Talk:Betfair

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Turkeyphant 20:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutching

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree - so I removed it.  "Be bold" as they say MikesPlant 12:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Betfair guide in external links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  explanation of NPOV addition 

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