- This topic has 59 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Following Betfairs decision to charge its best customers a 20% surcharge on winnings on top of the 5% commission already charged.
I was wondering if anybody knew the exact commission rates charged by Betdaq and WBX, as I think now could be the time to change.
I think Betdaq’s commission structure is virtually identical to Betfair (apart from the new hikes obviously)
Don’t know about WBX because they don’t accept EURO (or didn’t originally anyway) so I never registered.
I disagree with your wording re "best" customers as if they were better than the rest they wouldn’t need to be surcharged in this manner.
The new BF comm’n structure has caused a lot of displeasure to their customers even though BF say it will only effect 0.50% of them. I am still trying to understand it but I didn’t think it is 20% on top of the existing 5%.
It seems BF are taking 20% of the profits of their most successful clients. They have said that if a client plays in less than 250 markets in any 60 week period then the 20% charge will not apply but I am puzzled why they have introduced this 250 rule as it should reduce liquidity on some markets.
I foresee a lot of clients joining Betdaq and it is possible BF have shot themselves in the foot with this as 20% is much too high but they may have reasons which I do not understand.
Pete
The reason I have heard elsewhere is that they have introduced the charge to discourage bots. Which severly disrupt the running of the site.
But it feels like a hammer to crack a nut to me.
The reason I have heard elsewhere is that they have introduced the charge to discourage bots. Which severly disrupt the running of the site.
But it feels like a hammer to crack a nut to me.
I suggest users who complain about this simply haven’t bothered to read what the changes are Alan. Anyone who is tempted to move elsewhere can only realistically be a casual user in real terms and therefore will not be affected in any way by the change. No one is being charged 20% of winnings and the uproar on the Betfair forum is hilarious as 95% of posters bet in fivers and tenners and are totally unaffected by any change. The new charges are, in short, for excessive data requests. That means that bot users who query the market thousands of times per hour will be charged for those requests which are above the norm. It’s a perfectly reasonable charge given the pressure applied by such users on the BF servers.
Rory,
You seem to be referring to the transaction charges bought in earlier this year. This thread is about the new premium charges, due to be implemented from late September, and you don’t need to be a massive winner to incur them.
I’ve crunched a few figures on this and it’s not pretty for somebody who would describe themselves as a successful punter.
Suppose I bet €100 on one horse a day for six days a week at 10/1 so that makes 300 bets per year (give or take)
If I win 50 of those races (strike-rate of 16%) then I will win €25K over the course of the year (€50K on winnings LESS €25K on losers)
As regards commission paid (assume 5%), I will pay €2,500 over the course of the year (€50K @ 5%).
However, the new charges take “Commission Generated” as being my effective commission paid.
This is calculated at
(Commission Paid + Implied Commission*) / 2
which calculates as
(€2,500 + €1,250) / 2
which equals €1,875
Under the new charges, I must pay 20% of my Gross Profit which equates to €5,000 (€25K profit @ 20%) of which the first €1,000 is exempt which leaves €4,000 payable.
Of this €4,000 I have already paid €1,875 (Commission Generated) which means Betfair are looking for an additional €2,125 in Premium charges.
*: Implied Commission is the commission paid by people who have won my money which I placed on the losers – I have assumed 5% in this example but in reality it will be lower because it is the average market commission*
DB – It is only going to have an effect for successful gamblers who have an extremely high return on investment.
In your example you are backing 10-1 shots that should be 5-1 every day for 300 days. Nice idea in theory, but extremely unlikely in reality.
In reality the vast majority of winning punters would be operating at ROI of <10%, in which case they would remain totally unaffected by these charges.
The people it will hurt the most are winning traders who pay far less commission per pound won than "punters" do
No one is being charged 20% of winnings and the uproar on the Betfair forum is hilarious as 95% of posters bet in fivers and tenners and are totally unaffected by any change
Comes back to my original point
Its the perception thats the issue. Lodged in the back of many punters minds, fairly or not (and perceptions dont need to be), is that the remarkably successful Betfair business is taking the piss
TDK – I would have thought that it would be relatively easy enough for a competent punter to identify at least one horse a day which is significantly overpriced.
Maybe I’m wrong.
Rory,
You seem to be referring to the transaction charges bought in earlier this year. This thread is about the new premium charges, due to be implemented from late September, and you don’t need to be a massive winner to incur them.
Apologies ~ I was responding to the post about bringing in charges to discourage bots, which is pertinent to the new data charges but not to the premium charges, unless I’m mistaken.
On the subject of premium charges, it’s worth highlighting that most of the genuinely successful punters produce profits of between 3 and 6 % of turnover, and some even less. That’s essentially those who bet frequently and with a calculated mathematical edge, as opposed to the very few individuals who only back winners
DB – It is only going to have an effect for successful gamblers who have an extremely high return on investment.
In your example you are backing 10-1 shots that should be 5-1 every day for 300 days. Nice idea in theory, but extremely unlikely in reality.
In reality the vast majority of winning punters would be operating at ROI of <10%, in which case they would remain totally unaffected by these charges.
The people it will hurt the most are winning traders who pay far less commission per pound won than "punters" do
You don’t have to be a jockey’s brother or a hooverer or the greatest judge on earth to incur these charges. You don’t even have to make 10% ROI. By my calculations they would kick in for a guy that bets 100 even money pokes every week and gets 53 winners. And that’s before we even talk about variations in profitability from week to week.
I’ve crunched a few figures on this and it’s not pretty for somebody who would describe themselves as a successful punter.
Suppose I bet €100 on one horse a day for six days a week at 10/1 so that makes 300 bets per year (give or take)
If I win 50 of those races (strike-rate of 16%) then I will win €25K over the course of the year (€50K on winnings LESS €25K on losers)
db
As TDK intimates your example is not feasible in the ‘real world’ over anything but the shortest of terms:
Stakes 30,000 [300*100]
Returns 55,000 [(50*100)*(10)+(5,000)]
Winnings 25,000 [55,000-30,000]
POT (ROI) [b:cr1iludy]83.3%[/b:cr1iludy] [25,000/30,000]strewth, strewth and treble strewth
DB – It is only going to have an effect for successful gamblers who have an extremely high return on investment.
In your example you are backing 10-1 shots that should be 5-1 every day for 300 days. Nice idea in theory, but extremely unlikely in reality.
In reality the vast majority of winning punters would be operating at ROI of <10%, in which case they would remain totally unaffected by these charges.
The people it will hurt the most are winning traders who pay far less commission per pound won than "punters" do
You don’t have to be a jockey’s brother or a hooverer or the greatest judge on earth to incur these charges. You don’t even have to make 10% ROI. By my calculations they would kick in for a guy that bets 100 even money pokes every week and gets 53 winners. And that’s before we even talk about variations in profitability from week to week.
It that is right then they are much worse than I imagined….
DB – It is only going to have an effect for successful gamblers who have an extremely high return on investment.
In your example you are backing 10-1 shots that should be 5-1 every day for 300 days. Nice idea in theory, but extremely unlikely in reality.
In reality the vast majority of winning punters would be operating at ROI of <10%, in which case they would remain totally unaffected by these charges.
The people it will hurt the most are winning traders who pay far less commission per pound won than "punters" do
You don’t have to be a jockey’s brother or a hooverer or the greatest judge on earth to incur these charges. You don’t even have to make 10% ROI. By my calculations they would kick in for a guy that bets 100 even money pokes every week and gets 53 winners. And that’s before we even talk about variations in profitability from week to week.
It that is right then they are much worse than I imagined….
How much would you need to bet or is that irrelevant?
Drone
When you put the figures like that it does seem unrealistic (although I get 66.67% and not 83.33%)* but I would have thought picking 5 winners from 30 horses, all priced at 10/1, wouldn’t be that difficult.
*I calculate RoI as Profit/Investment as opposed to Return/Investment but I could be wrong (again!)*
Lord bless us and save us!
With any luck, this will be the beginning of the end for btfr, and it looks much like self-destruction. Things must be a lot worse than the "transparency" allows us to see.
I think what we’ll see is that the 0.5% will oppose this new measure, whereas the traditional beneficiaries of btfr kickbacks for PR work, ie the racing media men, and, to some extent, the head-office bookmakers, will continue the spin that everything btfr does is wondrous and good.
Perhaps now, racing will get its feet back on the ground.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.