General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
17 Jun 13
19:18
Joined:
Date Joined:
28 May 11
I'll start with this from the intro to 'the Star Principle' by Richard Koch, an early investor in Betfair and still a major shareholder.
"In the late 1990s, Andrew Black, known as Bert to his friends, had an idea. As a former professional gambler, he liked nothing more than playing poker through the night, and the thing he liked most about poker, apart from winning, was that the game was free. There were no bookmakers around to slice off their huge margin. Collectively, the friends he played with broke even. If one lost, somebody else won. But, when it came to horse racing and other sports, there was no way that individuals could exchange bets or avoid paying a king's ransom to third party bookies.
Unless Bert did something about it. Which he did. Together with the brother of a friend, Bet started a 'betting exchange' called Betfair. A betting exchange acts as a broker between individuals, charging a very small commission for doing so, a tiny fraction of what the bookies charge when they set odds."
That was true once upon a time. When Betfair and Flutter introduced the world to betting exchanges, they quickly became a major force due to the fact that they were better than the traditional bookies in so many ways. And not just marginally better, they blew the competition out of the water on value, keeping winning accounts open, allowing people to trade and lay and Betfair revolutionised sports betting when it started to offer in-play.
Since merging with Flutter, Betfair has held a monopoly of sorts in the exchange betting market, although they have faced fierce competition when looking at the sports betting market as a whole.
Over the years, Betfair has looked at the juicy margins of their competitors, seeing how 'little' they make on a tennis match where tens of millions of pounds are matched. While Betfair has focused on improving margins by increasing charges and offering all kinds of products on top of the exchange, their competitors have slashed margins. Betfair has not passed savings resulting from economies of scale on to customers in order to increase their competitive moat. Betfair could be the biggest sports betting company in the world. Unfortunately, any fun bettor wanting to bet on a Saturday English Premier League match who cares at least a bit about value , can look at odds comparison websites, and see that often, they can get better value elsewhere taking into account 2-5% commission.
The traditional bookies have successfully copied In-Play betting. We're now at the point where the margins of major UK bookies for IP are LOWER than the commission base rate on Betfair. Will's made 4.8% on turnover last year "within the normal 4-5% range".
Another snippet from the Star Principle: "On value alone, Andrew Black and his co-founder Ed Wray reckoned it should be easy to find new customers who would rapidly shift most or all of their betting to the exchanges. So it proved." That's certainly not true any more. Consider this: "Getting great value is essential if a gambler is to win, it is very difficult to win if the bookmaker takes out 20 per cent on each event." Well the difference between Betfair and the bookies is no longer so stark. Between 20-30% of Lads customers have a 'betting exchange' account. The question is, if they understand how the exchange works, why on earth are they still using Lads at all? HINT: It's probably not just for exotic bets.
There was a time when Betfair was better than the rest of the UK/EURO betting market combined. Now they are 'merely' better than any single other operator.
I think maintaining commission at 5% is more of an issue than even the PC. 5% was great in the early days, but with bookies slashing their margins, it's now too high. I still use Betfair almost exclusively, because most of the money I make comes from activities specific to an exchange (market making, trading etc.) People that place outright bets used to go to the exchange for great value, now they can frequently go elsewhere.
"In the late 1990s, Andrew Black, known as Bert to his friends, had an idea. As a former professional gambler, he liked nothing more than playing poker through the night, and the thing he liked most about poker, apart from winning, was that the game was free. There were no bookmakers around to slice off their huge margin. Collectively, the friends he played with broke even. If one lost, somebody else won. But, when it came to horse racing and other sports, there was no way that individuals could exchange bets or avoid paying a king's ransom to third party bookies.
Unless Bert did something about it. Which he did. Together with the brother of a friend, Bet started a 'betting exchange' called Betfair. A betting exchange acts as a broker between individuals, charging a very small commission for doing so, a tiny fraction of what the bookies charge when they set odds."
That was true once upon a time. When Betfair and Flutter introduced the world to betting exchanges, they quickly became a major force due to the fact that they were better than the traditional bookies in so many ways. And not just marginally better, they blew the competition out of the water on value, keeping winning accounts open, allowing people to trade and lay and Betfair revolutionised sports betting when it started to offer in-play.
Since merging with Flutter, Betfair has held a monopoly of sorts in the exchange betting market, although they have faced fierce competition when looking at the sports betting market as a whole.
Over the years, Betfair has looked at the juicy margins of their competitors, seeing how 'little' they make on a tennis match where tens of millions of pounds are matched. While Betfair has focused on improving margins by increasing charges and offering all kinds of products on top of the exchange, their competitors have slashed margins. Betfair has not passed savings resulting from economies of scale on to customers in order to increase their competitive moat. Betfair could be the biggest sports betting company in the world. Unfortunately, any fun bettor wanting to bet on a Saturday English Premier League match who cares at least a bit about value , can look at odds comparison websites, and see that often, they can get better value elsewhere taking into account 2-5% commission.
The traditional bookies have successfully copied In-Play betting. We're now at the point where the margins of major UK bookies for IP are LOWER than the commission base rate on Betfair. Will's made 4.8% on turnover last year "within the normal 4-5% range".
Another snippet from the Star Principle: "On value alone, Andrew Black and his co-founder Ed Wray reckoned it should be easy to find new customers who would rapidly shift most or all of their betting to the exchanges. So it proved." That's certainly not true any more. Consider this: "Getting great value is essential if a gambler is to win, it is very difficult to win if the bookmaker takes out 20 per cent on each event." Well the difference between Betfair and the bookies is no longer so stark. Between 20-30% of Lads customers have a 'betting exchange' account. The question is, if they understand how the exchange works, why on earth are they still using Lads at all? HINT: It's probably not just for exotic bets.
There was a time when Betfair was better than the rest of the UK/EURO betting market combined. Now they are 'merely' better than any single other operator.
I think maintaining commission at 5% is more of an issue than even the PC. 5% was great in the early days, but with bookies slashing their margins, it's now too high. I still use Betfair almost exclusively, because most of the money I make comes from activities specific to an exchange (market making, trading etc.) People that place outright bets used to go to the exchange for great value, now they can frequently go elsewhere.
Show More
Investor2 I note you bet almost exclusively on betfair. All the time people like you bet here there is no reason for betfair to change. It's the same as all those that continue to bet here whilst paying the PC. Betfair won't change if they don't.
Some people say betfair are greedy in their charging, yet it could be argued that those that continue to bet here are greedy too.
No offence meant, but if you want change, you have to take the first step. Betfair won't.
Some people say betfair are greedy in their charging, yet it could be argued that those that continue to bet here are greedy too.
No offence meant, but if you want change, you have to take the first step. Betfair won't.
P.s.
Investor I agree with much of your sentiment . I bet elsewhere now purely because I get better value elsewhere as you suggested.
Investor I agree with much of your sentiment . I bet elsewhere now purely because I get better value elsewhere as you suggested.
Based on some calculations I did a while back, BF's exchange is the most profitable business of any publicly listed UK company. Am I fairly sure everything else loses money. This is common with technology companies. Their first product is a hit, and then go on to invest the profits into a series of dud products.
I agree about the 5% commision, and would add another reason. I believe it has driven away much of the wholesale business (bookies laying off) away, in the markets I trade.
I agree about the 5% commision, and would add another reason. I believe it has driven away much of the wholesale business (bookies laying off) away, in the markets I trade.
but the issue with big players isn't the commission base rate, it's the rate after maximum discount is applied. bookies laying off will be paying 2%.
if you think that's too high, what do you think it should be?
if you think that's too high, what do you think it should be?
I'm thinking of S Asia bookies, mostly small (and illegal) operations, with a big need to lay off.
None of them will be on 2%, because no one in the cricket markets is on 2%. There aren't enough matches.
None of them will be on 2%, because no one in the cricket markets is on 2%. There aren't enough matches.
For non-price sensitive gamblers, TheInvestor2 is wrong, and 5% is probably too low. For price-sensitive gamblers, 5% just for matching two people together (and not even like say ebay running an auction, or well, anything really), is very high. If Breon Corcoran wants to turn Betfair into a Paddy Power/365 operation, attracting non-price sensitive gamblers will be his aim, instead of servicing price-sensitive ones. So the 5% is here to stay.
hazel 17 Jun 13 19:40 Joined: 15 Jun 01 | Topic/replies: 444 | Blogger: hazel's blog
Investor2 I note you bet almost exclusively on betfair. All the time people like you bet here there is no reason for betfair to change. It's the same as all those that continue to bet here whilst paying the PC. Betfair won't change if they don't.
Some people say betfair are greedy in their charging, yet it could be argued that those that continue to bet here are greedy too.
No offence meant, but if you want change, you have to take the first step. Betfair won't.
Betfair don't need to worry about losing me as a customer. I will only expand to other bookies, not replace Betfair with them. Even if I get better value elsewhere, I'll just take that as well as what I can get on Betfair. What Betfair do need to worry about is the people on the other side of my bets.
If there is less money for me to bet against, then Betfair lose out along with me. Football liquidity is down year on year, and toward the end of the season it got to the point where 3pm EPL matches weren't really worth bothering with anymore for me, where traditionally they have been decent.
Investor2 I note you bet almost exclusively on betfair. All the time people like you bet here there is no reason for betfair to change. It's the same as all those that continue to bet here whilst paying the PC. Betfair won't change if they don't.
Some people say betfair are greedy in their charging, yet it could be argued that those that continue to bet here are greedy too.
No offence meant, but if you want change, you have to take the first step. Betfair won't.
Betfair don't need to worry about losing me as a customer. I will only expand to other bookies, not replace Betfair with them. Even if I get better value elsewhere, I'll just take that as well as what I can get on Betfair. What Betfair do need to worry about is the people on the other side of my bets.
If there is less money for me to bet against, then Betfair lose out along with me. Football liquidity is down year on year, and toward the end of the season it got to the point where 3pm EPL matches weren't really worth bothering with anymore for me, where traditionally they have been decent.
ballabriggs
Date Joined: 11 Jul 11
Add contact | Send message
18 Jun 13 03:14 Joined: 11 Jul 11 | Topic/replies: 297 | Blogger: ballabriggs's blog
For non-price sensitive gamblers, TheInvestor2 is wrong, and 5% is probably too low. For price-sensitive gamblers, 5% just for matching two people together (and not even like say ebay running an auction, or well, anything really), is very high. If Breon Corcoran wants to turn Betfair into a Paddy Power/365 operation, attracting non-price sensitive gamblers will be his aim, instead of servicing price-sensitive ones. So the 5% is here to stay.
The original exchange model was aimed at price sensitive customers though. It was a niche market. Most people care about things like exotic bets, and a nice looking betting shop. Betfair attracted people that cared about value. Clearly there is a strong correlation between size of bet and how savvy a customer is, so someone that bets 100,000 a month is likely to be more price sensitive than someone that bets 10 a month.
I agree that Betfair can 'get away with' charging more than 5% in certain areas. Betfair have experimented with this, but maybe they should run a similar experiment in the UK and see what happens when the commission rate is reduced. I know Betfair exempted certain large customers from the increase in commission in the European countries, as they would simply leave.
When I started on Betfair myself, I quickly started betting exclusively on the football total goals market. This was because Betfair was running a 1% commission deal there.
As a trader/market maker on PC, the commission I pay is only somewhat important, it gets topped up with a PC bill anyway. I'd like the charges for people on the other side of my bets to be lower though. Worsening liquidity is a death spiral. If untelevised EPL doesn't improve, I'll stop trading it, which means the markets will be less attractive still etc.
Date Joined: 11 Jul 11
Add contact | Send message
18 Jun 13 03:14 Joined: 11 Jul 11 | Topic/replies: 297 | Blogger: ballabriggs's blog
For non-price sensitive gamblers, TheInvestor2 is wrong, and 5% is probably too low. For price-sensitive gamblers, 5% just for matching two people together (and not even like say ebay running an auction, or well, anything really), is very high. If Breon Corcoran wants to turn Betfair into a Paddy Power/365 operation, attracting non-price sensitive gamblers will be his aim, instead of servicing price-sensitive ones. So the 5% is here to stay.
The original exchange model was aimed at price sensitive customers though. It was a niche market. Most people care about things like exotic bets, and a nice looking betting shop. Betfair attracted people that cared about value. Clearly there is a strong correlation between size of bet and how savvy a customer is, so someone that bets 100,000 a month is likely to be more price sensitive than someone that bets 10 a month.
I agree that Betfair can 'get away with' charging more than 5% in certain areas. Betfair have experimented with this, but maybe they should run a similar experiment in the UK and see what happens when the commission rate is reduced. I know Betfair exempted certain large customers from the increase in commission in the European countries, as they would simply leave.
When I started on Betfair myself, I quickly started betting exclusively on the football total goals market. This was because Betfair was running a 1% commission deal there.
As a trader/market maker on PC, the commission I pay is only somewhat important, it gets topped up with a PC bill anyway. I'd like the charges for people on the other side of my bets to be lower though. Worsening liquidity is a death spiral. If untelevised EPL doesn't improve, I'll stop trading it, which means the markets will be less attractive still etc.
At last.
I get sick of reading whingeing about the premium charge on here. It's the commission rate which is the issue. Don't forget the discounts have been reduced at least twice since Betfair started.
Say you're a customer on here paying 4% commission, so you're a relatively heavy gambler betting regularly in hundreds of pounds. Perhaps pre-Betfair you used to make the game pay, probably by going racing and/or taking morning prices in the shops. Now, however, you find at the end of every year you just break even.
You seem to have got older and lost your edge. And with it you lose your enthusiasm and drift away from the site.
But what has actually happened? In fact you have been winning about 7 grand a year on here. You are in that tiny percentage of decent, winning punters. You're still a shrewdie, a man to be feared.
It's just that Betfair has taken every single penny of your profit in commission - the lot.
How the hell, on that basis, can you justify continuing either to use the site or put in the work needed to beat the market?
The answer? Commission should not be 5% to 2%. It should be 0.5% to 0.2%. If that were the case Betfair would rule the world.
And if that's too radical for the plodders who now run and own the company, how about offering the opportunity to pay a flat monthly fee instead of commission? If I could play on here for a monkey per month, my turnover would go through the roof.
(PS A monkey is betting slang for £500 for the benefit of the current management.)
I get sick of reading whingeing about the premium charge on here. It's the commission rate which is the issue. Don't forget the discounts have been reduced at least twice since Betfair started.
Say you're a customer on here paying 4% commission, so you're a relatively heavy gambler betting regularly in hundreds of pounds. Perhaps pre-Betfair you used to make the game pay, probably by going racing and/or taking morning prices in the shops. Now, however, you find at the end of every year you just break even.
You seem to have got older and lost your edge. And with it you lose your enthusiasm and drift away from the site.
But what has actually happened? In fact you have been winning about 7 grand a year on here. You are in that tiny percentage of decent, winning punters. You're still a shrewdie, a man to be feared.
It's just that Betfair has taken every single penny of your profit in commission - the lot.
How the hell, on that basis, can you justify continuing either to use the site or put in the work needed to beat the market?
The answer? Commission should not be 5% to 2%. It should be 0.5% to 0.2%. If that were the case Betfair would rule the world.
And if that's too radical for the plodders who now run and own the company, how about offering the opportunity to pay a flat monthly fee instead of commission? If I could play on here for a monkey per month, my turnover would go through the roof.
(PS A monkey is betting slang for £500 for the benefit of the current management.)
Keep an eye on Singapore. I was surprised to learn BF is legal there. I lived in Singapore for the best part of 10 years, and they are good at copying what works elsewhere and doing it better, cheaper. They have recently legalized casinos and I wouldn't be surprised if a BF clone was in the works.
The answer? Commission should not be 5% to 2%. It should be 0.5% to 0.2%. If that were the case Betfair would rule the world.
You're right, something like that would start giving bookmakers sleepless nights again. For me it's critical. If I was on 5% instead of 2% I'd make nothing.
You're right, something like that would start giving bookmakers sleepless nights again. For me it's critical. If I was on 5% instead of 2% I'd make nothing.
Over the past few years Betfair has fallen deeper and deeper into an identity crisis and I'm really not sure it has any idea what it is or what it is trying to do. Richard Koch seems to get it, and it's a great shame he failed in his bid.
Even a few years ago, with the laughable "Cut Out The Middleman" ads it was obvious. What is Betfair if not a middleman? A bet with a high street bookie cuts out the middleman, it's you versus him. Betfair was defining itself as the very opposite of what it was.
And over the last few years, they've sought to re-position themselves without really thinking through what they are trying to do. If we crudely divide punters into sharks (price-sensitive value punters) and mugs (non-price sensitive opinion / entertainment punters). Betfair realised they had the sharks, and decided they needed to get more mugs. So they charge the sharks more (vastly more in some cases), making the value to them less attractive, ostensibly to fund the recruitment of mugs.
But even now they run the "Is your bookie giving you value?" ads. Who does this attract? The shark already knows about what Betfair offers, and will use it when it offers best value to him. It won't attract sharks. The mug is a mug because he doesn't care about value. So value alone won't attract established mugs, he'll go on using the account he has or the shop closest to the pub where he's watching the match. It won't attract mugs. New bettors will likely start at a high street name, and if they begin to look for value or see an offer might check out this Betfair thing, but will, of course, land on a sportsbook that offers none of the value advertised. So who does this advertising appeal to? Their ideal customer needs to be shrewd enough to actually use Betfair, but not shrewd enough to actually use it well. That's a very thin segment!
The fact is, value doesn't need advertising. People who want value will seek it out. So charging many existing high volume customers more , lessening the value to those customers, and in turn lessening the volumes and therefore the value actually in the exchange, in order to advertise this diminishing value to a bunch of people who by definition DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT VALUE, is a laughable and absurd business strategy.
It's all very well to want to change your customer demographic to a more profitable one, but they are scaring off core, existing customers, without anything whatsoever to offer to the customers they are looking to attract.
It seems to me that, in looking to have it all, they are more likely to end up with nothing.
Even a few years ago, with the laughable "Cut Out The Middleman" ads it was obvious. What is Betfair if not a middleman? A bet with a high street bookie cuts out the middleman, it's you versus him. Betfair was defining itself as the very opposite of what it was.
And over the last few years, they've sought to re-position themselves without really thinking through what they are trying to do. If we crudely divide punters into sharks (price-sensitive value punters) and mugs (non-price sensitive opinion / entertainment punters). Betfair realised they had the sharks, and decided they needed to get more mugs. So they charge the sharks more (vastly more in some cases), making the value to them less attractive, ostensibly to fund the recruitment of mugs.
But even now they run the "Is your bookie giving you value?" ads. Who does this attract? The shark already knows about what Betfair offers, and will use it when it offers best value to him. It won't attract sharks. The mug is a mug because he doesn't care about value. So value alone won't attract established mugs, he'll go on using the account he has or the shop closest to the pub where he's watching the match. It won't attract mugs. New bettors will likely start at a high street name, and if they begin to look for value or see an offer might check out this Betfair thing, but will, of course, land on a sportsbook that offers none of the value advertised. So who does this advertising appeal to? Their ideal customer needs to be shrewd enough to actually use Betfair, but not shrewd enough to actually use it well. That's a very thin segment!
The fact is, value doesn't need advertising. People who want value will seek it out. So charging many existing high volume customers more , lessening the value to those customers, and in turn lessening the volumes and therefore the value actually in the exchange, in order to advertise this diminishing value to a bunch of people who by definition DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT VALUE, is a laughable and absurd business strategy.
It's all very well to want to change your customer demographic to a more profitable one, but they are scaring off core, existing customers, without anything whatsoever to offer to the customers they are looking to attract.
It seems to me that, in looking to have it all, they are more likely to end up with nothing.
Painfully accurate analysis Total Bosman. The adverts are just getting silly now.
Betfair's biggest problem may be the incentives they have given to top management. If it is about short term revenue boosts, price hikes, sticking plasters, etc etc, then Betfair's long term interests will not be matched by their short term ones. I suspect this is what has been happening. [The stuff about Blue Sq punters using their free bets, and suddenly being counted as growth in customers using Betfair is a bit bizarre,....].
Betfair's biggest problem may be the incentives they have given to top management. If it is about short term revenue boosts, price hikes, sticking plasters, etc etc, then Betfair's long term interests will not be matched by their short term ones. I suspect this is what has been happening. [The stuff about Blue Sq punters using their free bets, and suddenly being counted as growth in customers using Betfair is a bit bizarre,....].
good post TB
they're chucking money away on advertising to get market share, when actually what's in their interest is market size.
let the sportsbooks attract people to sports betting, then focus on doing things which make the new recruits jump ship to you.
it's a convenient myth that the 80-90% of the market not using BF proves punters aren't price sensitive and never will be. it's not true in any other business sector, so why should it be in betting?
if you have objectively the best product and 12% of the market, it's not because 88% of people are stupid. it's because you're not running your business properly.
and blaming the customer is always a sign of poor management.
they're chucking money away on advertising to get market share, when actually what's in their interest is market size.
let the sportsbooks attract people to sports betting, then focus on doing things which make the new recruits jump ship to you.
it's a convenient myth that the 80-90% of the market not using BF proves punters aren't price sensitive and never will be. it's not true in any other business sector, so why should it be in betting?
if you have objectively the best product and 12% of the market, it's not because 88% of people are stupid. it's because you're not running your business properly.
and blaming the customer is always a sign of poor management.
I'm going to disagree strongly with an earlier post here. To think "mugs" don't care about value is just plain wrong. They virtually all do.
There's a big difference between caring about value, being aware about where the best value is, and going to the time and effort to try and get the best value.
This may be a stupid point or question, but I always wondered does advertising even work for betting companies, it seem to me a complete waste of money, because as total bosman said price sensitive customers will find their way to the where the value is, it's called oddscomparison.com, and the fish as I'll call them, will stumble into the nearest bookie at lunch or after work to put a bet on whatever takes their fancy at whatever prices is there, or if online do what the so called sharks do and compare , but in general are less price sensitive and lose in higher numbers, to keep people here and prevent themselves from constatnly spending millions recruitmting more fish, they should be flaunting their one and only unique feature, trading, , otherwise the fish will swim from bookie to bookie - oh and opening up the forum again might be a good idea,,,
the tens on millions they spend on sponsoring big events and producing uninspiring tv and radio ads could be much better spent though on coming up with a better and fairer commission structure to keep the real makret makers here, the liquidity the fish bring is surely cancelled out but the marketing expense, tb has it in one
the tens on millions they spend on sponsoring big events and producing uninspiring tv and radio ads could be much better spent though on coming up with a better and fairer commission structure to keep the real makret makers here, the liquidity the fish bring is surely cancelled out but the marketing expense, tb has it in one
Advertising crucial imo, especially now word of mouth business has probably dwindled to a trickle after they hit their biggest advocates with the premium charge
It's basically why the betting industry is dominated by a few and is an ever increasing trend. New companies can't afford to advertise so cant get going. Betfair got over that by word of mouth.
Saw a very interesting new product on facebook today - C***l Sportsplay. It is a (slightly primitive) mix of social betting, news, real gaming, and entertainment which is where Betfair should in the end head towards being a sophisticated version of.
ballabriggs, there are two forms of incentive plan for Breon Corcoran, bf's ceo.
The first measures yearly performance and is based 45% on core revenue, 45% on core bf earnings per share and 10% on being a pleasant fellow. The second is measured over three years and is based 25% on revenue, 25% on earnings (I think) and 50% on total shareholder return (stock market performance). Payments for the second plan vest over a series of years.
If all the targets are hit, Mr Corcoran's base salary of something just over 500k will represent 25% of his package. Apologies if the figures (quoted from memory) are slightly off.
If the ceo feels that he's going to be replaced with someone who buys in more fully to the pure exchange concept, the temptation to hit short-term targets before taking a large redundancy package and bowing out w/ a burnished reputation may well be overwhelming.
The first measures yearly performance and is based 45% on core revenue, 45% on core bf earnings per share and 10% on being a pleasant fellow. The second is measured over three years and is based 25% on revenue, 25% on earnings (I think) and 50% on total shareholder return (stock market performance). Payments for the second plan vest over a series of years.
If all the targets are hit, Mr Corcoran's base salary of something just over 500k will represent 25% of his package. Apologies if the figures (quoted from memory) are slightly off.
If the ceo feels that he's going to be replaced with someone who buys in more fully to the pure exchange concept, the temptation to hit short-term targets before taking a large redundancy package and bowing out w/ a burnished reputation may well be overwhelming.
Clydebank- you might be right but my experience is that the vast majority of people I know who are casual sports fans, will, when they have a bet, simply back an outcome they think will happen. That or they tick a few results on a coupon and hope for a big score. Value, in terms of a comparison between probability and odds on offer, does not enter their calculation in any detail. I've given up trying to educate friends to look for value, and certainly given up my Betfair evangelism: they are simply looking for convenience and a bit of fun. They will place the bet with the bookie they happen to be closest to, or with the account they have. This is the sort of recreational / entertainment "mug" Betfair seem to covet, but the one they are least likely to get- their sportsbook offers nothing in comparison the the established names and the exchange, if they can even find it, is beyond the interest or comprehension of almost all the casual bit-of-fun punters I know. And that's not to belittle anyone, a casual bet is a fun way to enhance a bit of sport and most folk treat it as such.
The fact is, value doesn't need advertising.
Of course it doesn't. They shd slash the advertising budget by 80% other than in football-betting territories where their legal position is secure (Spain and Italy) and rely on shrewdies under the age of 40 (in the web generation) to tell their friends about the company.
My other strategies for 1) bf wd be to partner with a mass-audience television channel (Channel 4 wd be ideal at almost any price if they cd get the gig) and simply run their prices next to a logo and telephone no. as a ticker across the bottom of the screen.
2) I wd also experiment with a partnership w/ a small chain of betting shops like betterbet or Corbett or Roar w/ FOBT style booths operated by touchscreens. Commission on these cd be something like 7%. I can't see that this wd be more loss-making than LMAX or many of their other experiments and anyway expenses like rental would be shared with their partner.
3)Finally I wd give every winning player everything he wants, to the degree that they begin to cannibalise each other. Absolutely everything that has gone down badly and cast a pall on the company (pc, the cross-matcher, the eyesore of a new site, the steps on the comm. ladder) shd go. This wd clear the air and crucially restore a sense of purpose within bf's own culture.
Of course it doesn't. They shd slash the advertising budget by 80% other than in football-betting territories where their legal position is secure (Spain and Italy) and rely on shrewdies under the age of 40 (in the web generation) to tell their friends about the company.
My other strategies for 1) bf wd be to partner with a mass-audience television channel (Channel 4 wd be ideal at almost any price if they cd get the gig) and simply run their prices next to a logo and telephone no. as a ticker across the bottom of the screen.
2) I wd also experiment with a partnership w/ a small chain of betting shops like betterbet or Corbett or Roar w/ FOBT style booths operated by touchscreens. Commission on these cd be something like 7%. I can't see that this wd be more loss-making than LMAX or many of their other experiments and anyway expenses like rental would be shared with their partner.
3)Finally I wd give every winning player everything he wants, to the degree that they begin to cannibalise each other. Absolutely everything that has gone down badly and cast a pall on the company (pc, the cross-matcher, the eyesore of a new site, the steps on the comm. ladder) shd go. This wd clear the air and crucially restore a sense of purpose within bf's own culture.
Agreed Askari. It's impatience and incentive-driven short-termism, pure and simple. If Betfair simply has the best value, the money will eventually flow here like a river running downstream. Even if the mug on the high street has never heard of here, a good slice his money, will end up here through arbs and hedges from their primary bet-takers, all without Betfair doing anything bar maintaining the infrastructure. They had this natural position sewn up and the only way they could have ballsed it up is more or less the path they seem to be taking.
Total Bosman, their relationship w/ the bookmakers has become too cosy and their relationship w/ their actual liquidity providers too difficult.
The bm s are not genuine liquidity providers; the only times they want to hedge, apart perhaps from major meetings, there's only tumbleweed on here and they're not able to. Bm s profit primarily from bf by way of its providing a far more accurate complementary tissue than they cd ever have come up w/ themselves w/out exposing themselves to habitual winners / price-finders.
How about less fine prices in the morning (clydebank's suggestion) or less availability of morning prices, other than to people who have committed themselves to striking a bet? An auction system may be too unwieldy but something that executed matches in a way similar to their sp mechanism only every fifteen mins. wd serve arbers, hedgers and tissue-based layers almost equally well while offering less of a free ride to their competitors.
The bm s are not genuine liquidity providers; the only times they want to hedge, apart perhaps from major meetings, there's only tumbleweed on here and they're not able to. Bm s profit primarily from bf by way of its providing a far more accurate complementary tissue than they cd ever have come up w/ themselves w/out exposing themselves to habitual winners / price-finders.
How about less fine prices in the morning (clydebank's suggestion) or less availability of morning prices, other than to people who have committed themselves to striking a bet? An auction system may be too unwieldy but something that executed matches in a way similar to their sp mechanism only every fifteen mins. wd serve arbers, hedgers and tissue-based layers almost equally well while offering less of a free ride to their competitors.
Whilst I don't dispute that BF has pursued a strange strategy since the early glory years, and management might be described as either inept or over-agressive depending on your viewpoint, there may be a bigger factor at work.
What may be happening is that the exchange model has fast-tracked through the various new market cycles of innovation, early triers, rapid growth tailing off into maturity and zero growth to be followed by decline. At best, delaying decline may be the best option. Just 10 years or so to get to this. It's happened thousands of times before and will always be so.May have happened faster than other examples but that's the modern technological world for you. VHS machine anyone? Or Betamax, perhaps. IBM, now there's a blast from the past etc etc.
The increasing competitive nature of the sports markets, especially in horse racing, equates to niches coming and going quickly. A big arber friend of mine (he shall be nameless) has seen his opportunities dry up and once into millions laying off on here is now dwindling fast. It can only get worse for arbers with Laddies about to turn on the power of having an exchange to link prices from exchange to shop coming through within months.
And what of IR? I see that the money tree has stopped bearing fruit. Trading shops anyone?
The BM's have responded with ever aggressive marketing to narrow and even close the price edge that BF claims.
There is a somewhat arrogant tone on these forums when debating where the "mugs" are coming from. Get a dozen or so very clever poker players together and one or two of them will go bust because their edge is not quite good enough. Or they were just unlucky and luck (should we call it "randomness" so that we feel better about it)plays a huge part. There will be fewer and fewer "sharks" playing against each other. What is needed is not so much as more small players coming in (although that would be welcome) but more of them stepping up or scaling up to be "new sharks." That's where the turnover, the liquidity must come from. Perhaps that's what Koch was on about with his 80/20 argument.
Most of the contributors on this forum these days (I've been around a while)seem to be traders ( I may be wrong) and these group has only come into the sports market since BF. Like religion which was never a topic of daily discussion 30 years ago, trading especially with bots has helped to create a new breed of player who may have proven to be the viper in the nest as far as the exchange modek is concerned. Help traders to come in to bring in the liquidity but then find that they suck you dry as they unlike "opinion players" seem able to win consistently. Feck was right all along about this, imo.
So, is the exchange model at the point where it can only go downhill? Or is there a fure still? In my view, Bf made a crass decision to introduce higher charges, presumably because it would help boost earnings to achieve market flotation promises. I agree entirely with those who advocate lowering commission rates, scrapping the PC entirely, and going for a high volume/low margin business. Don't penalise winning punters. Encourage them to win as much as possible.The BM's couldn't compete with that strategy.Forget about being a techno outfit. BF are in the gambling business and the sooner they recgnize that fact, the better.
What may be happening is that the exchange model has fast-tracked through the various new market cycles of innovation, early triers, rapid growth tailing off into maturity and zero growth to be followed by decline. At best, delaying decline may be the best option. Just 10 years or so to get to this. It's happened thousands of times before and will always be so.May have happened faster than other examples but that's the modern technological world for you. VHS machine anyone? Or Betamax, perhaps. IBM, now there's a blast from the past etc etc.
The increasing competitive nature of the sports markets, especially in horse racing, equates to niches coming and going quickly. A big arber friend of mine (he shall be nameless) has seen his opportunities dry up and once into millions laying off on here is now dwindling fast. It can only get worse for arbers with Laddies about to turn on the power of having an exchange to link prices from exchange to shop coming through within months.
And what of IR? I see that the money tree has stopped bearing fruit. Trading shops anyone?
The BM's have responded with ever aggressive marketing to narrow and even close the price edge that BF claims.
There is a somewhat arrogant tone on these forums when debating where the "mugs" are coming from. Get a dozen or so very clever poker players together and one or two of them will go bust because their edge is not quite good enough. Or they were just unlucky and luck (should we call it "randomness" so that we feel better about it)plays a huge part. There will be fewer and fewer "sharks" playing against each other. What is needed is not so much as more small players coming in (although that would be welcome) but more of them stepping up or scaling up to be "new sharks." That's where the turnover, the liquidity must come from. Perhaps that's what Koch was on about with his 80/20 argument.
Most of the contributors on this forum these days (I've been around a while)seem to be traders ( I may be wrong) and these group has only come into the sports market since BF. Like religion which was never a topic of daily discussion 30 years ago, trading especially with bots has helped to create a new breed of player who may have proven to be the viper in the nest as far as the exchange modek is concerned. Help traders to come in to bring in the liquidity but then find that they suck you dry as they unlike "opinion players" seem able to win consistently. Feck was right all along about this, imo.
So, is the exchange model at the point where it can only go downhill? Or is there a fure still? In my view, Bf made a crass decision to introduce higher charges, presumably because it would help boost earnings to achieve market flotation promises. I agree entirely with those who advocate lowering commission rates, scrapping the PC entirely, and going for a high volume/low margin business. Don't penalise winning punters. Encourage them to win as much as possible.The BM's couldn't compete with that strategy.Forget about being a techno outfit. BF are in the gambling business and the sooner they recgnize that fact, the better.
Other wise the future can be best described as becoming another "nanny-goat."
Some great posts there, wouldn't it be incredible if the exchange model failed and ceased to exist, such a massive opportunity blown would be on the imaginary scale of Facebook self imploding! BF in 10 years time could be the Facebook of betting, the only place to bet, or not... BF in 10 years time could be just another BM.
High volume/low margin is the way forward to world domination, but will they ever recognise that?
High volume/low margin is the way forward to world domination, but will they ever recognise that?
High volume/ultra-low margin for most people, high volume/steeply rising margin for consistent winners, is the way forward to world domination.
Unfortunately Betfair is nolonger a star business.
Its annual growth rate is no longer over 10% - level for 3 years.
It is the 'leader' in the exchange betting but a 'follower' in the sportsbook business.
It is now a cross between a cash cow and a dog.
.........
It could become a star again if they stripped the business back to core exchange and slimmed the business down just to the staff required to run a stream lined exchange/professional sportsbook.
If the sportsbook was mainly for countries where exchanges were illegal and was a professional not recreational bookie it would have a chance. The CEO announcing that he was only aiming for Betfair to be a second tier sportsbook was very uninspiring. Why are most of my football bets at Pinnacle when Betfair has a sportsbook and I am a loyal Betfair customer?
How can Betfair return to being a start under current management whos experience is in running a bookies for fun recreational punters? This is a saturated market.
Results should be out before the end of the month. Then we shall hopefully see how well the exchange is doing after the new management have had almost a year at it.
Its annual growth rate is no longer over 10% - level for 3 years.
It is the 'leader' in the exchange betting but a 'follower' in the sportsbook business.
It is now a cross between a cash cow and a dog.
.........
It could become a star again if they stripped the business back to core exchange and slimmed the business down just to the staff required to run a stream lined exchange/professional sportsbook.
If the sportsbook was mainly for countries where exchanges were illegal and was a professional not recreational bookie it would have a chance. The CEO announcing that he was only aiming for Betfair to be a second tier sportsbook was very uninspiring. Why are most of my football bets at Pinnacle when Betfair has a sportsbook and I am a loyal Betfair customer?
How can Betfair return to being a start under current management whos experience is in running a bookies for fun recreational punters? This is a saturated market.
Results should be out before the end of the month. Then we shall hopefully see how well the exchange is doing after the new management have had almost a year at it.
There are some really knowledgeable and experienced people contributing to this thread and other similar threads. BF are getting the best kind of contribution & feedback but are they really taking any notice? The guys who started this site and walked away with £millions did OK and they deserved it for the risks that they took. But the professional management since has been earning pretty good salaries whilst seemingly making a bit of a cods of it.
What we will we get out of giving this advice? nothing except a site where we can go and not get banned or limited. There was a time in another life when I would have charged £10's k for providing consultancy on this kind of problem ( different language, of course) but BF are getting my comments and other star people on here for nothing.
It could become a star again if they stripped the business back to core exchange and slimmed the business down just to the staff required to run a stream lined exchange/professional sportsbook.
Absolutely spot on, frog2. The £2 people will never be the way for new growth not in a lifetime. Go for the people who aspire to make a success of gambling, using their brains, their motivation to succeed, their experience, their knowledge & expertise gained elsewhere, there entrepreneurialism.
The late great Phil Bull summed it all up for me with his views about horse racing and gambling which to paraphrase him were that it combines business and pleasure, entertainment with risk taking, better than crosswords, more fun than investing in anything else. Especially horseracing with its glamour, its colour etc.Encourage the people who want to win. let them win. Don't say, Ok you can win but as soon as you've won a certain amount we are going to make you pay much more. What cretin came up with that idea? How much did he walk away with? Pound to a penny it was a money man with no feel for the gambling market. It doesn't matter if only 10% or 1% or 0.1% make it to the PC level, kill the dream and you kill the business. Hope for a better life is all most of the people who play on here have. Take it away and you are left with no raison d'etre to gamble.
What we will we get out of giving this advice? nothing except a site where we can go and not get banned or limited. There was a time in another life when I would have charged £10's k for providing consultancy on this kind of problem ( different language, of course) but BF are getting my comments and other star people on here for nothing.
It could become a star again if they stripped the business back to core exchange and slimmed the business down just to the staff required to run a stream lined exchange/professional sportsbook.
Absolutely spot on, frog2. The £2 people will never be the way for new growth not in a lifetime. Go for the people who aspire to make a success of gambling, using their brains, their motivation to succeed, their experience, their knowledge & expertise gained elsewhere, there entrepreneurialism.
The late great Phil Bull summed it all up for me with his views about horse racing and gambling which to paraphrase him were that it combines business and pleasure, entertainment with risk taking, better than crosswords, more fun than investing in anything else. Especially horseracing with its glamour, its colour etc.Encourage the people who want to win. let them win. Don't say, Ok you can win but as soon as you've won a certain amount we are going to make you pay much more. What cretin came up with that idea? How much did he walk away with? Pound to a penny it was a money man with no feel for the gambling market. It doesn't matter if only 10% or 1% or 0.1% make it to the PC level, kill the dream and you kill the business. Hope for a better life is all most of the people who play on here have. Take it away and you are left with no raison d'etre to gamble.
What may be happening is that the exchange model has fast-tracked through the various new market cycles of innovation, early triers, rapid growth tailing off into maturity and zero growth to be followed by decline
--------------
the reason this doesn't stack up for me is when that happens the decline is usually caused by the new being superseded by the newer. whereas what we're seeing is the new losing ground to basically what was there before.
we're not looking at VHS - DVD - Download in sports betting. We're looking at VHS - DVD - slightly improved VHS.
--------------
the reason this doesn't stack up for me is when that happens the decline is usually caused by the new being superseded by the newer. whereas what we're seeing is the new losing ground to basically what was there before.
we're not looking at VHS - DVD - Download in sports betting. We're looking at VHS - DVD - slightly improved VHS.
Viva
I agree.Don't think we have reached the stage yet where something else has come along yet to re-place it. If we had then you would be seeing rapid decline, and although there is a problem or two, it's not that. It's more a case of having reached maximum penetration of your potential market and now relying on repeat purchases from existing customers, so to speak in marketing jargon plus attrition due to an increasing threat from a direct competitor(to be more so in future) plus fight back from traditional competitors.Fact is, there are limits to the number of punters interested in the exchange model and the ceiling may have been reached. Nothing to say that in every market you can reach x% of any given population. You find out where the ceiling is when you get there.
I agree.Don't think we have reached the stage yet where something else has come along yet to re-place it. If we had then you would be seeing rapid decline, and although there is a problem or two, it's not that. It's more a case of having reached maximum penetration of your potential market and now relying on repeat purchases from existing customers, so to speak in marketing jargon plus attrition due to an increasing threat from a direct competitor(to be more so in future) plus fight back from traditional competitors.Fact is, there are limits to the number of punters interested in the exchange model and the ceiling may have been reached. Nothing to say that in every market you can reach x% of any given population. You find out where the ceiling is when you get there.
Imho you don't need to be "interested in the exchange model" to place your bets at a betting exchange. If it's a good place to place your straight bets, then it's a good place to place those bets. It shouldn't really bother anyone that it's an exchange, just as it doesn't matter to people if the restaurant they eat at is a franchise or not. People don't avoid dining at franchise restaurants because they aren't interested in the franchise model.
Mr Anderson
Most people (80%+ at a guess) still prefer to bet with BM's rather than exchanges for many reasons. They wouldn't exactly use the term "exchange model" I agree but then that's for us on here to intellectualise about, isn't it? By now the message that you can get better prices has probably got through but still they won't budge from their long-standing preferences for the shops and betting on-line with BM's.That's what I mean about maturity. They've very largely converted all they are going to get . Youngsters will come through but they will probably just replace natural attrition of the oldies.
Most people (80%+ at a guess) still prefer to bet with BM's rather than exchanges for many reasons. They wouldn't exactly use the term "exchange model" I agree but then that's for us on here to intellectualise about, isn't it? By now the message that you can get better prices has probably got through but still they won't budge from their long-standing preferences for the shops and betting on-line with BM's.That's what I mean about maturity. They've very largely converted all they are going to get . Youngsters will come through but they will probably just replace natural attrition of the oldies.
exactly, mr anderson. as someone else said, people don't have to be sensitive to value to be sensitive to price. in other words, even if they're willing to back a 100/1 no-hoper at a crap price, they'd still rather have 16/1 than 12/1.
I don't agree with koch about everything (I think his 80/20 pareto stuff just doesn't map simply onto a business where each customers' activity isn't discreet) but he's definitely right on the marketing budget. the beauty of the exchange model should be as follows:
faced with your challenge, rivals spend more on advertising to hold up market share and revenue. their increased spend draws in new customers to the sector. your objectively better offer then sucks in some of that new custom that they've paid for.
another irony is that one of the reasons PP have done so well is the effectiveness of their marketing at projecting an image of being blokey cheeky funsters, who aren't too bothered who they offend. in other words, pretty much exactly the brand image this forum used to create for free back when it was good. before they started chucking people off it then turned it into an embarrassing gated community they'd rather didn't exist.
I don't agree with koch about everything (I think his 80/20 pareto stuff just doesn't map simply onto a business where each customers' activity isn't discreet) but he's definitely right on the marketing budget. the beauty of the exchange model should be as follows:
faced with your challenge, rivals spend more on advertising to hold up market share and revenue. their increased spend draws in new customers to the sector. your objectively better offer then sucks in some of that new custom that they've paid for.
another irony is that one of the reasons PP have done so well is the effectiveness of their marketing at projecting an image of being blokey cheeky funsters, who aren't too bothered who they offend. in other words, pretty much exactly the brand image this forum used to create for free back when it was good. before they started chucking people off it then turned it into an embarrassing gated community they'd rather didn't exist.
Can civilians still view the forum - just not post - or is it shut off entirely now?
even if they can, who wants to read a forum they can't post on?
shareholders who want to get a feel for how customers are enjoying being customers of the company.
The forum is a not insignificant part of the problem- the social / interactive aspect of p2p betting ought to be huge, and a few years ago I'm sure the chat on the forums was a big part of what kept people in front of their computers betting during an event. They should have expanded on this rather than attempt to disband the community- simple things like a live chat column for each market would attract new people with the social aspect even if they did not fully understand or care about the exchange mechanics. It's simple things like this that show how out of touch they are with what people actually want. I'm sure that if Betfair do not move forward in this aspect of p2p betting someone else will.
For the US live presidential Obama v Romney debates, the best coverage was a live feed with a Republican twitter hashtag stream, and a Democrat stream next to it, so you could compare and contrast the two sides.
There should have been twitter streams next to each match odds market on Betfair by now. Liverpool v Manchester United could have the tags #bfliv and #bfmu , or just #liv and #mu, and mix the talk about betting on the game with the normal twitter feeds on those tags.
An exchange has to try to become the most entertaining place for people to spend their recreational time. That will involve a lot more than just running an exchange, which hasn't really been updated in the way it functions since the early to mid-2000s.
The reason the Inner Party closed the forum itself down heavily was fear of the Outer Party. After LMAX, cross matching, etc, the last thing the Inner Party wanted was a threat to its credentials.
There should have been twitter streams next to each match odds market on Betfair by now. Liverpool v Manchester United could have the tags #bfliv and #bfmu , or just #liv and #mu, and mix the talk about betting on the game with the normal twitter feeds on those tags.
An exchange has to try to become the most entertaining place for people to spend their recreational time. That will involve a lot more than just running an exchange, which hasn't really been updated in the way it functions since the early to mid-2000s.
The reason the Inner Party closed the forum itself down heavily was fear of the Outer Party. After LMAX, cross matching, etc, the last thing the Inner Party wanted was a threat to its credentials.
The future of Betfair rests in part of learning the lessons why Candy Crush is making maybe more in a month, than Betfair makes each year. There is an excellent article at
http://kaleidoscope.kontagent.com/2013/04/19/breaking-down-candy-crushs-formula-for-success/
which talks about healthy fun, competition between friends, good value for money with the freemium model, and a viral organic growth. Betfair should shift (violently) towards a freemium model - ultra cheap 0.5% or less commission for most people, but a steeply rising PC for consistent winners. It is hard to look at anything Betfair does, and think why any other company would want to copy, well, anything that they do. Is there innovation? Good customer service? Interesting/punchy adverts (like 365 and PP)? There's just, well, nothing.
http://kaleidoscope.kontagent.com/2013/04/19/breaking-down-candy-crushs-formula-for-success/
which talks about healthy fun, competition between friends, good value for money with the freemium model, and a viral organic growth. Betfair should shift (violently) towards a freemium model - ultra cheap 0.5% or less commission for most people, but a steeply rising PC for consistent winners. It is hard to look at anything Betfair does, and think why any other company would want to copy, well, anything that they do. Is there innovation? Good customer service? Interesting/punchy adverts (like 365 and PP)? There's just, well, nothing.
Excellent thread.
I seriously hope the senior mgt. of BF is taking this feedback on board.
I seriously hope the senior mgt. of BF is taking this feedback on board.
Some very interesting comments.
Particularly, whether BF can ever get the remaining 80% of the market, or are those people who just don't get the exchange concept.
I can't comment on the new site, because it's not available in Australia, but I worked in IT with internet companies from the early days and know that simplicity is everything in an interface. I know you could make an exact clone of B365 (or even better) on top of the BF exchange and could undercut B365's margins by charging any commision you liked, because you would still have the exchange traders commision.
Sure profits would fall initially as small time puters switched from the exchange to the lower commision B365 clone interface, but a small price to pay for driving your competitors out of business.
That BF management don't do this, tells me they simply don't understand the internet.
Particularly, whether BF can ever get the remaining 80% of the market, or are those people who just don't get the exchange concept.
I can't comment on the new site, because it's not available in Australia, but I worked in IT with internet companies from the early days and know that simplicity is everything in an interface. I know you could make an exact clone of B365 (or even better) on top of the BF exchange and could undercut B365's margins by charging any commision you liked, because you would still have the exchange traders commision.
Sure profits would fall initially as small time puters switched from the exchange to the lower commision B365 clone interface, but a small price to pay for driving your competitors out of business.
That BF management don't do this, tells me they simply don't understand the internet.
Live chat on the market page instead of the instant games adverts would have been a great feature. Seen it on other websites. So much better than having a forum thread open.
The sportsbook offered by Betfair is the most disappointing thing they have done. The goal is to be second tier? Why set the goal so low?
At the moment Betfair are usually worst price. They are devaluing the Betfair brand it the worst possible way.
If we look at football day in day out we see this. The big game on BBC TV tomorrow is Brazil V Italy.
The exchange has
Italy 6.0
Brazil 1.7
Draw 3.95
At the time of writing all can be backed to take out at least £1k at those prices. This will increase in the run up to game.
Best prices on odds checker and pinny are:
Italy 6.0
Brazil 1.67
Draw 3.98
Betfair should be using exchange prices plus a small commission (maybe 1%). This would be a way of getting non trading bets locked in. Position punters would then use the sportsbook,
The sportsbook fed into the exchange would price:
Italy 5.95
Brazil 1.693
Draw 3.92
It would basically be best price on everything. It would be a great product bring liquidity to exchange in the form of non trading bets.
Instead the sportsbook offers
Italy 5.5
Brazil 1.61
The Draw 3.75
Basically the worst prices in the industry.
The CEO talked about rolling out best price execution once the software is complete. But are they really going to give up a 6-7% margin on a recreational sportsbook and replace it with bets going to the exchange?
I fear that like scrapping the PC that the management will not have the guts to do it. They will play it safe and just keep offering high margin prices for themselves and diluting the brand.
At the moment Betfair are usually worst price. They are devaluing the Betfair brand it the worst possible way.
If we look at football day in day out we see this. The big game on BBC TV tomorrow is Brazil V Italy.
The exchange has
Italy 6.0
Brazil 1.7
Draw 3.95
At the time of writing all can be backed to take out at least £1k at those prices. This will increase in the run up to game.
Best prices on odds checker and pinny are:
Italy 6.0
Brazil 1.67
Draw 3.98
Betfair should be using exchange prices plus a small commission (maybe 1%). This would be a way of getting non trading bets locked in. Position punters would then use the sportsbook,
The sportsbook fed into the exchange would price:
Italy 5.95
Brazil 1.693
Draw 3.92
It would basically be best price on everything. It would be a great product bring liquidity to exchange in the form of non trading bets.
Instead the sportsbook offers
Italy 5.5
Brazil 1.61
The Draw 3.75
Basically the worst prices in the industry.
The CEO talked about rolling out best price execution once the software is complete. But are they really going to give up a 6-7% margin on a recreational sportsbook and replace it with bets going to the exchange?
I fear that like scrapping the PC that the management will not have the guts to do it. They will play it safe and just keep offering high margin prices for themselves and diluting the brand.
Jun 20, 2013 -- 12:22PM, Sandown wrote:
Mr AndersonMost people (80%+ at a guess) still prefer to bet with BM's rather than exchanges for many reasons. They wouldn't exactly use the term "exchange model" I agree but then that's for us on here to intellectualise about, isn't it? By now the message that you can get better prices has probably got through but still they won't budge from their long-standing preferences for the shops and betting on-line with BM's.That's what I mean about maturity. They've very largely converted all they are going to get . Youngsters will come through but they will probably just replace natural attrition of the oldies.
Well, I'm much more optimistic about the potential market share for Betfair and other exchanges. I think few people are turned off by something that could not potentially be addressed because of the nature of an exchange.
Things that might keep some people away from Betfair, but that could be dealt with or improved:
Some people might be confused about commission and would prefer to see odds net of commission. Is 2.0 with 4.6% commission better than 1.95 with no commission?
Some may be confused about the premium charge, and mistakenly think it's something that could affect them, and if they might be affected they could overestimate its effect on their bottom line, because they don't really understand how it works.
Some might be confused about laying and want nothing to do with it.
Others might be attracted to Betfair if they realised that Betfair is an exchange and how means that you always can lay bets here.
Some might be unhappy with the odds they get on their multiples.
Some might think that their bookie is better as a one stop shop given their particular betting style. This might include betting on multiples and small side markets or small sports that (no longer) work well on Betfair.
Some might prefer to bet the day before the event when the market they fancy has not yet formed on Betfair.
For some markets and some sports 5% commission does not make for very competitive odds net of commission. Maybe 5% used to be ok, but bookies have since decreased their overrounds.
In recent times the sportsbook must have scared away some people who never found the exchange.
Having to wait several weeks for a reply to an email.
Having had a bad trap betting or hoovering experience at Betfair.
Advertising that could be much improved.
Etc. etc.
Agree with most if not all of that, Mr Anderson.
One thing I would personally like to see addressed is the A/P market on here. There is tremendous potential to take A/P and lead with it.As most BM's know, it is a great way to create excitement over a long time frame.However, the market is very thin on here and for good reasons. It's bad enough for backers to have money tied up for a long period but its even worse, obviously, for layers. Until and unless a layer wants to lay several horses/events he/she would have tie up an awful lot of money.
The A/P market with BM's was at its best when credit was given but the advent of a risk averse approach by BM's led to the closure of credit accounts and the introduction of cash only/debit card betting. This, together with the closure of accounts for anyone who looked like being successful virtually killed off the A/P markets for a goodly number of players like myself who used to bet large on an opinion for events that might be up to 6 months away.Now I don't because I can't.
To be a layer of such events takes a big bank but BF could take up the role, couldn't they? Is the risk any greater than than what they been doing? Why don't they agree a credit account for any number of players who want to bet large but don't wish their money to be tied up? They could vet their customers to check creditworthiness. The law allows companies to collect gambling debts these days anyway and anyone who attempts to welsh would risk losing their only outlet for betting as they surely would never be able to bet on here again. Not a risk most people would take. I don't think that very large exposures would arise for long because most would take advantage of trading opportunities something you can't do through BM,s.
One thing I would personally like to see addressed is the A/P market on here. There is tremendous potential to take A/P and lead with it.As most BM's know, it is a great way to create excitement over a long time frame.However, the market is very thin on here and for good reasons. It's bad enough for backers to have money tied up for a long period but its even worse, obviously, for layers. Until and unless a layer wants to lay several horses/events he/she would have tie up an awful lot of money.
The A/P market with BM's was at its best when credit was given but the advent of a risk averse approach by BM's led to the closure of credit accounts and the introduction of cash only/debit card betting. This, together with the closure of accounts for anyone who looked like being successful virtually killed off the A/P markets for a goodly number of players like myself who used to bet large on an opinion for events that might be up to 6 months away.Now I don't because I can't.
To be a layer of such events takes a big bank but BF could take up the role, couldn't they? Is the risk any greater than than what they been doing? Why don't they agree a credit account for any number of players who want to bet large but don't wish their money to be tied up? They could vet their customers to check creditworthiness. The law allows companies to collect gambling debts these days anyway and anyone who attempts to welsh would risk losing their only outlet for betting as they surely would never be able to bet on here again. Not a risk most people would take. I don't think that very large exposures would arise for long because most would take advantage of trading opportunities something you can't do through BM,s.
Of course, it may be that BF are concerned about the possibility of manipulation by layers, especially owners, who might have no intention of running a horse in a race and who consequently take advantage. Are BF concerned that their image would really take a knock from possible bad PR? Is that a bigger risk than standing credit? If they are concerned, then it would expose naked the potential for corruption in the exchange model and would provide a field day for the anti-exchange people.
I think having a sports book layered over the exchange is a good thing, because you get to leverage the pricing efficiency of the exchange and no traditional bookmaker can compete with that, but it has to be under a different brand. Putting it under the BF brand is dumb. It just creates confusion and devalues the brand.
frog, the problem preventing bf from pricing the sportsbook off the exchange in such a way as to lock in one-way bets is that it wd require the company's 'crack trading team' to vote themselves out of existence.
A group of people w/ a conventional bookie background who weren't at that stage in their careers where they were their company's most senior traders were never going to be able to do that.
Bf is a technology leader and it shd delegate things like pricing and liabilities management on its sportsbook to machines. Or it shd recognise the 'wisdom of crowds' principle that makes its markets more accurate than those of bookies and have its prices determined by some weighted combination of its own punters rather than an in-house team.
A group of people w/ a conventional bookie background who weren't at that stage in their careers where they were their company's most senior traders were never going to be able to do that.
Bf is a technology leader and it shd delegate things like pricing and liabilities management on its sportsbook to machines. Or it shd recognise the 'wisdom of crowds' principle that makes its markets more accurate than those of bookies and have its prices determined by some weighted combination of its own punters rather than an in-house team.
Bf need to think what will differentiate it from its competitors in the eyes of the punters it wants to attract.
One of the most important things is 'no restrictions / no banning of winners'. This selling point was even stronger when the perception among players was more heavily that bf was an exchange and they were punting amongst themselves w/ the platform provider taking a cut.
I wd run an aggressive series of adverts, funny but pointed, that showed a bookie laughing and joking until the recreational punter tendered his cash on a live one, at which point the shutters wd come down and the punter wd be shown the door. Bf cd make a pitch based on pricing (from the exchange), price availability and the absence of restrictions.
There are still a wealth of bettors to play for via mobile--people who have never seriously engaged with the web exchange but wd happily have £20 on a horse or dog at a 10% better price. Why can't bf try to buy TurfTV and run its odds along the bottom of the screen to reach these people?
One of the most important things is 'no restrictions / no banning of winners'. This selling point was even stronger when the perception among players was more heavily that bf was an exchange and they were punting amongst themselves w/ the platform provider taking a cut.
I wd run an aggressive series of adverts, funny but pointed, that showed a bookie laughing and joking until the recreational punter tendered his cash on a live one, at which point the shutters wd come down and the punter wd be shown the door. Bf cd make a pitch based on pricing (from the exchange), price availability and the absence of restrictions.
There are still a wealth of bettors to play for via mobile--people who have never seriously engaged with the web exchange but wd happily have £20 on a horse or dog at a 10% better price. Why can't bf try to buy TurfTV and run its odds along the bottom of the screen to reach these people?
some good points askari.
BF's marketing could be so much better and so much cheaper than it is. trouble is, with the sportsbook as their favoured product, they basically can't do most of the things that would really work. and with the state of the relationship with their exchange customers, they've lost most of the word of mouth/forum based advertising they used to get for nothing.
koch has it half right. they should slash their marketing budget - but not because they shouldn't be interested in the smaller punters. rather, because with better management, better focus and the P2P model front and centre they can be reached more effectively for far less than saturation TV advertising costs.
BF's marketing could be so much better and so much cheaper than it is. trouble is, with the sportsbook as their favoured product, they basically can't do most of the things that would really work. and with the state of the relationship with their exchange customers, they've lost most of the word of mouth/forum based advertising they used to get for nothing.
koch has it half right. they should slash their marketing budget - but not because they shouldn't be interested in the smaller punters. rather, because with better management, better focus and the P2P model front and centre they can be reached more effectively for far less than saturation TV advertising costs.
all they need to do is scrap the sportsbook, scrap the premium charge, scrap all commission, yep zero commission, use the two (old and new) versions of the exchange in a way that one entry point for the casual punter looks like a normal betting site and the other entry point is exactly the same as the old site is now for the serious punters.
liquidity would go through the roof, all other bookies would be crushed. get money in by charging a sliding scale of set rates between 5 and 20% on profit per week on the high winners, theyd all be happy cos theyd be paying less than the ridiculous premium charge tax. the casual, losing or small winning punter would be happy cos they arent paying any commission at all. more happy punters+more happy traders=more liquidity= good times for everybody.
at the moment betfair has nothing really to appeal to anybody. the sportsbook is pointless and worse than 10 other much better established ones out there. ive never even placed a bet on it yet. the traders or winners are turning away cos the charges make it worthless bothering. the casual punter or loser may as well use one of the better bookmaker sites, with better prices and not pay any commission. the exchange is turning into a wasteland with no liquidity except the really big live events cos the bigmoney traders have semi-jumped ship. its trying to be all things to all men, and is ending up doing none of them well.
liquidity would go through the roof, all other bookies would be crushed. get money in by charging a sliding scale of set rates between 5 and 20% on profit per week on the high winners, theyd all be happy cos theyd be paying less than the ridiculous premium charge tax. the casual, losing or small winning punter would be happy cos they arent paying any commission at all. more happy punters+more happy traders=more liquidity= good times for everybody.
at the moment betfair has nothing really to appeal to anybody. the sportsbook is pointless and worse than 10 other much better established ones out there. ive never even placed a bet on it yet. the traders or winners are turning away cos the charges make it worthless bothering. the casual punter or loser may as well use one of the better bookmaker sites, with better prices and not pay any commission. the exchange is turning into a wasteland with no liquidity except the really big live events cos the bigmoney traders have semi-jumped ship. its trying to be all things to all men, and is ending up doing none of them well.
askari1,
The CEO mentioned best price from the exchange going into the sportsbook in the web briefing to investors in May. So when there is liquidity on the exchange there should be no need for the crack trading team. They will only be required for illiquid markets.
The shame is they launched a poor value sportsbook before they had the connection ready. This means that everyday new punters arrive at Betfair through marketing and go straight to the worst prices in the industry.
As a sportsbook Betfair's USP is that it can offer best prices. Why not have your USP in place BEFORE you launch the product?
At the moment everyday Betfair is attracting and then probably losing value hunting customers who will very likely never return.
The CEO mentioned best price from the exchange going into the sportsbook in the web briefing to investors in May. So when there is liquidity on the exchange there should be no need for the crack trading team. They will only be required for illiquid markets.
The shame is they launched a poor value sportsbook before they had the connection ready. This means that everyday new punters arrive at Betfair through marketing and go straight to the worst prices in the industry.
As a sportsbook Betfair's USP is that it can offer best prices. Why not have your USP in place BEFORE you launch the product?
At the moment everyday Betfair is attracting and then probably losing value hunting customers who will very likely never return.
BET365 made a a combined group profit of £148,322,000 for the twelve months to March 31, an increase of 34 per cent.
The group's pre-tax profit comprised £179,239,000 from bet365's gambling operations but losses on Stoke City football club increased from £5,844,000 to £30,917,000, according to their latest accounts.
RP June 22
Look and learn BF. This is what you're up against.
Has anyone noticed the plethora of very noisy bookies around at Ascot this week with all their offers, AP prices, PR. BF once made the big BM,s quake in their shoes. They wanted BF banned, remember? Not anymore it seems. The BF exchange helps the BM's price up, their traders take a view, their marketing nets the punters. Tough competion hetting tougher by the day.
The group's pre-tax profit comprised £179,239,000 from bet365's gambling operations but losses on Stoke City football club increased from £5,844,000 to £30,917,000, according to their latest accounts.
RP June 22
Look and learn BF. This is what you're up against.
Has anyone noticed the plethora of very noisy bookies around at Ascot this week with all their offers, AP prices, PR. BF once made the big BM,s quake in their shoes. They wanted BF banned, remember? Not anymore it seems. The BF exchange helps the BM's price up, their traders take a view, their marketing nets the punters. Tough competion hetting tougher by the day.
As Sandown shows, betfair is relative small fry. I believe that in due course it will be taken over, probably by one of the larger bookmakers. It will be interesting to see what laddies do with their exchange. Currently they are quiet. But has the ascot stats show the purple on is slowly growing as betfair is on decline. If laddies are successful, then the wolves will surround betfair with take over in mind. If laddies are not successful then the exchange model as we know it will be in decline, and betfair will seek a buyer.
frog, I'm not even sure they're going to offer good or market-leading prices on the sportsbook fed through from the exchange. They'd have a hard time matching pinny and the Asians on football anyway.
Fwiw I don't think that the casual punter shd have to get to grips w/ the concept of comm. at all. The price he sees on whatever bf site he bets at shd be the return i.e. a commission deduction shd be taken off the price as it is displayed.
The issue seasoned users of bf have w/ the company's innovations, esp. the new site and sportsbook, isn't that the site doesn't need to adapt to attract new blood. It's more that the mgmt. have confused this aim, which everyone cd get behind, w/ fattening their margins and growing revenues at the expense of the long-term relationship between themselves and their longstanding customers.
Fwiw I don't think that the casual punter shd have to get to grips w/ the concept of comm. at all. The price he sees on whatever bf site he bets at shd be the return i.e. a commission deduction shd be taken off the price as it is displayed.
The issue seasoned users of bf have w/ the company's innovations, esp. the new site and sportsbook, isn't that the site doesn't need to adapt to attract new blood. It's more that the mgmt. have confused this aim, which everyone cd get behind, w/ fattening their margins and growing revenues at the expense of the long-term relationship between themselves and their longstanding customers.
One of the most woeful aspects of the Sportsbook is the regularity with which the "crack traders" invoke the "palpable error" rule. There was another one tonight, when Brazil were leading at half-time against Italy:
2013-06-22 19:49:59 Italy vs Brazil : Match Result
Brazil Back O/0030183/0000564 1 6.50 100.00 Settled 134.00 0.00
Yes, I know 6.50 was palpabkly the wrong price for Brazil to win, and I ought to be grateful, as I definitely wouldn't have had the bet at the 1.34 at which I was eventually paid out. And I know this very occasionally happens with proper bookmakers, BUT ...
1) It happens all the bloody time with the Betfair Sportsbook, and
2) As usual I've received not a word of explanation or apology in any form at all.
2013-06-22 19:49:59 Italy vs Brazil : Match Result
Brazil Back O/0030183/0000564 1 6.50 100.00 Settled 134.00 0.00
Yes, I know 6.50 was palpabkly the wrong price for Brazil to win, and I ought to be grateful, as I definitely wouldn't have had the bet at the 1.34 at which I was eventually paid out. And I know this very occasionally happens with proper bookmakers, BUT ...
1) It happens all the bloody time with the Betfair Sportsbook, and
2) As usual I've received not a word of explanation or apology in any form at all.
If the quoted description of the CEO's package is correct, "The first measures yearly performance and is based 45% on core revenue, 45% on core bf earnings per share and 10% on being a pleasant fellow. The second is measured over three years and is based 25% on revenue, 25% on earnings (I think) and 50% on total shareholder return (stock market performance). Payments for the second plan vest over a series of years.", then there is perhaps a problem.
Every last penny was squeezed before the float. Even some money (trying to premium charge existing bets placed before PC) which Betfair should never have tried to grab was attempted to be trousered. There is an optimal taxation level of the Betfair markets, and every single change has been up, up, up, up, and up again. There will be areas where the optimal long run welfare of Betfair will now be best served by putting some prices down, perhaps in quieter side markets, or to slow down the rate of attrition of important losing customers.
How can the CEO put any price down? The float was helped hugely by the attempts to premium charge, cross match, back date, and others. If he has a yearly target for this year, the CEO's best interests are served by putting up prices further. There is inertia in the markets, many customers will have good runs irrespective of the level of commission, and continue to plough on. But over time, Betfair may be taxing at too fast a rate. The incentives given to the CEO should have been shaped by sustainability, and the revenue and earnings figures (perhaps already compromised by too high a rake already) already have downward momentum because of the price hikes, image damage, and failing network effect and p2p recommendations between current customers and potential new ones.
If it seems logical for the CEO to squeeze even harder to meet this year's target revenue and earnings, but seems also logical for Betfair's long term welfare to lower some prices in some markets, and to some customers, then an immovable object is about to meet an irresistible force.
Every last penny was squeezed before the float. Even some money (trying to premium charge existing bets placed before PC) which Betfair should never have tried to grab was attempted to be trousered. There is an optimal taxation level of the Betfair markets, and every single change has been up, up, up, up, and up again. There will be areas where the optimal long run welfare of Betfair will now be best served by putting some prices down, perhaps in quieter side markets, or to slow down the rate of attrition of important losing customers.
How can the CEO put any price down? The float was helped hugely by the attempts to premium charge, cross match, back date, and others. If he has a yearly target for this year, the CEO's best interests are served by putting up prices further. There is inertia in the markets, many customers will have good runs irrespective of the level of commission, and continue to plough on. But over time, Betfair may be taxing at too fast a rate. The incentives given to the CEO should have been shaped by sustainability, and the revenue and earnings figures (perhaps already compromised by too high a rake already) already have downward momentum because of the price hikes, image damage, and failing network effect and p2p recommendations between current customers and potential new ones.
If it seems logical for the CEO to squeeze even harder to meet this year's target revenue and earnings, but seems also logical for Betfair's long term welfare to lower some prices in some markets, and to some customers, then an immovable object is about to meet an irresistible force.
I don't think its like that. The takeover bid tried to make the CEO return to a business based on the star principle.
The CEO declined to do so.
The CEO and his current policy won the battle.
Every quarter the CEO is now under pressure to increase revenue. Given this how can he possibly risk cutting prices?
Even though scrapping the PC and reducing commission on pre-inplay sports would be likely be good for the long term prospects of the exchange I can no longer see any chance of the current management doing it. Its just not in their interests.
The CEO declined to do so.
The CEO and his current policy won the battle.
Every quarter the CEO is now under pressure to increase revenue. Given this how can he possibly risk cutting prices?
Even though scrapping the PC and reducing commission on pre-inplay sports would be likely be good for the long term prospects of the exchange I can no longer see any chance of the current management doing it. Its just not in their interests.
ballabriggs, the ceo has a short-term incentive plan and a long-term plan.
These are detailed on p52 of their last annual report.
The short-term incentive plan (STIP) offers an opportunity of up to 180% of base salary. 10% is based on 'personal performance' (what I called being 'a pleasant fellow'); half of the remainder on Core Bf adjusted EDITDA and half on revenue. These awards are paid 2/3rds in cash and 1/3rd in shares and vest in equal tranches one and two years after date of grant.
The long-term incentive plan has been changed recently to realign the executive's interests better with those of shareholders. Rewards take the form of nil-cost options. 25% of the awards are based on revenue, 25% on EPS and 50% on a measure of total shareholder return (presumably against competitors).
It's clear that the structure of the incentives (more so before than now) was badly misconceived and drove short-term revenue growth (or window-dressing) at the expense of building a sustainable exchange model. Many of the problems moving away from optimal pricing came about b/c they needed to show upwards revenue and profits growth to the City prior to flotation.
But a targets culture came to be a feature of how management, esp. the chairman and non-exec. committee, conceived of the company, creating a rift between shareholder expectations and actual performance/customer experience.
These are detailed on p52 of their last annual report.
The short-term incentive plan (STIP) offers an opportunity of up to 180% of base salary. 10% is based on 'personal performance' (what I called being 'a pleasant fellow'); half of the remainder on Core Bf adjusted EDITDA and half on revenue. These awards are paid 2/3rds in cash and 1/3rd in shares and vest in equal tranches one and two years after date of grant.
The long-term incentive plan has been changed recently to realign the executive's interests better with those of shareholders. Rewards take the form of nil-cost options. 25% of the awards are based on revenue, 25% on EPS and 50% on a measure of total shareholder return (presumably against competitors).
It's clear that the structure of the incentives (more so before than now) was badly misconceived and drove short-term revenue growth (or window-dressing) at the expense of building a sustainable exchange model. Many of the problems moving away from optimal pricing came about b/c they needed to show upwards revenue and profits growth to the City prior to flotation.
But a targets culture came to be a feature of how management, esp. the chairman and non-exec. committee, conceived of the company, creating a rift between shareholder expectations and actual performance/customer experience.
frog, Breon Corcoran refused to go along w/ the Richard Koch bid centrally b/c he cd not be sure that returning to pure-exchange bf cd secure his short- and long-term incentive plans.
Let's say that after the most glittering career of any gambling exec of the last 10 years he retires from bf w/ his time here judged a failure. What is his future then? Only Coral of the major books have any ceo figure who doesn't have a long career in the industry. Mr Corcoran cd move sideways into a non-betting venture but what job in the leisure industry is as interesting or challenging as bf?
He wd have wanted a shot at returning the company to its earlier growth w/ a plan he's designed himself (a dual sportsbook/exchange, w/ recreational money feeding through to longstanding layers and bf raking off a bigger take). The thinking is clearer than the previous 3-4 years of bf management, but the unstated problem is that it is thoroughly anti-small trader, and these are the people for whom the original site was intended.
Then if Mr Corcoran's plan didn't work out, he wd want a buffer of £6-7 million for another venture or for retirement.
Let's say that after the most glittering career of any gambling exec of the last 10 years he retires from bf w/ his time here judged a failure. What is his future then? Only Coral of the major books have any ceo figure who doesn't have a long career in the industry. Mr Corcoran cd move sideways into a non-betting venture but what job in the leisure industry is as interesting or challenging as bf?
He wd have wanted a shot at returning the company to its earlier growth w/ a plan he's designed himself (a dual sportsbook/exchange, w/ recreational money feeding through to longstanding layers and bf raking off a bigger take). The thinking is clearer than the previous 3-4 years of bf management, but the unstated problem is that it is thoroughly anti-small trader, and these are the people for whom the original site was intended.
Then if Mr Corcoran's plan didn't work out, he wd want a buffer of £6-7 million for another venture or for retirement.
I agree that all the short term incentives are there to get the recreational players using the sportsbook. its higher margin. Its a gamble that reducing the margin will increase Betfairs revenue (especially after consistent BF winners have taken their cut).
Todays game
Nigeria
16.0 on exchange
11.0 on sportsbook
The Draw
6.6 on exchange
5.5 on sportsbook
Will they be willing to give up the sportsbook margin to fed the bets into the exchange?
What advantage do Betfair have over any other bookie taking bets and arbing into the exchange apart from commission on the other side of the bet.
From forum chat on multiples Jan 2009:
Presumably they trade commission - premium charge free?
-
No that would be incorrect. Betfair’-s Malta entity pays commission to Betfair in the UK at the same rate as any customer, and if it met the premium charge criteria it would pay that too, although obviously hedging multiples is never going to be systematically profitable enough to meet the premium charge criteria (when hedging is profitable it will still be at nothing like the kind of strike rate required to pay the charge, so like 98% of the winning accounts on Betfair they’-re unlikely ever to pay it). A number of taxation, transfer pricing and competition laws prohibit the exchange in the UK from dealing with Betfair Malta on any terms other than those available to all customers.
Todays game
Nigeria
16.0 on exchange
11.0 on sportsbook
The Draw
6.6 on exchange
5.5 on sportsbook
Will they be willing to give up the sportsbook margin to fed the bets into the exchange?
What advantage do Betfair have over any other bookie taking bets and arbing into the exchange apart from commission on the other side of the bet.
From forum chat on multiples Jan 2009:
Presumably they trade commission - premium charge free?
-
No that would be incorrect. Betfair’-s Malta entity pays commission to Betfair in the UK at the same rate as any customer, and if it met the premium charge criteria it would pay that too, although obviously hedging multiples is never going to be systematically profitable enough to meet the premium charge criteria (when hedging is profitable it will still be at nothing like the kind of strike rate required to pay the charge, so like 98% of the winning accounts on Betfair they’-re unlikely ever to pay it). A number of taxation, transfer pricing and competition laws prohibit the exchange in the UK from dealing with Betfair Malta on any terms other than those available to all customers.
I suppose they pay commission to themselves but will have to pay extra taxes on it. Kills the idea of offering betting prices on the sportsbook to lock in position players if they cannot offer themselves lower commission.
Betfair should make a payment to the CEO in compensation/damages, then rip up his contract and start again.
The "growth"/"illusion of growth" blood lust has been harmful for Betfair's share price (and ecosystem health). If you divide Betfair's customers into percentiles, and plot the rate of return on wagers to each percentile, even as an outsider, it seems pretty obvious the Gini coefficient year on year will be moving upwards further towards 1 each year. This is where Betfair's main problem actually resides. A Lorenz curve showing the rates of return to each percentile, will be moving further and further away from the diagonal. It is through the pricing mechanism that this can be fixed. Betfair's primary original USP - great value to the man in the street - is being degraded because to be one of the very small number of huge winners, more and more you need every possible advantage available. When you have automated programs in a small number of markets being deliberately sited as close as possible to Betfair's servers to shave off nanoseconds, this is something which ringfences the winners pool from the man in the street, and year on year decreases the value of betting on Betfair to most people. This can be largely (and easily) tackled through the pricing mechanism, but it hasn't been.
The contract should be altered, and the sustainability of the exchange should be prioritised. There should be rewards for the CEO for giving a better run for money for most people, and giving them better returns. One way already cited is to decrease base rate commission from 5% down to something much lower. If the CEO's contract rewarded him in part for improving the Gini ratio of Betfair's userbase, giving most people a better run for their money, Betfair's long term prospects would look much healthier. As it is, the most logical decision for him to make now is to squeeze even harder, and hope that a higher cross the board rake doesn't deplete the pool too quickly, and that a time lag exists by which time he will have left.
Perhaps also a measure of customer satisfaction, you know, measure how many people are happy with emails back or good quality phone calls etcetera, would have been a good idea. There really shouldn't be any excuse in any company for customer service which has been deleteriously tumbleweeded. If even 5% of the CEO's pay was linked to customer surveys of how quickly they got emails back, or how helpful the call centre staff were, the benefits to Betfair could actually be significant.
The "growth"/"illusion of growth" blood lust has been harmful for Betfair's share price (and ecosystem health). If you divide Betfair's customers into percentiles, and plot the rate of return on wagers to each percentile, even as an outsider, it seems pretty obvious the Gini coefficient year on year will be moving upwards further towards 1 each year. This is where Betfair's main problem actually resides. A Lorenz curve showing the rates of return to each percentile, will be moving further and further away from the diagonal. It is through the pricing mechanism that this can be fixed. Betfair's primary original USP - great value to the man in the street - is being degraded because to be one of the very small number of huge winners, more and more you need every possible advantage available. When you have automated programs in a small number of markets being deliberately sited as close as possible to Betfair's servers to shave off nanoseconds, this is something which ringfences the winners pool from the man in the street, and year on year decreases the value of betting on Betfair to most people. This can be largely (and easily) tackled through the pricing mechanism, but it hasn't been.
The contract should be altered, and the sustainability of the exchange should be prioritised. There should be rewards for the CEO for giving a better run for money for most people, and giving them better returns. One way already cited is to decrease base rate commission from 5% down to something much lower. If the CEO's contract rewarded him in part for improving the Gini ratio of Betfair's userbase, giving most people a better run for their money, Betfair's long term prospects would look much healthier. As it is, the most logical decision for him to make now is to squeeze even harder, and hope that a higher cross the board rake doesn't deplete the pool too quickly, and that a time lag exists by which time he will have left.
Perhaps also a measure of customer satisfaction, you know, measure how many people are happy with emails back or good quality phone calls etcetera, would have been a good idea. There really shouldn't be any excuse in any company for customer service which has been deleteriously tumbleweeded. If even 5% of the CEO's pay was linked to customer surveys of how quickly they got emails back, or how helpful the call centre staff were, the benefits to Betfair could actually be significant.
Just to clarify, they have a great CEO, it is his contract which needs to be replaced, not him.
If you divide Betfair's customers into percentiles, and plot the rate of return on wagers to each percentile, even as an outsider, it seems pretty obvious the Gini coefficient year on year will be moving upwards further towards 1 each year. This is where Betfair's main problem actually resides.
Percentiles in terms of gross amounts won/lost? You wd have to exclude a lot of the small or one-time players that are cashing sign-up bonuses or acting on tips.
I'm not sure the company's aim can be a Lorenz curve aligned to the diagonal as they need incumbent winners in place to act as counterparties to tight ORs when their target customer logs on and wants a bet. The company wants to be on the a profit share w/ these customers on terms acceptable to both sides; all the other winners, esp. those consistently exploiting technological advantages, they can lose.
A problem is that the high. comm. to profits-ratio winners they want are exploiting the same technological advantages as their 'find-the-lady'-type winners.
My own sense is that I'm not sure the answer lies in differential pricing. The pc is muddled and substitutes the self-serving aim of increasing revenues for that of keeping the casual punter going longer. (In fact, inasfar as the pc payer merely increases volumes to make the same amount of money, the person on the other side of his bets is cleaned out more quickly).
I wd prefer to see market-specific solutions put in place to get closer to the recreational player losing on average no more than commission. How about a freezeout on reverse trades of 30 secs before the last 5 mins. pre-off and say 10 secs. thereafter on the horses? This wd make little difference to anyone betting on opinion but have a decided effect on traders skimming off a part of the value of opposing punters' wagers.
Percentiles in terms of gross amounts won/lost? You wd have to exclude a lot of the small or one-time players that are cashing sign-up bonuses or acting on tips.
I'm not sure the company's aim can be a Lorenz curve aligned to the diagonal as they need incumbent winners in place to act as counterparties to tight ORs when their target customer logs on and wants a bet. The company wants to be on the a profit share w/ these customers on terms acceptable to both sides; all the other winners, esp. those consistently exploiting technological advantages, they can lose.
A problem is that the high. comm. to profits-ratio winners they want are exploiting the same technological advantages as their 'find-the-lady'-type winners.
My own sense is that I'm not sure the answer lies in differential pricing. The pc is muddled and substitutes the self-serving aim of increasing revenues for that of keeping the casual punter going longer. (In fact, inasfar as the pc payer merely increases volumes to make the same amount of money, the person on the other side of his bets is cleaned out more quickly).
I wd prefer to see market-specific solutions put in place to get closer to the recreational player losing on average no more than commission. How about a freezeout on reverse trades of 30 secs before the last 5 mins. pre-off and say 10 secs. thereafter on the horses? This wd make little difference to anyone betting on opinion but have a decided effect on traders skimming off a part of the value of opposing punters' wagers.
Percentiles in terms of average return per dollar wagered, with the highest returns per dollar wagered in the top percentile, etcetera. It would be fascinating to see the return percentage of the median punter each year across the last decade. A diagonal Lorenz curve would be Betfair's dream come true - everyone shuffling money backwards and forwards between themselves, with no-one having any edge over anyone else (...otherwise known as casino games).
The PC in many ways acts in favour of people who currently pay it - it makes little difference in reality to the largest winners, but it makes it harder at the margin for a bright 18 year old, who starts out betting £2, to one day take their place. Can an outstanding bright 18 year old really afford satellite subscriptions, API fees, PC, etc, or is the winners enclosure now a gated community? Making it harder for future sharps does have knock on ramifications, making current PC payers rest on laurels, and in the end makes it easier for the incumbents.
Steps towards making recreational players lose on average no more than commission would be a big Gini coeff improvement. How would the 30 second freezeout work?
The PC in many ways acts in favour of people who currently pay it - it makes little difference in reality to the largest winners, but it makes it harder at the margin for a bright 18 year old, who starts out betting £2, to one day take their place. Can an outstanding bright 18 year old really afford satellite subscriptions, API fees, PC, etc, or is the winners enclosure now a gated community? Making it harder for future sharps does have knock on ramifications, making current PC payers rest on laurels, and in the end makes it easier for the incumbents.
Steps towards making recreational players lose on average no more than commission would be a big Gini coeff improvement. How would the 30 second freezeout work?
good level of debate on this thread, imho, even if I don't agree with everything on it.
BF should stop obsessing about the amount some people are making. in itself that's meaningless. unless you look at what a winner is winning in the context of the net cost/benefit of their exchange behaviour to Betfair, you have no hope of coming up with an intelligent, effective pricing model.
imagine two hypothetical customers. both make a net profit of let's say 10K a week. one of them does this by market making in hundreds of markets, pushing overrounds in all of them closer to 100% than they'd otherwise be. the other one has one massive bet a week, based on inside info, which always wins.
atm BF judges the value of these two imaginary customers purely on the basis of the immediate revenue they bring in. this is a conveniently simple way of doing the calculation but it's also completely divorced from reality. customer one is effectively a partner, enabling them to make further revenue from other customers. customer two is a parasitic drain on the company. yet their current pricing model has no way of or interest in distinguishing between the two.
BF should stop obsessing about the amount some people are making. in itself that's meaningless. unless you look at what a winner is winning in the context of the net cost/benefit of their exchange behaviour to Betfair, you have no hope of coming up with an intelligent, effective pricing model.
imagine two hypothetical customers. both make a net profit of let's say 10K a week. one of them does this by market making in hundreds of markets, pushing overrounds in all of them closer to 100% than they'd otherwise be. the other one has one massive bet a week, based on inside info, which always wins.
atm BF judges the value of these two imaginary customers purely on the basis of the immediate revenue they bring in. this is a conveniently simple way of doing the calculation but it's also completely divorced from reality. customer one is effectively a partner, enabling them to make further revenue from other customers. customer two is a parasitic drain on the company. yet their current pricing model has no way of or interest in distinguishing between the two.
el P, good point about BF needing to incentivise people who push the over round toward 100. They are making money by taking on risk, and to penalize them with the PC just disincentivises them. And I speak as someone who does this and left BF for 18 months because of the PC.
The trouble with all this analysis is it just means more complicated charges and ever changing charges. With such uncertainty people are not going to invest time in trying to find ways of winning on here.
Betfair has lost the concept that its an exchange. Does the NYSE charge winning stock traders and banks more than loses and then take extra from them if they make 'too much'?
As an exchange pre-PC Betfair was a cash generating machine for the owners. I dont know why they decided that wasnt enough for them.
Betfair has lost the concept that its an exchange. Does the NYSE charge winning stock traders and banks more than loses and then take extra from them if they make 'too much'?
As an exchange pre-PC Betfair was a cash generating machine for the owners. I dont know why they decided that wasnt enough for them.
Never mind the PC. The COMMISSION RATE is the issue.
Match odds markets in the English County Cricket Ch'ship are tumbleweed markets which should be thriving. They currently have fivers or tenners floating around at 140%-plus.
In 2011 and 2012 I put up a hundred pounds or more for all three outcomes in every game at around 103-110%, both pre-match and overnight for all four days.
This incentivized quite a bit of action. I often managed to lay all three outcomes pre-match. Sometimes I got it badly wrong with the weather and got picked off. All part of what Betfair is about.
The first year I won about £1,500 after commission (about 4% in my case). Not bad, although it took a lot of work and research. Last year I lost about £1,600. The lousy weather last summer caught me out laying the draw too generously. Fair enough - all part of the learning curve.
The trouble is that for two 6-month periods of time-consuming work and risk I had won about £500 on my betting, while Betfair had taken about £600 in commission, leaving me with a net loss of £100.
Instead of using the experience to go forward with the project, I've simply given it up. The markets have returned to tumbleweed. I have made a conscious decision for 2013 to placing most of my business through conventional bookmakers via betting shops, using Betfair mainly for hedging. My commission rate has increased to 4.7%, reflecting my reduced business on here, making the the site even less attractive.
And I've had the best 6 months of profit since I started using Betfair 8 years ago. Simply by avoiding the site and its hopeless commission rate.
Match odds markets in the English County Cricket Ch'ship are tumbleweed markets which should be thriving. They currently have fivers or tenners floating around at 140%-plus.
In 2011 and 2012 I put up a hundred pounds or more for all three outcomes in every game at around 103-110%, both pre-match and overnight for all four days.
This incentivized quite a bit of action. I often managed to lay all three outcomes pre-match. Sometimes I got it badly wrong with the weather and got picked off. All part of what Betfair is about.
The first year I won about £1,500 after commission (about 4% in my case). Not bad, although it took a lot of work and research. Last year I lost about £1,600. The lousy weather last summer caught me out laying the draw too generously. Fair enough - all part of the learning curve.
The trouble is that for two 6-month periods of time-consuming work and risk I had won about £500 on my betting, while Betfair had taken about £600 in commission, leaving me with a net loss of £100.
Instead of using the experience to go forward with the project, I've simply given it up. The markets have returned to tumbleweed. I have made a conscious decision for 2013 to placing most of my business through conventional bookmakers via betting shops, using Betfair mainly for hedging. My commission rate has increased to 4.7%, reflecting my reduced business on here, making the the site even less attractive.
And I've had the best 6 months of profit since I started using Betfair 8 years ago. Simply by avoiding the site and its hopeless commission rate.
Purple had a scheme, good in concept, not so good in execution, that incentivized bet offerers. Thus encouraging people to provide liquidity and push the over round toward 100.
screaming from beneaththewaves,
Had you always layed all three outcomes commission rate would not matter because you would lock in a small profit. The current basic commission rates favour traders doing this.
I assume you were not always laying all three.
5% commission on three or two outcome markets only works for traders. By charging 5% Betfair is discouraging people to keep a position to the outcome point. The bookie provide better value after commission on straight bets.
If the basic rate was less people would be less inclined to trade out and punters would be more likely to use them rather than the bookies thus betfair would probably make more overall revenue.
Had you always layed all three outcomes commission rate would not matter because you would lock in a small profit. The current basic commission rates favour traders doing this.
I assume you were not always laying all three.
5% commission on three or two outcome markets only works for traders. By charging 5% Betfair is discouraging people to keep a position to the outcome point. The bookie provide better value after commission on straight bets.
If the basic rate was less people would be less inclined to trade out and punters would be more likely to use them rather than the bookies thus betfair would probably make more overall revenue.
Yeah, though I often managed to lay all three outcomes pre-match, obviously on most occasions I didn't. And when I continued offering odds overnight between each day's play, I would almost always end up with some outcomes green and some red.
I wasn't trying to green up. I'm a punter with an opinion. If I'd tried to green up every time, to reduce commission, I would have had to offer odds which were too attractive to backers. In practice this would have meant redding up more often than not, so I would simply have found another way of losing.
I wasn't trying to green up. I'm a punter with an opinion. If I'd tried to green up every time, to reduce commission, I would have had to offer odds which were too attractive to backers. In practice this would have meant redding up more often than not, so I would simply have found another way of losing.
BF's problems are not all self-inflicted. Some are external or put simply the competition is just one hell of a lot more competitive now.
As a backer, consider these points in favour of NOT using BF exchange
1. BM's Rule 4's do not work against backers as much as BF's do.
2. BM's R4's are frequently waived if below 15p
3. BM's offer BOG (best odds guaranteed)
4. Non Runner No Bet which is a big plus when applied for major races several days before a race
5. Money Back offers if a horse finishes second, or a named horse wins the race
6. Discretionary returns eg PP just returned all bets on Ektihaam
7. Extended prices during Happy Hours
8 Extended number of places for big handicaps
9 Main exchange competitor operates lower commission, no PC
10. Increased prices, terms for Mobile use
What does BF have to offer in reply?
1. Increased minimum bet of £50 for phone bets -why? A real disincentive that is to back longer prices
2. PC charge
Seroiusly, what POSITIVES are there that BF can shout?
1. Better prices ? Really? After commission? Taking PC into account?
2. No restrictions on amounts bet - except liquidity restrainst
3. No account closures - true and the one remaining USP
What do
As a backer, consider these points in favour of NOT using BF exchange
1. BM's Rule 4's do not work against backers as much as BF's do.
2. BM's R4's are frequently waived if below 15p
3. BM's offer BOG (best odds guaranteed)
4. Non Runner No Bet which is a big plus when applied for major races several days before a race
5. Money Back offers if a horse finishes second, or a named horse wins the race
6. Discretionary returns eg PP just returned all bets on Ektihaam
7. Extended prices during Happy Hours
8 Extended number of places for big handicaps
9 Main exchange competitor operates lower commission, no PC
10. Increased prices, terms for Mobile use
What does BF have to offer in reply?
1. Increased minimum bet of £50 for phone bets -why? A real disincentive that is to back longer prices
2. PC charge
Seroiusly, what POSITIVES are there that BF can shout?
1. Better prices ? Really? After commission? Taking PC into account?
2. No restrictions on amounts bet - except liquidity restrainst
3. No account closures - true and the one remaining USP
What do
Oh, and I forgot that if ingenuity is applied, you can get bigger amounts on AP on longer priced horses with BM's.
3. No account closures - true and the one remaining USP
Only applies to horse racing. Even with horses you can get on if you try hard enough.
Only applies to horse racing. Even with horses you can get on if you try hard enough.
Another huge advantage Betfair has in horse racing is that it doesn't reduce the number of places on which backers are paid out if a non-runner causes a 16-runner h'cap to become a 15-runner one. Nor if an 8-runner race becomes 7 runners. And it doesn't arbitrarily turn place bets into win ones if the number of runners falls from 5 to 4.
Now there's an ideal basis on which Betfair could run an advertising campaign. Except, as usual, it can't because of this cretinous sportsbook, whose place terms mirror those of bookmakers.
Now there's an ideal basis on which Betfair could run an advertising campaign. Except, as usual, it can't because of this cretinous sportsbook, whose place terms mirror those of bookmakers.
That's true screaming but it's also true that BF place odds represent close to true place odds given BF win odds whereas with BM's you can get significantly better place odds in distorted markets (where there is a very short price favourite and a gap to 2nd/3rd fav)providing you can get on EW with the BM. If you can, it provides a great arbing opportunity.
And of course when BM's go 1/4 odds 1,2,3 in conditions races at Festival times. So we can add enhanced placed terms to the advantages that BM offer.
I don't think that the BF place market policy is enough of an edge imo to position it as a USP.
I don't think that the BF place market policy is enough of an edge imo to position it as a USP.
It's the "providing you can get on EW with the BM" bit which is vital.
All the betting shops in my experience now have a daily list of "bad each way races" listed on the staff monitor, while online you're just fast-tracking your way to account closure.
And don't forget the place-only aspect of Betfair. It may be a big plus getting evens the place with the bookmakers about a horse which is 1.5 for a place on here. But at least on here you're not forced to invest the same stake again at 5/1 to win when it's showing at 12.0 in the win market.
All the betting shops in my experience now have a daily list of "bad each way races" listed on the staff monitor, while online you're just fast-tracking your way to account closure.
And don't forget the place-only aspect of Betfair. It may be a big plus getting evens the place with the bookmakers about a horse which is 1.5 for a place on here. But at least on here you're not forced to invest the same stake again at 5/1 to win when it's showing at 12.0 in the win market.
Another useful one Sandown is many bookies that pay first past the post and the amended result - rare that you kop on one of these of course but all your list adds up to a huge reason for not using BF for horses at all if you can get on with the books. In fact, I have thought for a while now there is no real reason for the casual horse backer to ever consider using BF.
For me, BF's only real selling point is the in-running offering. They still wipe the floor with the competition on that, yet the never seem to want to tell the world about it, preferring instead to currently plug the "cash-out" option or go through dubious "we were best priced on X horses compared to Hills, Lads etc at the Cheltenham festival" type of adverts.
For me, BF's only real selling point is the in-running offering. They still wipe the floor with the competition on that, yet the never seem to want to tell the world about it, preferring instead to currently plug the "cash-out" option or go through dubious "we were best priced on X horses compared to Hills, Lads etc at the Cheltenham festival" type of adverts.
Ballabriggs: A diagonal Lorenz curve would be Betfair's dream come true - everyone shuffling money backwards and forwards between themselves, with no-one having any edge over anyone else (...otherwise known as casino games).
You answer as if I didn't understand you, rather than I just didn't agree.
What you're describing is too much of a purist fantasy.
They are not going to expose them/s to risk (even after they won something like 16 mill. for doing so in a terrifying way) and want to have layers onside who are almost sure to win.
You answer as if I didn't understand you, rather than I just didn't agree.
What you're describing is too much of a purist fantasy.
They are not going to expose them/s to risk (even after they won something like 16 mill. for doing so in a terrifying way) and want to have layers onside who are almost sure to win.
Following on again from what Sandown is saying, look at Ascot last week if you were a £25 punter:
Bet365 - free bet in the next race if you back a 4/1 winner
Lads/Hills - free bet if your horse was second
VC - free bet on a losing race if R Hughes horse was placed
Those are the 4 main offers off the top of my head and in addition the usual BOG, enhanced places and other concessions applied. With your £25 at Hills you could even wait until the 1pm-2pm enhanced happy hour slot and may haven been fortunate enough to get 7/2 about Duntle and 8/1 about Rizeena.
Seriously, what use would BF have been apart from getting a bit bigger on an outsider? Not that many outsiders came in of course......
Bet365 - free bet in the next race if you back a 4/1 winner
Lads/Hills - free bet if your horse was second
VC - free bet on a losing race if R Hughes horse was placed
Those are the 4 main offers off the top of my head and in addition the usual BOG, enhanced places and other concessions applied. With your £25 at Hills you could even wait until the 1pm-2pm enhanced happy hour slot and may haven been fortunate enough to get 7/2 about Duntle and 8/1 about Rizeena.
Seriously, what use would BF have been apart from getting a bit bigger on an outsider? Not that many outsiders came in of course......
Oh and perhaps one other thing is of interest on BF and that is the "keep bet" facility. Again, they never shout about this, but the ability to leave up an odds on lay as a hedge to your 8/1 Rizeena would I am sure be of interest to a good few with a small bit of education.
TheVis
Of course, you can lay at 1.01 on here which if a winner will get you the equivalent of "first past the post" and sometimes that will get done even if beaten which is some kind of reward, but it all costs. The laying in running as a "keep" bet is a dubious advantage the larger the price the bet is placed because on the basis of an analysis I did some time ago, the IR backers have a considerable advantage over about 1.5. Their edge is too good collectively. But yes, IR is a plus point for exchanges although of course many BM's also offer IR terms.
Whether you are a £25, £250 or £2500 horses punter, the only reson imo for betting on BF is that you can at least get on here whereas most likely your account would be closed with a BM if you are seen to be backing "live" horses.
Screaming
I wonder how many people play the place only market? I'm sure that those who do may not be heavy players but I may be wrong. The markets appear less heavy and the prices are always what they should be it seems, as a function of place chance linked to win price.
Of course, you can lay at 1.01 on here which if a winner will get you the equivalent of "first past the post" and sometimes that will get done even if beaten which is some kind of reward, but it all costs. The laying in running as a "keep" bet is a dubious advantage the larger the price the bet is placed because on the basis of an analysis I did some time ago, the IR backers have a considerable advantage over about 1.5. Their edge is too good collectively. But yes, IR is a plus point for exchanges although of course many BM's also offer IR terms.
Whether you are a £25, £250 or £2500 horses punter, the only reson imo for betting on BF is that you can at least get on here whereas most likely your account would be closed with a BM if you are seen to be backing "live" horses.
Screaming
I wonder how many people play the place only market? I'm sure that those who do may not be heavy players but I may be wrong. The markets appear less heavy and the prices are always what they should be it seems, as a function of place chance linked to win price.
ballabriggs: The PC in many ways acts in favour of people who currently pay it - it makes little difference in reality to the largest winners, but it makes it harder at the margin for a bright 18 year old, who starts out betting £2, to one day take their place.
By contrast I agree w/ this unreservedly.
If I were starting again today, knowing then what I know now etc., I wd begin w/ putting in place some sort of arrangement to get on. Given that I only want to bet on about 100 days racing a year and wd be happy for bets to be in the low-to-mid hundreds, this shdn't be too difficult w/ about five placers and a share of their own teams of sub-placers. Anything greater than this and I wd have to start doing the horses full-time, wh/ I don't want to do, as my own small business is more interesting / challenging than what used to be called 'bandit' racing.
There wd be no reason to bother w/ bf at all.
I'm someone who cd stand about 20k of losses in an exceptionally bad year w/out it affecting my lifestyle or betting activity (in fact I had a Cheltenham where I went on some kind of tilt and lost quite a bit more than this). Of course I normally expect to win over prolonged periods and take only bets I've estimated as being +ve expectation, but I don't see that bf wd not want me as a client--or really who they wd want as a client if it's not someone w/ my degree of interest and betting aspirations.
The way bf is set up still favours the loophole-exploiting pc payer far more than the form / stats student or genuine enthusiast who wants to pit his wits against the markets. They're not the place I wd encourage anyone to start betting, esp. on the horses, and any advice I'd give wd stress that the casual players faced many in-built disadvantages re both the house and non-house algos.
By contrast I agree w/ this unreservedly.
If I were starting again today, knowing then what I know now etc., I wd begin w/ putting in place some sort of arrangement to get on. Given that I only want to bet on about 100 days racing a year and wd be happy for bets to be in the low-to-mid hundreds, this shdn't be too difficult w/ about five placers and a share of their own teams of sub-placers. Anything greater than this and I wd have to start doing the horses full-time, wh/ I don't want to do, as my own small business is more interesting / challenging than what used to be called 'bandit' racing.
There wd be no reason to bother w/ bf at all.
I'm someone who cd stand about 20k of losses in an exceptionally bad year w/out it affecting my lifestyle or betting activity (in fact I had a Cheltenham where I went on some kind of tilt and lost quite a bit more than this). Of course I normally expect to win over prolonged periods and take only bets I've estimated as being +ve expectation, but I don't see that bf wd not want me as a client--or really who they wd want as a client if it's not someone w/ my degree of interest and betting aspirations.
The way bf is set up still favours the loophole-exploiting pc payer far more than the form / stats student or genuine enthusiast who wants to pit his wits against the markets. They're not the place I wd encourage anyone to start betting, esp. on the horses, and any advice I'd give wd stress that the casual players faced many in-built disadvantages re both the house and non-house algos.
The £25 horse punter has been closed down by the conventional book if he follows tipsters, otherwise takes best prices or wins.
I can believe that a lot of these winners understand enough (even if it's not about horses) just not to bet at bf when Pricewise advised 20-1 and they're being offered 15-1 on here. If they have no genuine interest in horses, they will play poker w/ the £25 instead.
I can believe that a lot of these winners understand enough (even if it's not about horses) just not to bet at bf when Pricewise advised 20-1 and they're being offered 15-1 on here. If they have no genuine interest in horses, they will play poker w/ the £25 instead.
I posted earlier about the state of the BF AP markets especially horseracing.
The 2 biggest Flat races in the remainder of the Flat season are the K George and then the Arc. Currently in the former race the first 10 in the betting have an average of £8 to back and for the Arc an average of £20 for the first 10 in the betting. How pathetic is that? Its only £2 punters who could play. These are markets which should be generating thousands in stakes right now. Do BF have a clue, I ask?
Its gambling & marketing skills which are most needed here.
The 2 biggest Flat races in the remainder of the Flat season are the K George and then the Arc. Currently in the former race the first 10 in the betting have an average of £8 to back and for the Arc an average of £20 for the first 10 in the betting. How pathetic is that? Its only £2 punters who could play. These are markets which should be generating thousands in stakes right now. Do BF have a clue, I ask?
Its gambling & marketing skills which are most needed here.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539