It's called Solidarność. I'm sure plenty would make the sacrifice if they could rely on others to do the same.spreadbetting wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:45 pmI doubt many see the need to make a point by cutting off their nose to ....
ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:21 pm
I'm a bit bored with this conversation now, it's probably the 10th re-run in one form or another.
You're uncharacteristically spikey today sb, I thought I was the resident grinchspreadbetting wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:25 pmSorry for boring you , Shaun, don't feel obligated to join in every post, maybe another latte will perk you up.
spreadbetting wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:56 pmJust a slow news day, Shaun, I'd like to think few people get too bugged about what gets said on the forum
I'm sure people already know the answer but when you get limited on sportsbook it doesnt affect the exchange part of your account at all (or poker, casino, flipping bingo etc).wearthefoxhat wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:16 pmIf you got banned from the Sportsbook, wIll you still be able to access the exchange?
I'm not opening a wound again sb, I'm just trying to understand others' points of view with this question.....
In theory, Pareto's rule should apply here. However, we know it doesn't with Betfair as only 2% of exchange players win long term. That particular cat was let out of the bag, by accident I suspect, just before PC came in. There's no sense in taxing the poor in this case. All that will happen is that they will go bust quicker. Therefore, Betfair tax the rich. They won't go bust because they have the skills to win and won't leave the exchange, unless they are taxed out of existence, because Betfair is bigger than the rest and therefore have the liquidity that the big players need. It therefore seems to me that Betfair are taxing those that can afford to pay rather than those who can't.ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:39 amI'm not opening a wound again sb, I'm just trying to understand others' points of view with this question.....
Do you think the BF fee structure is disliked so much because it doesn't follow the received way of doing things, whereby the bigger you are the better the deal/discount you get? For better or worse, BF fees seem to have a whiff of 'tax the rich' about them. We may never know what motivates their approach or, like most high earner tax schemes, if it actually adversely affects bottom line to satisfy a particular doctrine. Is the complaint that they're capitalist pig-dogs for making a profit, or pinkos for the way they attack the wealthy? It's complicated init. I think I see why opinion is divided depending on our more general views. Whether or not my personal opinion changes as I ascend the cast system will be a test of conviction as you pointed out earlier.
And the fairy cuts off one of his arms and then said: as they say in trading "sometimes doing nothing is doing something". Your neighbor already has two arms so mission accomplishedDerek27 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:30 pmI heard a story in an old Irish film set prior to the troubles in Northern Ireland.
There were two neighbouring farmers who hated each other's guts. One of them was visited by a fairy who granted the farmer anything he wished. The excited farmer was thinking whether to ask for a large sum of money or thousands of acres of land when the fairy told him whatever he wishes for, his neighbour will get twice as much. So the farmer said,
"cut off one of my arms".
Much the same situation with the Betfair premium charge. Unless you have a viable alternative you just have to bite the bullet.
Where did you get that figure? I think it should be qualified as well. If you count today, then 50% of people will probably win, but if you count the number of profitable people who have been on Betfair since day one you will get a tiny figure and whether you include and exclude certain timescales or people. What about somebody that just turns up one day and has a punt and loses £5. Are they also classified as a long-term loser?However, we know it doesn't with Betfair as only 2% of exchange players win long term. That particular cat was let out of the bag, by accident I suspect, just before PC came in.
The current system is just inherently flawed by having a fixed winning amount, I doubt they'd introduce the same method if they started these days and the fact they're trialling various methods including weekly allowances seems to suggest they know that. Might have the appearance of taxing the rich and appease some people but it's probably anything but , especially when you consider they've been going 18 years so plenty of traders winning as little as £14K a year could now be paying 60%.ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:39 amI'm not opening a wound again sb, I'm just trying to understand others' points of view with this question.....
Do you think the BF fee structure is disliked so much because it doesn't follow the received way of doing things, whereby the bigger you are the better the deal/discount you get? For better or worse, BF fees seem to have a whiff of 'tax the rich' about them. We may never know what motivates their approach or, like most high earner tax schemes, if it actually adversely affects bottom line to satisfy a particular doctrine. Is the complaint that they're capitalist pig-dogs for making a profit, or pinkos for the way they attack the wealthy? It's complicated init. I think I see why opinion is divided depending on our more general views. Whether or not my personal opinion changes as I ascend the cast system will be a test of conviction as you pointed out earlier.
agree 100%. perhaps having a fixed entry point in each tax/operational year (say once £75k has been breached). this would ensure that the little guys that plug away year in year out but don't make vast fortunes would no longer be penalised in the same way that an obvious pro trader would. on the flip side, for BF, this would mean tapping into a winning trader a lot sooner (than the current lifetime winnings)spreadbetting wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:25 amThe current system is just inherently flawed by having a fixed winning amount...
Thanks, sounds about right.marketraisen wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:36 pmI'm sure people already know the answer but when you get limited on sportsbook it doesnt affect the exchange part of your account at all (or poker, casino, flipping bingo etc).wearthefoxhat wrote: ↑Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:16 pmIf you got banned from the Sportsbook, wIll you still be able to access the exchange?
Incidentally betfair sportsbook give money away for free, some of their prices are ridiculous, it doesnt take long to get limited.
Can't ever see them being that generous, I think the current PC trial of £500 pw allowance is as generous as Betfair will ever get. Plus it's a much more workable, and fairer, version of charging consistent winners regardless of their lifetme profit or when they started. As long as they didn't increase the bands or remove the lower ones I'd be OK with that tbh.
SB - yup, you're correct. if they were able to restructure this trial, even if there were addtional bandings added to the upper earners, then i think it would be both fairer all round as well as maintaining the appetite of long term users that fall between the cracks.spreadbetting wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:22 pmCan't ever see them being that generous, I think the current PC trial of £500 pw allowance is as generous as Betfair will ever get. Plus it's a much more workable, and fairer, version of charging consistent winners regardless of their lifetme profit or when they started. As long as they didn't increase the bands or remove the lower ones I'd be OK with that tbh.
