Premium charge, can somebody explain me this, please...

they will charge you the difference to get to 20% commission on a weekly basic

Is It rule for all or they just punish me for sucessfull account?

betfair think  all the deposits made into accounts is there money..... so if anyone wins they will now go into your account and steal it every wednesday !!! :)  enjoy!

OMG!!!!! I can't believe it!!!! Why they do that? It,s robbery!

It's a rule for all successfull accounts. (not exactly but that's the generalisation)

Not many English speaking people understand it either.  It's a weekly charge based on the ratio of winning to losing markets you've had.

They should only charge if you've won too quickly, starting again from the point at which you were last charged (although there may be odd exceptions).  How much extra they will charge you is dependent on the ratio of your winning to losing markets.

For example... If I earn 1000 euros for a week and paid 100 euros commison they will take 100 euros more from my account with explanation "You earned good, give us some of your money!" I can't f*cking beleieve it!

some players have to pay %60 of there winnings every week !   :(

Bob -don't feel so bad ,losing punters on here have to pay back 100% of their winnings every year

ive always said id love to be paying premium charge..i guess i would feel a bit differently if it happened though

For full details about the premium charge on your account, view the page at:

https://account.betfair.com/regpay-myaccount/premiumcharge/summary.html

It is updated weekly. If it's the first time you've seen that, it's only going to confuse you more. You really need to read the full explanation of the charge & how it is calculated:

http://sports.betfair.com/aboutUs/Betfair.Charges/#charges7

For example... If I earn 1000 euros for a week and paid 100 euros commison they will take 100 euros more from my account

--------

it's a bit more complicated than that. it could be more and it could be less, depending on your ratio of wins to losses and your discount rate.

BF feel their facility is for their benefit, not yours and you paying
just 10% (or less) of your profit is not in their best interest. Under
stable in my view.

BETFAIR just the same as the TAXMAN if you get a few bits they want more than there share.

CONER, it's their toy so are entitled to ask for a
fair remuneration from those who want to play with it.

and standard commission isnt fair enough renumeration iyo?

Not from traders it isn't.

I will qualify that. I mean successful traders.

"Fair" has nothing to do with it. If customers were leaving in droves to cheaper exchanges, BF would drop prices in a flash.
It's not just successful traders paying higher prices here. The cross matching skimbot extracts cash from the exchange regardless. They basically extract what they can without destroying the exchange, regardless of any concept of fairness.
If you have a stall in a market, would it be "fair" to pay more for it because you are more profitable than another stall?

If you have a stall in a market, would it be "fair" to pay more for it because you are more profitable than another stall?

Yes it would IMO

Even if both sell tea and coffee but one happens to be more efficient and competent at their job?

I'm not sure your view fits into any econimic model, kenilworth other than an abuse of a monopoly. Are you a BF consultant perchance?

ken if your bookmaker shop, back in the day had been charged more than shops in the same high street on that basis, you wouldnt have survived

Jan 7, 2013 -- 7:25PM, 1.01 Layer wrote:

"Fair" has nothing to do with it. If customers were leaving in droves to cheaper exchanges, BF would drop prices in a fla**** not just successful traders paying higher prices here. The cross matching skimbot extracts cash from the exchange regardless. They basically extract what they can without destroying the exchange, regardless of any concept of fairness.If you have a stall in a market, would it be "fair" to pay more for it because you are more profitable than another stall?

Not sure why people are annoyed with crossmatching. You get matched at odds you want and get matched more often.

1.01 Layer Joined: 23 Aug 03
Replies: 4276 07 Jan 13 20:50   


Even if both sell tea and coffee but one happens to be more efficient and competent at their job?

I'm not sure your view fits into any econimic model, kenilworth other than an abuse of a monopoly. Are you a BF consultant perchance? 

1.01, I thought you were asking a serious question but seemingly not, moving to
frivolity it seems. Perhaps influenced by the PC.
Regards rent, I had to pay higher rent than shops adjoining, that being common
practice, although the shops didn't all sell tea and coffee, some sold fruit
and veg. Everything was negotiated.

If you have a stall in a market, would it be "fair" to pay more for it because you are more profitable than another stall?

Yes it would IMO



In market streets, stall holders pay depending upon how big their stall is, the more space, the higher the charge, their profit has nothing to do with it, you don't submit your p&l account to the landlord do ya, same goes for the highstreet, if you paid more and your shop were the same size as the adjoining properties/shops then they saw you coming, of course they charge what they want, but doesn't mean you had to accept.

Ayers, betting shops didn't come under the same rules as other
trades, percieved to be 'money factories' and normally higher
rent is demanded/sought.

the key phrase there though is ''perceived to be''

do you think thats fair?

if it were a rule - or still is, that betting shops are charged higher rent, then by rule, do you really mean law? a very peculiar law if ever I heard one, it's a disincentive surely for any prospective proprietors, I can imagine landlords chancing their arm, but enforced by law?hmmm

Rentals are agreed on by negotiation, at least that was the case when
I was in business, even dealing with Councils as I did on a couple of
occasions. At the time, it was difficult to get planning permission for
a betting shop, so available premises carried a premium, if you didn't
want to pay it, you didn't get it, simple as that.

I pay 20% premium charge and i am not a big winner on here by all means,on average enough to pay my gas and electric bill every year.Generally i make a bit of money laying on selected markets.I can understand why Betfair starting the premium charge in the first place,but never thought that i would ever get to that stage winning so little.What disappoints me now is that its not viable for me to have my normal bets on here anymore,so basically i can never see me getting out of this charge bracket.

the money in the exchange is NOT betfair,s.... they take a risk free commission similar to poker sites.  however because of the lack of compition they are exploiting there dominance in the market.  like said previously, if any decent rival exchanges appear  then the PC charge will be dropped for sure !

True aspy, until that happens what Betfair are doing is commercially sound though.

Ladbrokes taking over purple will just kill them, I reckon they'll strip their technology and the biggest rival exchange will be doomed, good news for Betfair, and perhaps for the other small rival exchanges.

betfair may be getting there foot in the door in the USA markets (california horse racing )  which would obviously be a big money spinner... however when betfair launched in uk  they never had PC, winners welcome etc etc
if betfair insist on keeping the pc if they launch in USA then this will be a massive own goal and alot easier 4 a rival to compete !

TheInvestor2
08 Jan 13 13:10   


True aspy, until that happens what Betfair are doing is commercially sound though.

Short term I certainly agree with you, but long term I'm pretty sure they'll regret coming up with it.
  I belive PC and going public is what's going to destroy this company.
Not destroy as in going bankrupt, but as in wasting their monopoly and therefore much lower future earnings.

The city are obivously very concerned about Betfair , their share are in freefall , another 3.5 % down today.

My 2c:

Using Betfair is not like a market stall because market stall holders (and market venues) compete for business.  This results in the price of a stall being set below what a lot of stall-renters would be willing to pay.

What BF is trying to do is price descriminate - charge those who get more benefit more £ (and vice versa).  All companies would like to be able do this.  Think airlines with later bookings, student discounts etc. (Companies used to have limited information to use for these pricing decisions, with the internet etc they now have a lot more info so it's more common)

Betting exchanges are natural monopoly - users benefit from other users being on the same exchange - this gives Betfair a lot of power.  The only way to break this power would be for lots of users to switch to another exchange (and then be willing to come back if the other exchange became less competitively priced).

Someone else go first.

Have to say I have never bought a Betfair share and never will.I like my shares to go up!

kenilworth 07 Jan 13 08:45  " it's their toy so are entitled to ask for a
fair remuneration from those who want to play with it."

Nuff said

kenilworth     07 Jan 13 08:45 
CONER, it's their toy so are entitled to ask for a
fair remuneration from those who want to play with it.

OH so sorry kenny,i did not understand how fair it is.
Think a lot of the tax payers do not understand either.
THATS WHY THEY GOT FED UP WITH THIS FAIR CHARGE,AND NO LONGER PLAY.
Just imagine if it was a UNFAIR tax, everyone would still be playing.
Then there would be plenty in every market instead of f--k all.