General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
From a business perspective, betfair have made lots more money.
They made a good business move, like the bookies limiting accounts. To be fair to them, businesswise it was a giid move.
They made a good business move, like the bookies limiting accounts. To be fair to them, businesswise it was a giid move.
Show More
In the short term, maybe, but what it's done for the long-term remains to be seen. Plenty of markets are now like ghost towns when compared to the situation before PC was introduced. That's not to say that PC is solely to blame, but it certainly hasn't helped the situation.
Without knowing how much is collected,it's an impossible question to answer.
Plenty of markets are now like ghost towns
____________
isn't that what bf want ? they must be rubbing their hands that a most of the new (unwitting) green punters are now on the sportsbook
it's a loss to us ,not to them
they couldn't care less if we play on here or not -but then i mentioned all this last year
if the sportsbook went t1ts up, they would get punters back on the exchange with sweeteners -including the full timers -and we would come running as well
they have us all by the proverbials
it's not rocket surgery
____________
isn't that what bf want ? they must be rubbing their hands that a most of the new (unwitting) green punters are now on the sportsbook
it's a loss to us ,not to them
they couldn't care less if we play on here or not -but then i mentioned all this last year
if the sportsbook went t1ts up, they would get punters back on the exchange with sweeteners -including the full timers -and we would come running as well
they have us all by the proverbials
it's not rocket surgery
not sure its a great move......................BF's handle has been the same for 3 years around 50billion, so they made more money off the same volume handle, but the big one is that EBITDA was down 19% last year, yeah I suppose a fix to stop the slide in the immediate term but in the long run, I'm not so sure
From a business perspective, betfair have made lots more money.
Nice fishing.... there is a thread on the premium charge that explains why the Premium Charge is bad for Betfair. Have a read if you have a spare few hours and then come back.
To summarise for you Betfair revenues were growing at 25%-37% for the four years leading up to the first PC in Novemeber 2008.
Betfair brought in a 'trader' to advise them on how to make even more money. Unfortunately it was someone who pre-Betfair was only 'an occassional losing punter with Ladbrokes and William Hill'. Some one who had never heard of SBOBET and Pinnacle Sports so not someone who know much about the implications of the PC in terms of the professional betting market in general.
The years following the first PC growth in revenue dropped to 12%. Since PC2 growth has almost stopped completely.
It could be said that Betfair took a wrong turn in 2008 and have followed that route ever since. Instead of trying the make the markets fairer and more efficient they choose to tax winners instead.
If you look at PLC competitors like Hill their interactive division had gross win of £137m in 2008 to £446m for 2013. Betfair were £387m in the last report up from 308m in the 2008 report.
Betfair have gone from having revenue over double Hills online to well below. If Betfair had carried on at the pre-PC 20% growth rate their revenue would now be almost £800m a year. If they had grown at the rate of Hills interactive the revenues would be around the £1bn a year mark. Instead they are below £400m.
Nice fishing.... there is a thread on the premium charge that explains why the Premium Charge is bad for Betfair. Have a read if you have a spare few hours and then come back.
To summarise for you Betfair revenues were growing at 25%-37% for the four years leading up to the first PC in Novemeber 2008.
Betfair brought in a 'trader' to advise them on how to make even more money. Unfortunately it was someone who pre-Betfair was only 'an occassional losing punter with Ladbrokes and William Hill'. Some one who had never heard of SBOBET and Pinnacle Sports so not someone who know much about the implications of the PC in terms of the professional betting market in general.
The years following the first PC growth in revenue dropped to 12%. Since PC2 growth has almost stopped completely.
It could be said that Betfair took a wrong turn in 2008 and have followed that route ever since. Instead of trying the make the markets fairer and more efficient they choose to tax winners instead.
If you look at PLC competitors like Hill their interactive division had gross win of £137m in 2008 to £446m for 2013. Betfair were £387m in the last report up from 308m in the 2008 report.
Betfair have gone from having revenue over double Hills online to well below. If Betfair had carried on at the pre-PC 20% growth rate their revenue would now be almost £800m a year. If they had grown at the rate of Hills interactive the revenues would be around the £1bn a year mark. Instead they are below £400m.
Looks to me as though horse racing hasn't grown much for about 7 years, long before the Premium Charge was even a sparkle in someone's eye. It seems reasonable to suggest that the exchange model has a natural saturation point on that basis. When you throw in countries shutting down in your time period as well... well, the handle growth seems completely expected. In such a multi-variate model, I think your cause and effect assumption is way too simplistic. For instance, we've also had a fairly large economic downturn since your test period starts. This MUST have had some impact but who knows whether it's more or less than Premium Charge.
Of course Mark Davies has suggested that your theory is right and I guess there's a chance he would suggest everything Betfair did in the early days (when he was prominent) was good and only when he became marginalised that big mistakes were made.
I've followed the last few investor presentations - the strategy has clearly split the market in to one segment which isn't growing and one that is. Hill's have grown as they are entirely in the growing unsophisticated gambling sector. The gaming revenue from those companies tends to suggest that the customer split is sound as well as you'd imagine unsophisticated gamblers like gaming more.
One thing that is clear is that since Corcoran has been in charge, the share price has flown and whether you think there are structural issues or not, I would imagine he cares not a jot - the market thinks he's done well and he'll be rewarded for it.
Of course Mark Davies has suggested that your theory is right and I guess there's a chance he would suggest everything Betfair did in the early days (when he was prominent) was good and only when he became marginalised that big mistakes were made.
I've followed the last few investor presentations - the strategy has clearly split the market in to one segment which isn't growing and one that is. Hill's have grown as they are entirely in the growing unsophisticated gambling sector. The gaming revenue from those companies tends to suggest that the customer split is sound as well as you'd imagine unsophisticated gamblers like gaming more.
One thing that is clear is that since Corcoran has been in charge, the share price has flown and whether you think there are structural issues or not, I would imagine he cares not a jot - the market thinks he's done well and he'll be rewarded for it.
Looks to me as though horse racing hasn't grown much for about 7 years, long before the Premium Charge was even a sparkle in someone's eye. It seems reasonable to suggest that the exchange model has a natural saturation point on that basis. When you throw in countries shutting down in your time period as well... well, the handle growth seems completely expected. In such a multi-variate model, I think your cause and effect assumption is way too simplistic. For instance, we've also had a fairly large economic downturn since your test period starts. This MUST have had some impact but who knows whether it's more or less than Premium Charge.
The 'economic downturn' is no excuse. The Hills and Paddy Power figures make it invalid. The online betting market has grown massive overall in the last 6 years and Betfair has not cashed in a that.
Of course Mark Davies has suggested that your theory is right and I guess there's a chance he would suggest everything Betfair did in the early days (when he was prominent) was good and only when he became marginalised that big mistakes were made.
Mark Davies was behind and argued forcefully that the PC was needed when it came in. It is only recently he appears to have realised the wider impact of it.
I've followed the last few investor presentations - the strategy has clearly split the market in to one segment which isn't growing and one that is. Hill's have grown as they are entirely in the growing unsophisticated gambling sector. The gaming revenue from those companies tends to suggest that the customer split is sound as well as you'd imagine unsophisticated gamblers like gaming more.
Pinnacle Sports and SBObet have grown in the last 6 years if their betting limits are anything to go by. The Asian handicap markets they run are to 102%-103%. This is clearly the sophisticated end of the market. All gambling is growing.
One thing that is clear is that since Corcoran has been in charge, the share price has flown and whether you think there are structural issues or not, I would imagine he cares not a jot - the market thinks he's done well and he'll be rewarded for it.
When he took over the shareprice was around £780. It had dropped to around £700 before the takeover bid got interest going in the potential of Betfair. I think they ended up offering £975 a share. The price is now £1050.
The 'economic downturn' is no excuse. The Hills and Paddy Power figures make it invalid. The online betting market has grown massive overall in the last 6 years and Betfair has not cashed in a that.
Of course Mark Davies has suggested that your theory is right and I guess there's a chance he would suggest everything Betfair did in the early days (when he was prominent) was good and only when he became marginalised that big mistakes were made.
Mark Davies was behind and argued forcefully that the PC was needed when it came in. It is only recently he appears to have realised the wider impact of it.
I've followed the last few investor presentations - the strategy has clearly split the market in to one segment which isn't growing and one that is. Hill's have grown as they are entirely in the growing unsophisticated gambling sector. The gaming revenue from those companies tends to suggest that the customer split is sound as well as you'd imagine unsophisticated gamblers like gaming more.
Pinnacle Sports and SBObet have grown in the last 6 years if their betting limits are anything to go by. The Asian handicap markets they run are to 102%-103%. This is clearly the sophisticated end of the market. All gambling is growing.
One thing that is clear is that since Corcoran has been in charge, the share price has flown and whether you think there are structural issues or not, I would imagine he cares not a jot - the market thinks he's done well and he'll be rewarded for it.
When he took over the shareprice was around £780. It had dropped to around £700 before the takeover bid got interest going in the potential of Betfair. I think they ended up offering £975 a share. The price is now £1050.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539