Talk:Betfair

Dutching
Because the overround at the bookmakers is so high one CANNOT effectively lay a horse by backing all the others. Usually this will result in an assured loss whatever nag wins. The "obvious" counterargument doesn't wash, I'm afraid. I am a frequent layer at Betfair so the "dutching" argument serves my interest but it cannot be practically implemented. Paul Beardsell 05:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Example: Say there are 10 equally good horses in a race. The odds would be decimal 10 or 9:1 to be fair. But typically the odds available at a high street bookmaker will be decimal 8 or 7:1 at best. Backing 9 of the horses with a stake of GBP10 each in order to lay the remaining horse results in a loss no matter which horse wins. Paul Beardsell 05:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It's a theoretical point and that is sufficient. Often by backing at different books you can reduce the vig enough. Another example - two-way markets such as Asian Handicaps or over/unders in football. Does it make any sense to differentiate backing over 2.5 goals with a bookmaker laying under 2.5 goals? Clearly not.  Tu rk ey ph an t 20:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion
Why was this reversion taken ? Josh Parris #: 05:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have fixed it. Paul Beardsell 06:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Betfair guide in external links
Seems like an odd site, like maybe it's an affiliate doorway, but I wanted to get a 2nd opinion about the site's merits before removing it. Rray 22:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - so I removed it. "Be bold" as they say MikesPlant 12:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're replying to a discussion about another site, not the page you added today. Based on the tone of your language, it seems that you have some affiliation with Betfair. You should review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. Linking to multiple pages from a single site from an article just isn't a standard practice in an encyclopedia, and it shouldn't be done without a good reason. Rray 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand your concerns and as you are the editor of this section, I simply ask you to keep an eye on xhttp://betting.betfair.com as I am sure you will see it's relevance and value within time. Something that should be mentioned on Wikipedia. Regards

why would you call it spammy ! its not - its a collection of blogs written by betfair staffers and other contributors. it does not aggressively sell betfair and its mission is to help users make a better bet. it has the full backing of mark davies head of comms and pr, along with Bert (the founder) so i'm a little disturbed anyone would think its a spam site. for this reason i'm reincluding it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.197.188 (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a link collection. The article already links to the main website. Please don't continue to spam the article with an extra unnecessary link. Rray 12:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

this link (betting.betfair) has value to users, which is why ive included it. if you care to look at the site, you will see how difficult it is for other elements of the site to be user visible. wikipedia is one way of bringing this to users attention.


 * Wikipedia doesn't exist to bring a subdomain to the attention of a website's users. Please stop re-adding the link. If you continue to spam the article, I'll ask that your ip address be blocked from editing here. Rray 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any valid reason to remove the link (betting.betfair). It is the official blog of Betfair and totally fits in with this article, in fact it adds value to any potential reader of this page. How can you can call it an 'unnecessary link'? That comment is based on what exactly? If you are going to moderate this page, please state the reasons behind the removal of the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.102.205 (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * betfair.com is linked from this page, and it links to its own blog. Obviously there is no reason for us to link to the blog from here.  We aren't going to link to every betrair.com page from this article.  2005 (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

explanation of NPOV addition
The most recent changes by Flaming_Ferrari are borderline vandalism.

This: "it is possible to reduce the amount of commission paid to as low as 2%."

was changed to this: "although according to how much a client wagers on the site, it is possible to increase the amount of commission paid to as high as 60%."

(Commission and PC are two very different things, and commission is currently between 2% and 5%).

and this was added: "In June 2011 Betfair announced that it will raise the Premium Charge to 60% for some customers, a move which has been met by outrage from customers on its online forums, as a sign of the company's insatiable greed."

There is, and will continue to be controversy about the PC, however this is clearly not neutral, any more than it would be if I wrote "a move which was met with outrage by a few insatiably greedy users who'd made lifetime net profits on Betfair of over £250,000, having paid very little commission."

The section headed "Online casino scandal" was also reinstated, having been previously deleted.

Ml66uk2 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Only a handful of countries are still on a market base rate of 5%, for countries not on a 5% base rate it is impossible to reduced commission to 2%. I understand that was written 7 years ago and what you said was the case at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.39.120 (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't this company originally called "Flutter"???
Wasn't Betfair originally called "Flutter"??? If so, when did the name change occur?Betathetapi545 (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 December 2014
Charges relating to the courtsiding incident were dropped. The continued inclusion by Betfair mole and associated accounts is to cast negative light on events. This section should be removed.

Kfm58 (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 15:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reasons for exclusion of courtsiding section are highlighted by user Eachway above. Sources citing are lacking the details presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfm58 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 December 2014‎
 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In-play betting
I removed part of the section on In Play betting that contravened Wikipedia guidelines. Specifically: 1. the section was added by banned sockpuppet Betfairmole which appears to be part of a significant effort to add unsourced and non-neutral material to the article. 2. the supposed citation was to a broken link that returned a 404. 3. the document that the section purported to rely on appears to be a paper authored by Betfair. This is in contravention of Wikipedia's rule that sources be independent, specifically that articles must not rely on "any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it;". There appears to be no independent 3rd party source to validate the assertions made. If you wish to revert, please cite an independent source, ie. not something authored by Betfair or its staff. 4. The assertion that Betfair had claimed that in-play betting was "perfectly fair" appears to be entirely fabricated. The phrase "perfectly fair" does not appear anywhere in Betfair's response to the Gambling Commission.

Please discuss before reverting. Thanks. DJBumfun (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Re-added the section with the correct link. They reshuffled their site, the old link was captured via Wayback-machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20140710195930/http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf/09%20Consultation%20response%20from%20Betfair.pdf
 * Satani (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see the importance of this material. To summarize: The Gambling Commission issued questions about in-running betting. Betfair was one of 16 entities to respond. Betfair's response said that in-running betting is fair (big surprise). The Commission studied the responses and decided that, yes, in-running betting is fair (provided that bettors are informed about the variation in feed delays, which was already required by existing regulations). Am I missing something, or is this a big fat nothing? The guidance against primary sources is not as strong as DJBumfun suggests, but it would be a stronger case if there was some secondary coverage to show that this sequence of events had any significance to Betfair. Toohool (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Satani, I did not remove the section because I "couldn't be arsed to find the link". Please be a little less confrontational, and if possible actually address the points I previously made. I explained clearly why the section is problematic above. In particular the phrase "perfectly fair" doesn't appear in the cited source once. I'll take Toohool's comment on board about sources, but it is unarguable that if something is asserted that is not supported by the cited reference material then it shouldn't be in the article. I would have edited the section so that it accurately reflected the source material, but as Toohool says, if I had done so it turns the paragraph into even more of a big fat nothing so I deleted. The consultation isn't referenced in the Wikipedia article associated with any other organisation, either ones who responded or ones who declined to respond, and so it's not clear to me why this belongs in this one. I am going to assume good faith on the part of Satani, but unless it can be shown why this should be in the article with reliable independent sources that actually support what is asserted then it has to go. DJBumfun (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)