Anyone heard of United Punters??

As the title says....

I saw them on the BBC breakfast news, the guy from this company was talking about a big shake up in the betting exchange market.

Anyone know any details??

Yes I saw it as broadcast about 6.50 this morning. It was quite disappointing and left me none the wiser, well almost. The guy being interviewed did mention something about firms going bust and protection of punter's funds. Basically he was talking about ringfencing but failed to use the term which I found unusual.

Non-punting folk would probably get the wrong impression about the industry as I heard no reference to firms that have implemented ring-fencing, e.g. Betfair.

So I guess they are going to campaign for mandatory ring-fencing though why he thinks this should only apply to exchanges is a mystery to me. Perhaps I missed some of the broadcast.

Had a look at the website: unitedpunters.co.uk, anything that safeguards my cash is good as far as I'm concerned but is he really suggesting that Betfair would risk their entire business by screwing with punters accounts. I doubt it somehow, surely they're big enough now to provide all the security of Hills or Ladbrokes.

Failing that Betdaq are backed by a billionaire and TradBets.com are regulated by the FSA the same people as control the banks. Less sure of Sportingoptions but I've never had any problems.

One other thing, I mean if they can pull it off I'm there but they claim they can get a deal with Betfair or one of the others to offer 1-1.5% commission to their users if they can get 10,000 people signed up.

As far as I know Betfair no longer offer commission deals to anybody so unless these 10k users are going to contribute £20m or so per week they've got no chance. Of course they may have more chance with one of the lesser sites.

Good luck to them but I don't fancy their chances.

This new organisation is evidently setting itself up as some sort of punters' union.

Some people associate unions with socialism but, of course, in lobbying solely for a single interest group, they are nothing of the kind.

What's more, union leaders such as Arthur Scargill, have in the past lived in relative luxury off the back of union members' dues.

For a fee, this organisation looks like it's going to try and muscle exchanges, with threats of boycotts and lures of guaranteed userbases, into charging a particular commission level, possibly in return for a commission revenue share as well.

Personally, I think that free market competition between exchanges will eventually have the desired effect of reducing commission rates to their lowest commercially sustainable levels, without the need for help of any such altruistic interventionism.

At any rate, commission rates are only relevent in the minds of users once liquidity and odds on offer are more or less equal.

That is obviously a long way from being the case at present.

Anyone who wants to bet in size is probably going to remain at Betfair for the foreseeable future.

10 000 might be a long shot but from our experience in the horse racing industry every so often long shots do come through. And when they do, a lot of people lose and win money. Do you recall Barney Curley and NAPP trying to form punters unions? They didn’t really attract thousands of members but market has since changed a lot. There are number of exchanges that are willing to work the dues to get market share. I’ll wait and see but in short I agree with Done me dosh.

[Osesame]

I see that their proposals for membership fees are £100 p.a for punters to get 1.5% comm. rate,and £200 p.a to get 1% comm rate.It would also appear that "chosen exchanges" will also have to pay a fee.
It rather looks as though they will be creaming off quite a bit of money and just for doing 4 audits p.a.

As I see it any reputable exchange could set up the clients funds in trust as they are suggesting. I doubt if the cost of these 4 audits for an exchange would cost £1,000,000.

Many people might believe that you can start up an exchange and become almost instantly very wealthy.That imo is not the case.Betfair are said to be making big profits, well it was their original idea so why should they not.No company goes into business without the intention of making decent profits.
So far most other betting exchanges have not improved on or offered much in new ideas over the Betfair/Flutter model,but that is sure to change with time.

Wth regard to the exchange that went broke I am not sure that the explanation given by UP is entirely accurate.

Before parting with any money have a look at how much winnings you made last year and how much commission you paid,will a reduction to 1.5% comm. make a difference of greater than the £100 fee.

A very old saying springs to mind "Who guards the guards"

.................................................. ......................

To Tryingit
I think it is more likely that the markets have been influenced
a) by the higher odds generally at exchanges
b) changes in taxation
c) the highly competitive nature of internet betting,especially when you can go to odds comparison sites and see at a glance which bookie/exchange is offering the best deal.

Osesame

Osesame,

IMO, Betfair's commission rates are too high and there is scope for reduction.

Moreover, I gather that The Sporting Exchange Ltd, the company which owns Betfair, is planning to diversify into other technological products and services.

Some might ask where the money is coming from to fund such plans?

The answer is surely from the commission revenues of Betfair's users, some of who are paying up to 5%.

It's not entirely dissimilar to Ladbrokes' profits being reinvested by Hilton Group into building hotels.

This smacks of complacency on the part of Betfair about the need to strive to provide an ever-improving service to their users, at the lowest commission rates commercially possible.

After all, these punters are the people who made Betfair what they are today.

I find Betfair's attitude surprising because, now the other exchanges are catching up with Betfair in terms of: functionality, content management, customer account management and customer service; the two remaining elements which make Betfair stand out from their rivals - namely superior odds and liquidity - are provided not by Betfair themselves, but by their users.

Betfair seem to be banking on the ''herd'' being indefinitely rooted to the spot at their website, despite Betfair now being the most expensive exchange to use for the average punter.

Perhaps Betfair are right - only time will tell.

IMO, the only thing United Punters has got going for it is its initiative to try and galvanise users to shop around for the best rates.

However, as you say, they seems to be planning to cream off a lot of money for their service.

I certainly agree that starting an exchange is not a route to instant riches.

The reason why exchanges are successful is that they have lower profit margins than fixed odds bookmakers - i.e. they are, relatively speaking, as cheap as chips.

Hence the revenue stream from a competitive commission rate can be tiny.

Betfair have made serious money because they have got so big, but I hear Dermot Desmond has kissed good-bye to upwards of IR£40 million at Betdaq and, while SportingOptions seem to be doing ok, I doubt if they are making massive profits.

I am fairly happy with a starting commission rate of 5% and a loyalty scheme of some sort. In fact part of the fun when I first started on Betfair was working to get my commission rate down.

My problem is that my rate is down to 4.3% and because of the "decaying points" system this is where I have stalled. My [profit + loss] is usually 2 to 3 grand a week but I can't get my commission rate any lower without risking my bank. I think they should rethink this; even if they were to abandon the "15% rule" altogether is it really going to do them damage? What is going to happen is "part-time" punters like me are going to get sick of paying this high commission and place more and more of our bets on Sporting Options or wherever. Eventually there will be a decent competitor for BF...

That mr ian davies is very negative isnt he? he criticises a company that tries to act for punters in the face of a monopolised position of the larger Exchanges and yet Mr Davies does not offer alternative solutions. i wouldnt read too much into what Mr Davies has to say quite frankly and i think he has missed the point completely of what united punters are trying to do. it is not a union but a punters buying kind of cooperative. the website is quite good on www.unitedpunters.co.uk and people should be afforded an opportunity to consider joining if there are potential cash savings over and above the joining fees.

lost the lot,

No need to call me ''Mr.''

You say this new company tries to act for punters - I think it's trying to bank a million pounds for itself by trying to get 10,000 punters to join at £100 a head and will then make a few phones calls to try and broker some grubby deal.

But which exchange will sign this great deal?

I can't see any exchange being interested in being told how to price its product, still less opening up its books to some start-up attempting to style itself as a self-appointed regulator.

Complying with regulations laid down by slightly more significant bodies like the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, paying taxes as stipulated by the Treasury, and co-operating with the Jockey Club re odd betting patterns will probably satisfy userbases infinitely more effectively.

You say I don't offer alternative solutions.

Untrue.

I've long argued that competition among exchange operators can bring commission rates down over time, particularly if punters are prepared to help themselves by shopping around for the best odds and the best commission rates.

I think PL users can make up their own minds about whose views they take any notice of.

Of course, they may opt to give credence to someone backing a website on his debut posting without coming clean about his involvement in it.

But I wouldn't bank on it.

WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOX UNITED PUNTERS IS!

Purchase the £100 Value Membership and you are guaranteed a fixed 1.5% commission. Whether you trade a volume of £1 or £1,000,000 in a month, you will pay the same fixed rate - 1.5%.

Purchase the £200 Big Punter Membership and you are guaranteed a fixed 1% commission. Whether you trade a volume of £1 or £1,000,000 in a month, you will pay the same fixed rate - 1%.
That's all there is to say about that

That is what United Punters is promising you. United Punters is negotiating on your behalf, based on an estimate of 10,000 members, a reduced commission structure with one of these 4 online betting exchanges:

THESE BEING

Betfair, Betdaq, Ibetx, Sporting Options

BETFAIR - WONT HAPPEN THEY DONT NEED YOU

IT WILL BE ONE OF THE LAST 3

BUT I THINK IT WILL BE BETDAQ! AS THERE COMMISION RATE IS ALREADY ONLY 2% ANYWAY AND THEY COULD DO WITH SOME MORE CUSTOM.NOT EXACTLY A GOOD DEAL IMO!

BEAR IN MIND RIGHT YOU ONLY PAY 2% COMMISIONS ON WINNINGS AT BETDAQ YEAH,WELL ID SAY YOUR AVERAGE JOE WILL WIN £2000 AT MAX PER YEAH ON BET DAQ AND THAT IS A LOT ! THEN HE WILL ONLY PAY 2% COMMISIONS WHICH IS £40.

NOW IMAGINE IF YOU PAY YOUR £100 TO UNITEDPUNTERS AND THEN WIN £2000 AND HAVE TO PAY 1.5 % COMMISION ON IT ASWELL THATS £30.

SO BEING A NORMAL PUNTER AT BETDAQ WINNING £2000 A YEAR WILL COST YOU £40 IN TOTAL.

BEING A UNITEDPUNTER AT BETDAQ WINNING £2000 A YEAR WILL COST YOU £130.

HMM

Tosh, no need to shout. Your method of calculating commission assumes a punter has no losing bets, which with the exception of yourself, is not realistic. Say you have 100 bets at evens, 50 winners and 50 losers and your profit is zero. Your commission however is 2.50.

Using a series of bets with a 3% yield as an example, a punter turning over in excess of 27,000 per annum could save 216 on commission if his 5% is reduced to 1%, less his 200 fee gives a net saving of 16. Of course, a punter turning over that sort of cash will not be on 5% in the first place. I think that sort of puts things in perspective.

Of course, they may opt to give credence to someone backing a website on his debut posting without coming clean about his involvement in it

They may also opt to give credence to a company whose representatives don't know a sentence begins with a capital letter, but I would not bank on that either.

Got to agree that market forces will eventually decide commission rates. IMO, anyone parting with £100 to join UP has more money than sense.

im right im right

Tosh, no need to shout. Your method of calculating commission assumes a punter has no losing bets, which with the exception of yourself, is not realistic.