November 21, 2004 at 17:03 #94156dave jayMember
- Total Posts 3386
Another great and incisive post from you wit.
It is all about trust and I agree with you 100% about that.
From my own personal point of view, I don’t use Betfair that much (mainly at weekends) and where I was happy to have Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£500 sitting in my account all of the time. I’m now more comfortable with Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£100, which I can top up or draw down on a Saturday or Sunday.
The KYC policy and the new site has not filled me with confidence.
I cannot access the new site from work at all, and it’s very slow from home. Okay, if you just want a bet but I would rather have bets at backandlay and get my 1% commission.
I can’t be the only one who can’t access the new site?
I also think it’s important to have competition and backandlay look fine to me.
From work Betdaq markets load with java script and is not useable.
I don’t trust any of the others.November 21, 2004 at 17:12 #94157Tony25Member
- Total Posts 327
A few interesting comments,some observations:-
Hi Tooting…………..Yes i tried to warn everyone away from SO but for some reason the thread was removed after a day or so?
Nick……………Low commission is an incentive (Try negotiating a reduced rate) and like you say Ians Exchange has its place,if you like sportsbetting take a look at http://www.mansion.com 0% //Ex CEO of Canbet is running the show//financed by a well established businessman who`s reportedly the fifth richest person in Indonesia//Licence in Gibraltar (intensive due diligence gauranteed)…………….I find Betfair ideal for horseracing,however, i can usually find better elsewhere on most sporting events,their reluctance to discount is a big negative(Especially on Asian h`caps where i`m more involved)……..in fact companies like Pinnacle/Pointbet and even Centrebet are more interesting!!
Ian……………Don`t know why you bother replying to certain jibes,simply not worth the effort!!………Whats the deal you where offered with Moneybookers (8% commercial),i can assure you the costs i`m looking at are much less,much,much!!……the downside is punters can`t move around more than 30K (Euro) within three months…..If people want to deposit from overseas Bank transfer using IBAN would be a cheap feasible alternative,the EU regulates thieving banks!!
Seeding………..I would estimate 95% of the betting exchanges are seeded,i can`t see the problem with it if the Exchange can ride the costs…….. ie own account with own funds thrown in!!
Right ……………off to watch the basketball!!
Good luckNovember 21, 2004 at 18:29 #94158gambleParticipant
- Total Posts 3859
Wit some very interesting bullets.
The idea of compulsory collective responsibility works well with banks with their protection fund in place and I presume their contributions must be proportionate to their size and in some way the costing will filter back to customers. We have this huge blue giant Betfair outsizing everything else, which would surley have to guarantee a ninety percent risk. This doesn’t look feasible or fair to me that a ‘solid company’ should protect the possibly more vulnerable minnows. Minnows that are not built in the safe Davies mould I might add.
Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Vetted ringfencing and by a third party with insurance or bonding seems the more likely. However exchanges operate to low margins and all this must be paid for.
Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â As Betfair ballooned with new money, Wray and Black have become lesser forces and no longer steer alone the direction of the massive ship. They do have terrific influence which is still a safeguard, but realistically they are more remote than in the early days. Mr Davies has a smaller lighter ship and is firmly at the helm.
Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â There is a lot of tempting dead money on exchanges and some users leave vast sums in their accounts. I believe interest earned is no small peanut amount and helps towards viability of these low margin ‘cyberspace banks’.
Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Some form of extra protection is the way forward. Pension funds will have this from next April at a cost of three billion from the taxpayer.
flatcapgamble…you forgot me ol’ son and I always have something to say. The whole trust thing looks a bit woofy to me. Put a lead on all of them, that’s my candid :biggrin:
(Edited by gamble at 6:55 pm on Nov. 21, 2004)November 24, 2004 at 09:49 #94159gambleParticipant
- Total Posts 3859
Wit not wishing at all to downgrade any of the excellent information you gave on this thread, but there was a tiny factual error.
The protection scheme you mentioned and the Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£48 K covers investments.. uk authorized unit trusts, Isas (not cash), peps, and friendlysocieties., but not bank deposits.
Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Each UK bank is protected up to a maximum Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£31,700…the whole of the first 2000 and 90% of the next 33000.
<br>flatcapgamble… you need to spread your muck around then, or take out asteroid insurance :laugh:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.