Peter Webb - Interview

[evertonian]

Peter - you talk about putting 70 to 80 k through the football markets during a game. Will you generally tick trade these games / put one way positions in or a strategy of using both on certain games depending on goal expectancy etc.

I feel there is a lack of strategies out there on the football apart from the laying the draw strategy which is so well known and just generally trading on the Under / Over 2.5 goal markets. Do you use all the tradeable markets for example ? I'm sure I and a lot of other users would like to know how you approach a football game to trade and what strategies you use as you are obviously extremely profitable on the football.

Thanks in advance

[bilko]

If a good trader should be turning over 30+% of their bank (Peter’s figures) then you are not reaching your fall potential

A true inspiration I hope one day people give you the recognition you deserve.

[RinTaaramae]

The last thing people need is to add Jealousy to that deadly mix.

I can assure you that jealously wasn't the motivating emotion when I posted. There are people out there who make significantly more than Peter, and our biggest concern is that someone will kill the golden goose by boasting about it publicly until they change the rules.

If you think Betfair's Premium Charge is harsh, just think how you'd feel about paying 25% of your gross win away in levy/GPT, paying Corporation Tax on what's left, then paying income tax and NI on the remainder.

My emotion here is irritation and anger, not jealousy.

I'm not sure why Bookmakers' Levy is being brought in the discussion of this article.

Because whether exchange punters should pay Levy is currently being reviewed by the Levy Board. Racing is arguing tooth and nail that people like Peter, and like me, meet the legal definition of bookmaker and therefore should be paying Levy. If they win then all the other taxes I mentioned above would inevitably follow.

But what I can gather from little I read on the subject of levy, I can infer that Bookmakers’ Levy is placed on those who are profiting from i) horse racing but more importantly ii) having an ability profit from overarounds in excess of 10%.

There is NOTHING in the relevant legislation that says to be a bookmaker you need to operate to an overround of 10%+, or any other threshold. The legislation where it's defined is the 1963 Betting Lotteries and Gaming Act, and it says that a bookmaker is someone who:

1. "receives or negotiates bets"
2. does so "in the course of business"

Whether that definition captures someone punting on Betfair would be for a court to decide. Racing is arguing tooth and nail that it does, Betfair are arguing that it doesn't. If you think that a judge who has never bet on Betfair would automatically find for us then you're living in a fantasy world.

I seriously suggest that you get over to the Levy Board website hblb.org.uk and follow the link to the "betting exchange consultation", and take some time to read what's being argued. Just for your background info the Levy Board has 6 members: 3 appointed by Racing, including Paul Roy whose opinions on the issue are well documented. The other 3 are Government appointed civil servants, supposedly independent. If you want an idea of which side they'll take, they just recommended that for next year non-UK Racing should be brought into the Levy and that the thresholds protecting independent bookies who don't make much profit should be scrapped. Basically on the issues they've been asked to look at so far, they've sided with Racing.

The biggest hurdles they've got with going after exchange punters is:

1. They don't know our identities. They would need to spend lots of money getting "Norwich Pharmacal" disclosure orders from a court forcing Betfair to reveal our names. The issues around that type of court order is discussed by both Racing and Betfair in their submissions to the Levy Board which you can read on that website.
2. They don't know that there's enough money at stake to make it worthwhile, nor do they have evidence of a named individual that they can present to the court (you can't get a Norwich Pharmacal order to go fishing - you have to convince the court that there really are misdeeds to uncover).

Obviously if someone's desperate for a bit of press, and there's a media article in which someone:

1. names himself.
2. claims he makes bundles betting business type volumes
3. Indicates that there are big sums being won by other individuals too

then that's the first hurdle for Racing cleared. We're protected by a number of layers of defence, but it doesn't help if Peter opens the portcullis and lowers the drawbridge.

If whoever put together Betfair's submissions to the Levy Board on our behalf reads Peter's article, they're going to be asking themselves why they bothered. There's no one else arguing our corner, and while they're defending us Peter's delivering evidence to the prosecution. Stupid doesn't even begin to describe it.

In his defence I wouldn't be surprised if he was hopelessly misquoted, but that's what the press do. If you don't want to be misquoted about your personal betting in the press there is a pretty simple solution, used by the rest of us - don't talk to the press about your personal betting.

Rant over.

[CaerMyrddin]

Suffice to say, the article is an 'interesting' interpretation on what I actually said.

I only gave an interview in my life. Me and another colleague were trying to put up a company and went to an investor's club. The journalist wrote things that simply neither of us said. It was simply her interpretation of life in general applied to what we had said.

I promised myself I won't be giving another interview unless it's written.

I was a bit surprised Peter unveiled some amounts, due to the current levy discussion.

I was also intrigued to know what Peter does with the informatic 'junk'. I would be giving it to charity and that would be my guess.

There are people out there who make significantly more than Peter, and our biggest concern is that someone will kill the golden goose by boasting about it publicly until they change the rules.

It wouldn't kill, it would just diminish profits. Formaly leaving the UK is always a possibility.

[hgodden]

What's everyones understanding of what would happen if levy was introduced but we were outside the UK? Would people still be liable if betfair was still based in the UK? What if betfair moved offshore but users were still onshore?

[RinTaaramae]

We can argue the semantics of "killing the golden goose". I'm bothered, but not extremely so, about the future. Betting from an overseas address is trivial. You're missing the point about the risk here. We're not talking about new laws or new taxes in future, we're talking about how a court would view what we do in relation to existing legislation. If there is a case, and they find against us, then that means we'll have been caught by the definition in 2000, 2001, 2002 etc. and we'll owe for those years' profits too.

I'm not saying it's likely, but that's what's at stake.

[hgodden]

I'm well aware of the risk. People like me lower down the food chain don't have hundreds or even tens of thousands just lying around to pay back levy and / or other back taxes. Some people would be forced into bankrupcy with such a bill, let alone losing half of their future profits overnight

[RinTaaramae]

Sorry should have made clear I was referring to the previous poster regarding missing the point about retrospective risk.

Regarding offshore moves, Racing's submission claims that even if betfair moved offshore it wouldn't matter - if you were considered a bookie by the courts, and you live in the UK, then you still owe levy even if you bet with an offshore exchange (or one that's offshore already).

The only thing that would change, as far as I understand it is that it might be more difficult for the Levy Board to get disclosure of individuals from an overseas exchange. Racing claims that's not an issue (but then they would). Frankly I have no idea on that one.

[giulio2010]

I'd actually argue that Betfair works better with small stakes. The liquidity is not good enough to commit large amounts of money to the market. If it was then real investment funds would have stepped in long before now and mopped up. As it is, it just suits smaller participants.

When you start raising stakes you can't get orders filled as easily and therefore your strike rate suffers. That ends up imbalancing the whole thing. You simply can't earn a good return on large amounts of capital, the law of diminishing returns kicks in very quickly. But that's a helpful problem for smaller participants.

It`s a long story but, you dont want those large summs of money to be matched, you only use it to create a Vortex in between resistences on both sides. You are 100% right about betfair works better with small stakes.

To misterman: I am not jealous either.My point was that I actually understand why people are jealous about it.

To Corker: £500 was just an example. On saturdays and Sundays I spread 12K on every football match available in PLAY (around 100K total matched each weekend). and 2k spread on every football match that are not going in Play. Not enough to create walls of resistences to protect my coppers

[CaerMyrddin]

RinTaaramae, I can't get into deep discussion about retrospective taxes, as I don't know the english laws in detail. Nevertheless, that goes against the Constitution where I live and maybe that is the case in the UK, too.

If a law changes, or the interpretation of it, you can't after people's money that has been settled. Imagine what that would make in terms of a company management. It would be impossible to build a business in such a uncertain environment. Also, imagine that a court settles that a given tax is unlegal. A country wouldn't be paying it back for the last 30 years!!

It would be great to have a lawyer around that could explain how these things work, in the UK.

I would argue that Betfair moving ofshore would be a great move to me and all the overseas costumers as it would level some things, but to be honest that's the least of my concerns.

[Dobbin]

LOL

I didn't realise that Peter made all of his money by trading me


Dobbin

[RinTaaramae]

RinTaaramae, I can't get into deep discussion about retrospective taxes, as I don't know the english laws in detail. Nevertheless, that goes against the Constitution where I live and maybe that is the case in the UK, too.

If a law changes, or the interpretation of it, you can't after people's money that has been settled. Imagine what that would make in terms of a company management. It would be impossible to build a business in such a uncertain environment. Also, imagine that a court settles that a given tax is unlegal. A country wouldn't be paying it back for the last 30 years!!

It would be great to have a lawyer around that could explain how these things work, in the UK.

I would argue that Betfair moving ofshore would be a great move to me and all the overseas costumers as it would level some things, but to be honest that's the least of my concerns.

Sorry if I haven't been clear, but you've misunderstood. To the best of my knowledge there's never been a retrospective tax applied in the UK, and there are principles in tax law that would protect you from that kind of change. But that's not the issue in question. The issue is whether someone's betting on Betfair meets the EXISTING law defining them as a bookmaker. Racing is arguing that people like Peter are bookmakers according to existing law and have been for a decade, but just haven't been paying what they should.

To draw a comparison, imagine you set up a company and trade for ten years, there are taxes you should have paid under prevailing law each year which you haven't. If they catch up with you then they'll bill you for all the tax you should have paid for every year you didn't pay it. That's not a retrospective change to the tax law either.

Again to be clear I'm not suggesting it will happen, but Racing's job is made a lot simpler if Betfair punters name themselves publicly, confirm they fit the criteria Racing has already specified (make tons of money, place millions of bets, pay premium charge, transaction charges or data charges), and tell Racing there's plenty of money up for grabs.

[mugsgame]

The idea that the BHA or Paul Roy and his cronies can convince anyone (especially himself) that anyone who uses BF is a bookie is deluded.

Have a read of the excellent Mark Davies blog http://www.markxdavies.com/
He explains it better than I could

[CaerMyrddin]

Sorry if I haven't been clear, but you've misunderstood.

Yes, I've misundertodd, I'm sorry. Nice discussion, anyway

[Iron]

Peter

Presumably you have 250K in your account as races arise where you have liabilities totaling that amount.

How often does that happen?

Jeff

The world is full of jealous people, so I'm a little surprised Peter happily tells everyone he has £250,000 in his account!

We see how quickly BA users vent their anger on this forum whenever they can't crack the trading game, so when PW readily shows his wealth, that will get some people's backs up