My interpretation of the new PC was to try and kill off those exploiting loopholes or information advantage. For example courtsiders add little to the exchange but take a lot off the table. You could argue certain bots also achieve this. I am sure there are many other examples, it makes sense to address this. But I think there must have been a more elegant solution.
I and I am sure most of you are net providers of liquidity to the exchange and we take very little out of the market to provide that function. But the process of providing that function has delivered innumerable other advantages to Betfair. To punish that seems a error. So therefore you do have to wonder whether they are deliberately just trying to extract more money from winners.
Speaking personally, having to pay 60% though makes it un-viable to me as I can yield more elsewhere for less effort and risk. BUT, if you think about it, if I write a spreadsheet now to trade, it costs me little in time costs but will yield something. But it will add little to the exchange. I'm sure that's not they outcome they wanted!
Account suspended for premium charge avoidance
Additional comment from Betfair: -
To clarify, it is not Betfair’s policy to automatically assume that all accounts in a single household are a single betting entity. Customers acting independently will not be linked. If however, it is clear that a strategy has been passed amongst accounts in multiple names in order to reduce applicable charges then that would entail a single betting entity and therefore the accounts would be linked for the purposes of calculating the Premium Charge.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
I think this is something that remaining users should be aware of as those that are affected could look to write bots meaning far greater numbers of them operate on the markets as Peter wrote on his blog recently.Euler wrote:BUT, if you think about it, if I write a spreadsheet now to trade, it costs me little in time costs but will yield something. But it will add little to the exchange. I'm sure that's not they outcome they wanted!
This will affect the market dynamics and Betfair will probably look to curb bot usage down the line with new measure, perhaps reductions in data allowances for example that could impact all traders whatever their size.
Well maybe it was another forumandyfuller wrote:
Just been through trying to found where it was said and then realised this forum didn't exist at the time of the Premium Charge introduction, it wasn't until March 2009 that the forum started.
So I certainly didn't post it on here and I was banned from the BF forum within a day or two of the Premium Charge announcement so I couldn't have posted it on there.
I honestly can't say I don't remember hearing this before.
I can guarantee they said it, or at least one of their reps did.
.'Clear' is a strong word. Did they tell you what their compelling evidence against you was, because I fail to see how they can be that confident of their accusation?
Jeff
Jeff
Euler wrote:If however, it is clear that a strategy has been passed amongst accounts in multiple names in order to reduce applicable charges then that would entail a single betting entity and therefore the accounts would be linked for the purposes of calculating the Premium Charge.
-
steven1976
- Posts: 1744
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:28 am
Surely as a public company they now have to layout their current plans and future plans to their share holders at their agm. Just out of interest has anyone seen the plans for betfair so we have a clear picture of what their plans they have for the future?
At the end of the day this all comes down to betfairs bottom line and they see peter as someone who takes money from their profits in my opinion. Unfortunately for you Peter as you are probably the most well known for trading sports markets they have picked you out as an example in order for them to get their message across that they wont tollerate proxies as they know it will spread the message of zero tolerance to everyone else and make people either pay 60% or move on and try their luck.
At the end of the day this all comes down to betfairs bottom line and they see peter as someone who takes money from their profits in my opinion. Unfortunately for you Peter as you are probably the most well known for trading sports markets they have picked you out as an example in order for them to get their message across that they wont tollerate proxies as they know it will spread the message of zero tolerance to everyone else and make people either pay 60% or move on and try their luck.
Euler wrote:.... But here is a top level view of why they suspended my accounts.
Basically they want to link my wife's account to mine for the purposes of calculating the premium charge. My wife has an account which is in profit but it's a tiny tiny fraction of my lifetime profitability. Basically it looks like they want to apply the £250k limit on a broader basis. Essentially they want to stop me using my wife's account or her using my knowledge or instruction to profit.
Hold on a second guys!
This is nothing new. About 5/6 years ago I needed to reorganise my credit cards on my BF accounts (3 in total and 1 in my wifes name). Betfair told me that they held a dim view of multiple accounts and proceeded to link the accounts, all at the same address. The reason quoted to me then was that it was possible to collude accross accounts and assured me that they would monitor them. An example they quoted was on the Poker platform where 2 or more players colluded to cheat the pack by raising etc. It is equally possible that clients "could" use multiple accounts to avoid some tax liabilities and accounts in a wifes name are not always used by the "wife".
Avoidance of tax is something Betfair have to monitor, so its no surprise that they have a policy of scrutinising accounts with the same address and furthermore I don't think its unreasonable for them to link accounts at the same address in the same way that bookies do.
I'm frankly surprised that this issue hasn't been commented on before in the forum, because linked accounts have certainly been discussed on many other forums.
I wouldn't take it personally Peter, its just Betfair doing their thing.
Well of cause there is nothing new with that aspect of it and im sure it's been commented on here many many times before.
But It's a bit different lately isnt it, not like 5 or 6 years ago when the P.C didn't even exist.
They are accusing people of premium charge avoidence and suspending their accounts for 2 weeks at a time, leaving them sometimes with open positions and having no access at all to their money until they have rightly or wrongly decided how much they think you owe them .
and it's not always for the same reason as peter, people have been suspended for having a sudden big loss or big win, having similar betting paterns to others, turning a loseing account into a winning one, as well as having multiple accounts issue.
It's more the way they go about things that annoys me, why did they even need to close peters account, why not investigate it quietly while he was stillable to trade.
But It's a bit different lately isnt it, not like 5 or 6 years ago when the P.C didn't even exist.
They are accusing people of premium charge avoidence and suspending their accounts for 2 weeks at a time, leaving them sometimes with open positions and having no access at all to their money until they have rightly or wrongly decided how much they think you owe them .
and it's not always for the same reason as peter, people have been suspended for having a sudden big loss or big win, having similar betting paterns to others, turning a loseing account into a winning one, as well as having multiple accounts issue.
It's more the way they go about things that annoys me, why did they even need to close peters account, why not investigate it quietly while he was stillable to trade.
I would hate to turn into an advocate for Betfair but I don't think investigating customer accounts to establish whether the way a customer conducts his business affects a suppliers bottom line is unethical. If you ran a business and suddenly discovered a customer whos orders of your widgets had suddenly increased then you might well suspect that customer of some underhand/secondhand selling.
Betfair don't suspend accounts, in my experience, without prima facie evidence. Of course they usually suspend the account pending investigation so that fund movement doesnt take place whilst the investigation is ongoing. They do the same thing with accounts that they suspect are being used to lay horses with inside information etc.
Having said all of that, I do think BF's customer relations need a kick up the ass and it is noticeable that they have lost some very good staff who used to take the time to talk to customers. Suspending accounts for more than 3-5 days does seem excessive and that is something they need to address.
Peters accounts (and that of his wife) have passed Betfairs scrutiny and that is all that is important now.
Betfair don't suspend accounts, in my experience, without prima facie evidence. Of course they usually suspend the account pending investigation so that fund movement doesnt take place whilst the investigation is ongoing. They do the same thing with accounts that they suspect are being used to lay horses with inside information etc.
Having said all of that, I do think BF's customer relations need a kick up the ass and it is noticeable that they have lost some very good staff who used to take the time to talk to customers. Suspending accounts for more than 3-5 days does seem excessive and that is something they need to address.
Peters accounts (and that of his wife) have passed Betfairs scrutiny and that is all that is important now.
There is nothing wrong with investigating customer accounts obviously and they are a business yes.James1st wrote:I would hate to turn into an advocate for Betfair but I don't think investigating customer accounts to establish whether the way a customer conducts his business affects a suppliers bottom line is unethical. If you ran a business and suddenly discovered a customer whos orders of your widgets had suddenly increased then you might well suspect that customer of some underhand/secondhand selling.
Betfair don't suspend accounts, in my experience, without prima facie evidence. Of course they usually suspend the account pending investigation so that fund movement doesnt take place whilst the investigation is ongoing. They do the same thing with accounts that they suspect are being used to lay horses with inside information etc.
Having said all of that, I do think BF's customer relations need a kick up the ass and it is noticeable that they have lost some very good staff who used to take the time to talk to customers. Suspending accounts for more than 3-5 days does seem excessive and that is something they need to address.
Peters accounts (and that of his wife) have passed Betfairs scrutiny and that is all that is important now.
But If your wiget company treated customers like Bf and suspended accounts for no reason, which make no mistake is what is happening in most cases, as evident by Peters experience, then it would not last long at all would it.
All they needed to do is send a e-mail explaining they were linking his wifes account and thats it.
imo Betfair are simply trying to get rid of certain big winners, they will not ban then outright as it would be terrible P.R but P.c avoidance gives them justification and most people buy into it and say well it serves them right..
-
shaunybhoy
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:26 am
Not really, cause I could back a selection and have my friend lay the selection, working in unison undetected this way would be simple.
[quote="Ferru123"]If they wanted to get rid of trading, then surely all they would need to do would be to prevent you from backing and laying the same selection...
Jeff
[quote="Ferru123"]If they wanted to get rid of trading, then surely all they would need to do would be to prevent you from backing and laying the same selection...
Jeff
Let's say you back a horse at 2.0 with a £100 stake, and decide to scratch the trade with a lay at 2.0 (using your friend's account).
Assuming 5% commission and no PC:
A. Horse wins
You make £95 profit from the back, you lose £100 on the lay. So you lose £5.
B. Horse loses
You make £95 profit on the lay, you lose £100 on the back. So you lose £5.
Jeff
Assuming 5% commission and no PC:
A. Horse wins
You make £95 profit from the back, you lose £100 on the lay. So you lose £5.
B. Horse loses
You make £95 profit on the lay, you lose £100 on the back. So you lose £5.
Jeff
shaunybhoy wrote:Not really, cause I could back a selection and have my friend lay the selection, working in unison undetected this way would be simple.