Forums

General Betting

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 241 comments are related to the topic:
NO LIQUIDITY ON BETFAIR

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 3 of 7  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 241
By:
dave1357
When: 17 Jun 16 10:05
and if it loses elsewhere, you lose all your money, rather than 40% to 80% of it. 

There are plenty of arguments against the premium charge, but this isn't one.
By:
bingo bongo
When: 17 Jun 16 10:41
I get where TP is coming from but for me selectively excluding a few markets from pc often doesn't work. When they dropped pc from Spanish football for a period I ended up paying more. To encourage certain markets simply lower the commission rate.
By:
bingo bongo
When: 17 Jun 16 10:46
dave - your assuming that every pc customer pays every week, and that they know in advance they will be paying it at the end of the week, its not that simple for a lot of players.
By:
Coachbuster
When: 17 Jun 16 11:19
Liquidity been very good for the Euro's  - no complaints  - will probably fizzle out though for the new EPL season.

Racing at R-Ascot has been fair i feel for modest stakers such as myself  - depends on what you're  trying to achieve  - obviously poor if youre trying to stake thousands at a time
By:
romfordiron
When: 17 Jun 16 11:50
I'm no racing expert at all, but will do bits on the big meetings. Ascot seems to have a big reduction in liquidity this year. I'm sure the abundance of other sport at the same time this year is largely to explain - only hardened racing fans would be betting on and watching that whilst England were playing Wales. The expectation of big numbers of withdrawals due to the going probably doesn't help either.

Liquidity on the main markets for the Euros seems very strong.
By:
dave1357
When: 17 Jun 16 11:58

Jun 17, 2016 -- 4:46AM, bingo bongo wrote:


dave - your assuming that every pc customer pays every week, and that they know in advance they will be paying it at the end of the week, its not that simple for a lot of players.


The example given was a successful football trader.  He is going to be making successful trades sooner or later.  To say that such people not putting their casual bets on is affecting liquidity is just silly.  (Especially so when the implication is that someone smart enough to win would be placing their bets on an illiquid market.)

PC and liquidity arguments should all be based on the structure of the charge.  Someone who bets odds on - ie most layers - suffers a huge reduction in roi in comparison to a backer -odds against bettor - with the same roi.  It is obviously absurd for an exchange to punish successful layers.

By:
Templeton Peck
When: 17 Jun 16 15:42
I'm afraid your point is going over my head.  Why would I, a 40% PC payer, place my £50 side market bets with Betfair when I can get £50 on with the bookies?  Trading I have to do on Betfair but side market punts?  I'd be crazy.
By:
dave1357
When: 17 Jun 16 15:54
You can do what you like but it won't make any difference, all other thing being equal.
By:
curlywurly
When: 18 Jun 16 14:15
Don't see how it makes any difference.
I pay 50% if I want a £100 side market bet at 2.0, then I put on £200 at 2.0.
Just a question of whether it's easier to get £100 on with the bookies or £200 on a side market here.
By:
Templeton Peck
When: 18 Jun 16 16:21
The side markets I'm talking of are lacking liquidity (plenty are literally empty now) so getting a bet on is hard enough let alone having to double your stake to make up for the PC.
By:
dave1357
When: 18 Jun 16 18:21
that's more to the point- there isn't money in the markets because the premium charge takes too much away from layers.
By:
CLYDEBANK29
When: 19 Jun 16 00:09
One thing you fail to consider on turnover on the more illiquid markets is the availability of and increasing usage of cash out. If there is no, or little, or bad value, market liquidity in running, this doesn't offer the casual punter the chance to cash out, and he stops betting, preferring instead to switch to those markets where it's guaranteed.
By:
Johnny The Guesser
When: 19 Jun 16 14:04
The gambling industry has moved on. There are not enough fish to feed the sharks. The battle now is for the fishes business not just any business.

Shark v Bot v Shark  grinding it out on an exchange is just a perfect complimentary business for a sports book.

The good times ain't ever coming back.

Be the best Shark or move on.
By:
Coachbuster
When: 19 Jun 16 14:18
very true Jonny -  B356 and a host of others have taken a slice of the pie
By:
pxb
When: 19 Jun 16 23:40
I'm still making money, even though some markets/sports have got significantly harder.

Now if I can only get my $Markets account working.
By:
siwaadupa
When: 20 Jun 16 14:53
@Johnny The Guesser
Spot on.
You can either scrap peanuts here or move on.
By:
hartani
When: 21 Jun 16 11:31
Euro 2016 amounts on the exchange at way lower than Euro 2012
By:
hartani
When: 21 Jun 16 11:32
Probably 50% or so lower
By:
Coachbuster
When: 21 Jun 16 21:20
people are losing interest in the tournament who like to bet on goals or exciting games
By:
CONER
When: 22 Jun 16 12:36
Think the pc has a lot to do with it.
By:
Coachbuster
When: 22 Jun 16 18:49
PC only has a base level effect despite what folk like to think . If you don't have exciting games folk won't watch and in turn ,a lack of backers
By:
CONER
When: 22 Jun 16 21:01
Trouble is base level just keeps declining
By:
hartani
When: 22 Jun 16 21:07
Coachbuster, most sports are seeing major declines. So your theory is flawed. Ascot down loads as well. It's clear that backers are not reaching the exchange any more.
By:
Coachbuster
When: 22 Jun 16 22:14
...or it could be due to extensive competition , freebies and promotions from other companies , lack of  exchange investment = re adverts ,fewer overseas punters.

As bad as the Premium charge is , it would be ridiculous to hold responsible for everything .
By:
Coachbuster
When: 22 Jun 16 22:16
...as far as Ascot goes, almost every Bookmaker could  compete with BF exchange for prices -plus with loyalty bonuses ,BOG etc chucked in  - so who in their right mind  would back a horse knowing that any winnings  would be subject to comms ?
By:
Coachbuster
When: 22 Jun 16 22:18
Euro 2016 is down compared with WC 2014 simply because of the goals per game.

Each goal acts as a catalyst .

Premium charges were just as high 2 years ago
By:
pxb
When: 23 Jun 16 02:55
Premium charges were just as high 2 years ago

But over time, more and more people reach it, and an increasing percentage of traders pay it and change their behaviour.

As I have said before, BF are taking a short term profit maximizing approach, which leaves them wide open to a competitor who focuses on volume. Too late BF will realize that without traders they don't have a business.
By:
TheBaron
When: 23 Jun 16 13:45
Saw an ad for the exchange today.....looked like a token gesture.
By:
Coachbuster
When: 23 Jun 16 13:48
pxb - the charge doesn't help ,but i think there are multiple issues at bay . The charges  seem worse as it's a direct hit on winning accounts (they should also be charged annualy and not weekly imo in the name of fairness ) . 
I'd sooner have the opportunity to win more and pay more in pc though
By:
Total Bosman
When: 24 Jun 16 12:35
Bigger things going on, but Brexit surely can't be good for Betfair?  Any case for getting back into restricted EU territories they've lost must be damaged or gone and could've sorely done with getting some of that liquidity back.
By:
Coachbuster
When: 24 Jun 16 19:39
Total Bosman - why had  some EU countries banned BF to start with ?  seemed pointless being part of the EU from that aspect
By:
romfordiron
When: 24 Jun 16 22:40
I agree with that Coachbuster - it's terrible how individual countries in a so-called common market can legislate against an exchange to protect their own state controlled and over regulated betting industry.

On a different point, did anyone notice the Paddy Power Betfair share price today? Opened at 6,525p (from 8,700p on Thursday close). Then recovered all the losses and actually closed trading up 25p. Don't know too much about stocks - was this caused by a handful of big sellers? Looks absolutely mental on the charts.

Pleased to see the exchange get lots of coverage in the media over the last few weeks. Alex Salmond was even relaying the odds on the live BBC results show. £127m traded on the referendum is fantastic to see, but it doesn't mask the overall rot the exchange is experiencing across the majority of markets.

Funny how wrong the odds were for the referendum in the end. Late private polls from hedge funds smashed the remain price in to 1.06 or so. Like the last GE, their methodology must have been way off the mark. Lots of these city traders must have taken an absolute hiding, having paid a fortune to the pollsters for highly misleading data.
By:
pxb
When: 25 Jun 16 05:54
CB, if charged annually, too many will simply close their accounts, rather than pay a hefty PC. Which I once did. The only reason I came back was because Purple closed all Australian accounts.

You can add to the list of issues, management ineptitude. In Aus we can still use the old site and I do, rather than the awful new site. I expect a small number of other people do as well. The old site hasn't changed in years, but yesterday they made changes, introducing a major bug (I can't access secondary markets) as well as multiple crashes. Why on earth would they start changing the old site at this time? It beggars belief.
By:
Joel
When: 25 Jun 16 11:18
I don't think an annual charge would ever work. I'd probably prefer them to take the maximum out when each bet is settled then do a rebate at the end of the week if needed. I had my first decent week for a long time last week, and have spent all this week just trying to get my balance back up to somewhere near it was at the end of the week.

And yeah I still use the old site too, I switched today to the new one as the old one was knackered and it was horrible.
By:
Total Bosman
When: 25 Jun 16 15:25
Regarding the Premium Charge (which is by no means the route of all the problems, but certainly doesn't help liquidity), there are two problems:  1.  For many traders / market makers it just isn't worth the time and effort to trade and price up lots of markets when Betfair take such a big slice of the pie and 2. Away from their main trading these people tend to be punters too, but now have to place their outright punts elsewhere as the odds after PC don't really stack up.

If Betfair did want to tidy up PC to make it fairer and make time spent on Betfair more rewarding, the simple solution is a weekly allowance before it kicks in.  Makes no sense that someone could come out a tenner ahead after a week of trading and still have to pay up to 60% of it.  Let folk take home, say, £500 or £1000 before they pay it, or phase it in in levels up to the max 60%.  Y'know, like the tax it basically is.  They might not like the idea of people making a living off Betfair, but it takes time, risk and effort to make a profit, and the dead markets suggest no-one's just doing it for giggles.  It would also mean that someone £200 up for the week could have their Saturday football tenner on here rather than elsewhere, all adds up.

Betfair rose so quickly because punters, winners and losers, saw the dream of making money, and a living, from their skill, after years of throwing money at traditional bookies.  If they want to encourage a new generation of people into exchange betting they need to stack the charges so that the dream is at least possible in the long-term.  If they even care at all.
By:
pablo-fanque
When: 25 Jun 16 15:54
any ideas that users come up with about the PC to make it fairer , requires betfair taking less . at the moment they are not interested in taking less profit to make it fairer  . they are interested in taking the same but in a different way .

so the PC remains as it is .
By:
Total Bosman
When: 25 Jun 16 17:14
I'm not privy to the numbers but I daresay a graduated PC would  bring back a good number of payers who have chucked it because it's simply not worth it, and would probably increase PC payers activity across the board.  No idea if it would balance out immediately, but the exchange overall would benefit.
By:
bettinghelp
When: 25 Jun 16 19:50
Never fear guys. BF are monitoring the situation on a regular basis, or if they aren't, they're total idiots. So they already know the cut-off point at which they would become less profitable, at which point they'll change the rules. And not one minute before then.

Until that happens, just keep on doing what you're doing now. This is what suits them best.
By:
Getaix1
When: 25 Jun 16 22:55
If BF/PP do actually want the exchange to survive then without doubt they need to get rid of the premium charge...

...Otherwise, if they want to slow down the decline then I believe changing the PC to be based on a maker/taker system may at least improve things temporarily, which I would hope, would give them enough time, to finally realise what we keep telling them... to get rid of the pc...!

I.e., The main problem is liquidity and as pointed out by pxb, once a bet is matched, the liquidity has gone, so there must be more reward to those supplying liquidity (the "makers") rather than the "takers".  So I would do this by simply changing the definition of the "implied commission".  This is currently statically set at 3% I would change this as follows: maker bets would get an implied commission of 4% and taker bets would get an implied commission of 2%.  Simple!  Any thoughts?
By:
bingo bongo
When: 26 Jun 16 01:07
Annual charge or even monthly would be much better. If they are worried about people closing accounts then retain a balance of pc owed or limit it to 40%+ customers only. If you've won £250k then it would have to be a high charge for you to consider giving up your account.

Changing the implied commission is not a bad idea but a quick play on my ss and it didn't make a lot of difference, it may do for others? And although the idea is simple in itself its an addition to an already complicated structure.

After my recent dealings with bf in trying to get them to check a pc charge I'm not sure if they understand the current system.
Page 3 of 7  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com