General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
30 Aug 11
14:01
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 02
They'll make a private deal with the main liquidity providers and charge a percentage of net winnings with that percentage increasing the more you've won (net) over the lifetime of the account. Normal commission you've already paid will be ignored with respect to this calculation.
e.g. You've won 10 million gross, 1 million net (i.e. you've already paid 90% commission) but you'll still be charged pc.
e.g. You've won 10 million gross, 1 million net (i.e. you've already paid 90% commission) but you'll still be charged pc.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 4
|
By:
Exchanges in dominant positions that grossly over-charge have to be careful a rival doesn't use the information in reverse and make an offer like
Sign up with us before dec 20th and we will never charge you more than 5% on the lifetime of your membership, agreed and honored. Would make a big hole in an overcharging company as its what the competition look for weakness in there rivals services. (the above statement is only an example of a possible promotional idea and is in no way relevant to any company policy presently.) |
|
By:
e.g. You've won 10 million gross, 1 million net (i.e. you've already paid 90% commission) but you'll still be charged pc. That's just the equivalent of closing accounts. Looking at Betting Promotion's figures for 2010: Gross Betting Profit £2.44M Commission £1.57M Net Betting Profit £0.86M Operating Income £0.12M They'd be dead in the water with an increase in charges based on "net" profit. Some smaller players are in a similar situation with Sky, internet, server, programmers and whatever other costs come out of "net" profit. I know they'll probably be considered a 'main liquidity provider', but so is every else that is making millions and already paying lots of commission. How will they distinguish between them? |
|
By:
The main liquidity providers are those they want to keep in the game at the expense of the 'parasites' making money at a better ratio of comm. to profits.
This is especially so when these people make money on a 'rent-seeking' basis through a botted-up algo strategy. Otherwise, to me there are close parallels between what they've already done (i.e. re-working the terms of a profit share arrangement) and what you've just suggested. |
|
By:
jump, jump before the ship goes down
|