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.

No

IMO..!

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

The answer is NO 100%.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

*accommodated!!

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?

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

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

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

Betfair's effectively a closed shop now.

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

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!

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.

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!