmakers have in the racing industry, there ownership of greyhound tracks and the fact they
always know which horse should start at odds on in maiden races or the fact that the have security pages in there LBO warning offices about limiting the bets on particular runners, this I know because a few years ago a friend of mine received tips from a biog bookmaker from these very pages but of course other bookmakers refused to take any big bets on the runner that won at 6//1

Its not rocket science to work out that the big bookmakers are placing hefty wagers on certain runners and hedging many events on exchanges at the loss to these exchanges as they make less comm charges on this money that is taken from all you normal punters, winning or losing ones.

I blame the parasites that are the main bookmakers for leaching the profit from exchanges and I understand that the other site may have to raise its charges at some point unless the main bookmakers are aiming of course to derail betfair soley by unfair means and practices, you cant blame betfair or betdak for being concerned at any point in there development and having to raise charges as the bookmakers have there fingers in so many pies as we all know to well and would love to be rid of betfair once and for all.

what is an Exchange for then?

im not a bookamkers...never been a bookmaker..so f-ck off bf

What are bookmakers for then when Andy Blacks father an MP wanted them shut down many years ago, there parasites feeding punters with addictive ways and throwing winning punters on the streets, how dare bookmakers use exchanges, the bookmakers should be banned from using exchanges in my view, bookmakers cant be trusted.

betfair a bookmaker now

Of course they have a bookmakers license but its probably more the case that betdak are acting as a bookmaker now with 1bet facility in place and I cant see where they can be hedging there bets if someone is betting beyond the capacity of BF and BD liquidity so it brings into question there at the moment there is only one true exchange, luckily for us its also still the best[;)]

P.s. Nairda there is no  reason for bad language on  a public forum how ever much you value your own importance its very rude and not the British way of engaging peoples attention.

Sounds like you don't travel Britain very much, BF!

i'm not British, so f-ck off

bf-fananatic, the 480 aren't the biggest customers, they're the PC2 payers, which isn't the same thing. I would suspect that the top 5 biggest winners on Betfair do not pay PC.

I am pretty certain that none of the big bookmakers operating on here for hedging purposes pay PC. In fact I would expect they don't even make a profit, much like Betfair itself doesn't when hedging multiples risk. Hedging is used to create more stable profit, but usually this costs money rather than making money.

P.s. Nairda there is no  reason for bad language on  a public forum how ever much you value your own importance its very rude and not the British way of engaging peoples attention

Quite right. The British way of engaging people's attention is to chuck a bin through a Footlocker window and set fire to a few cars.

Hi,

I f I move over to the other betting exchange, do they charge premium charges?

Many thanks

Nickleodeon Childsy

Getting back to my 10.33 post yesterday. I was going to make a further point, but decided to wait and see how this thread might pan out. (A point that seems more relevant now)

Can you imagine some bloke meeting up with an old friend and  recommending Betfair to him? He tells his friend about the 20% better odds, the commission structure, how he gets 14/1 for a 10/1 shot and how he can even lay horses he doesn't fancy etc.

He also mentions that there are plenty of different forums where he can join in discussions, especially his favourite punting of choice.....horseracing.

He tells him that his own favourite forum is general betting, where all the sharp minds exist and that's the place to really concentrate on. (rightly so imo)

Anyways, his friend, (being a decent reader of the form)is mightily impressed, signs up for what he thinks is going to be a long and fruitful relationship with Betfair.

He doesn't have a bet at first and decides to sample the GB forum and by chance pops into this thread.

He reads it all and his eyes roll back in horror at what reads, finding it all a bit much to comprehend. He doesn't like all this gibberish about a PC charge, how it works, how much does he have to win until he pays 20%, is it possible he might even pay 40%?, or even 60%?, of his winning if as he thinks, he has a good chance of being successful?

He has second thoughts and withdraws his balance, knowing full well he'll have to troll around the city placing his bets on with the big three and others, as he's already been banned from a couple of shops for his stealing EW doubles and trebles.

However, he always has that little trick up his sleeve which has served him well in the past.

He's cunning and knows that if he frequents the big bookies that are always full of chinese punters throwing away their hard earned cash after a long shift in their kitchens tossing their woks for hours on end. His £200 bets are hardly given a second glance as the chinese bombard the counter with their multitude of horseracing and dog bets.


He tally's up his winnings for the year.....30k, very impressive he thinks to himself, knowing full well that it would have only been a maximum of 24k if he had stayed with BF.......less all that commission.....

Far fetched???? Not really, just another good liquidity provider lost to BF because of the crazy PC charge, along with many others.


PS I thought I would keep this post brief rather than tedious....

So stewart you are suggesting that if say some big puter on here that has made millions over the years has a problem paying his charges that he scour china town for some seedy well known bookmaker and place bets there, wok the hell are you tinking

Well wouldn't the person above be shooting himself in the foot?   Surely, if he's only placing bets when he can do it under the cover of multitudes of Chinese wokwanglers, and is making a good profit from those wagers, then he really ought to be betting rather more than he does?   

If he was on Betfair, he wouldn't need to wait for the few moments when he can slip his bets past the bookmakers unnoticed. Instead, he could bet every day, and in as large quantities as liquidity would allow. If he makes twice as much over the course of a year, he's going to end up with considerably more in his pocket, even if he's paying out 40%. And under current rules (and I appreciate the threshold may come down), he's unlikely to pay more than 20% until he's made his first £250K in any case.

I'm not saying that the person in your example wouldn't be put off. Just that, for now, he shouldn't allow himself to be. If he's making £30K while playing cat and mouse with the bookies, he could probably make £50-£60K on Betfair with greater ease. If Betfair changes its rules again, he can always go back to doing what he currently does with the bookies, only he'll probably be doing it with considerably more in the bank than he would have had.

I'm getting worried about you stalking me bff. Anymore of it and I'll ask for your address and send you the latest gift I recieved from a rival exchange. It's a pink T-shirt with the letters W B X on it. Wear it with pride.

LordBobbin, I'm sure you will appreciate it is a hypothetical example I've used. He might make 100k per annum. The point is, he doesn't want to be penalised in any way for being good at what he does!

As for.....then he really ought to be betting rather more than he does?

Perhaps he has a set target each year, perhaps he doesn't want to draw attention to himself, (something that would be noticed on here rapidly) and perhaps he only has a limited bank, and perhaps he's not greedy. etc. etc.

But none of that is really relevant. I'm not saying he has to make more than £30K a year - just that he probably could, using Betfair.    If he wants to make £30K a year, he can choose to do it by wasting a huge number of hours standing around in bookies waiting for those odd moments when he can slip a decent sized bet past the counters.     

Alternatively, he can set £36K as his target (£6K of that being the 20% commission - not that he'll necessarily be liable to pay that for a while). He can then bet from the safety and comfort of his own home. He can decide exactly which bets he wants to play without worrying about whether his money will be accepted, and without having to smuggle it through.  Almost certainly he'll find it much much easier and faster to make his 30K on Betfair then he will trying to fight the bookies. Somebody making £30-£36K a year almost certainly wouldn't be noticed on Betfair.

I don't like the PC/PC2, but your hypothetical punter would be mad to think it's better to run from bookmaker to bookmaker trying to slip through a bet - unless, of course, it's the thrill of being in the bookies that attracts him, in which case he probably wouldn't be a BF target to start with.

Or, he could just use betdak and save himself any worries about paying the PC charge.

Absolutely right. He could. And that might well be his first choice - I'm most definitely not arguing that Betfair's stupid charges won't drive punters away to the competition.   

However, if he decided to choose following the Chinese woksmen into the bookies over using either of the main betting exchanges, he'd almost certainly be cutting off his nose to spite his face.

he'd almost certainly be cutting off his nose to spite his face.


Absolutely right. There are other scenarios however. Maybe he values his privacy, maybe he doesn't want to leave a paper trail, maybe he's married with four kids and claiming benefits due to redundancy  and wants to give his family a better standard of living which doesn't allow him to have more than 7k?? in savings. And just maybe, he doesn't want his data dished out to dozens of tipsters, loan companies and all the other spam merchants out there. Which I know for a fact does happen.

And maybe, he thinks these scenarios are relevant.

Oh crikey...   I doubt somebody so wussy about his privacy is going to be the sort of person who wants to hang out at bookies for large parts of his life. 

And in any case, if those are things that concern him, he probably wouldn't ever want to bet with a betting exchange - and in that case I don't see why he's relevant to this thread. It would be the privacy issues that would be putting him off. Nothing to do with the PC debacle.

Good posts lord bobbin, sorry stewarty b if you think I am stalking you but just its s forum and
if we didn't reply then why post in the first place?

Lord bobbins point and yours and probably everyones concerned with betfair is the damage done to the
company image by grossly charging winners that will effect everyones perception of the fairness of betfair in the longterm, the fact that only a handful are affected by pc2 is little respite for the millions that aspire to do so and as an example;

If the millions that  ever embarked in the gold rushs over the centuries were told there was a chance the gold they may find will only fetch 40% of the gross price at a gold brokers then surely the rush would stall or they would sell the gold somewhere else for a higer price, the fact that a tiny percentage ever found gold in large amounts isnt the controlling "feel good factor" and betfairs big problem now is getting the feel good factor back into its customers old or new

the fact that only a handful are affected by pc2 is little respite for the millions that aspire to do so and as an example;



How do you know it's only a handful bff? Are you privy to all Betfair's figures? If not, where are getting this information from?

*where are you

thread could have been done and dusted with a couple of "no"s and a "thank you", imo

Stewart betfair stated that some 480 will be charged the pc2, around 0.01 percent of there customer base, I don't have to work for a company to know that, pray tell that betfairs interview filtering system would be more harder to pass that that and anyway why would betfair want an overactive nut job like me, as some people classify me now and cant blame them really as I have been to involved with matters but thats what drives me a powerful urge to discover and aspire as I am sure do most of the passionate customers albeit with different now conceptions of the betfair model and pop betting 2011.

Stewart betfair stated that some 480 will be charged the pc2



And you believe eveything Betfair state do you? I will take that figure with a pinch of salt.

Pray tell, how many clients did they state were affected by PC1?

Well, that figure is going to rise of course over time but on the flip-side not all of the 480 have actually paid pc yet and may never do - they have to erode their buffers first.