Covid impact and the removal of IPD's



  • So apologies if this has been discussed, couldn't find anything specific.

    I know there has been lots of people saying Covid is not an excuse for FI's performance / actions over the last year. I agree in some instances this is definitely true, however, I do know most companies budgets and plans last year and going in to this year have been shot to pieces, FI will be no different in this sense.

    When you think about the introduction of the new dividend table for this season (including the increase in IPD payments), we knew the start of the season was going to have congested fixtures etc so FI could (and you'd like to think would) have planned for this. However, as far as I'm aware, fixture schedules across the leagues were not confirmed into 2021 (in terms of playing dates) and on the basis that the Covid situation was getting better, there was talk of fans returning to stadiums (which started to happen) and it wasn't known the massive impact the "2nd wave" of Covid would have, it would have surely been a fair assumption from an FI forecasting perspective that fixture schedules would have returned to something that looks more normal, albeit still congested. So even if they had forecasted for say 5 game days and 2 media days a week for the rest of the season (worst case), i dont think you'd have forecasted in to 2021 (and probably the remainder of the season) to be having 6 or 7 game days a week.

    Even a bronze day pays out 10p more than a media day, before you factor in IPD's. So in terms of forecasting, this would result in massive outlays over what would have been forecasted. Add to this the increase in games increased the opportunities and frequency of flipping players to chase IPD's.

    I know there are plenty of people who dont want to cut FI any slack, but what Im getting at is surely even pessimistic forecasting wouldn't have accounted for the situation we are still in and that will have surely forced FI's hand in terms of the decision that has been made. Potentially a choice between removal of IPD's or a reduction in PB payouts and IPD removal was deemed the better option. But, the decision was required because of the impact of Covid as opposed to a business decision they wanted to take because they are the devils children (as some would like to believe).

    Just my thoughts, I'm ready to be ripped into so let me have it! :0)



  • agree with this. unlike almost every bookies FI are not diversified to horse racing / slots / casino.
    so when football ceased worldwide, that was the biggest curveball possible.
    imagine sitting in a FI boardroom meeting 12 months ago saying "what do we do if worldwide football ceases". the guy would have been laughed out the room.
    in my work i do a lot of forecasting work, where you model on current scenarios. that was blown out of the water in march / april. my guess (and thats all that is) is that they modelled the IPD's on the current scenario / prices (12 months ago). given current prices it doesnt add up.
    looking forward to seeing what replaces it before judging


  • Banned

    So its ok for FI to change the bet if they are losing money. What happens when I'm losing money? Can I change the bet as well?? 🤷



  • when you are losing money, you can either cut your losses and cash in. or continue to gamble, ultimately on the future of the company.
    if you think they will fail, then list all. might be able to catch a little spike ahead of the announcement.



  • @NewUser688442 and so what if the alternative is FI make no decision, do not react to the situation and the impacts of Covid, they therefore go under and everyone loses? That would make it irresponsible to make no decision and let things continue as they were right?



  • @Sherbet

    It's not the game frequency that has made an impact on the viability of IPD's, after all, it's still the same number of games.

    The reason they aren't viable at the minute, is because prices tanked. 4p per goal on a defender who could be 10p is a 40% dividend return, where as that same defender under the old prices would have been maybe £1 and then you're looking at 4%.

    As prices compressed, the percentages for IPD payouts became juicy and therefore the number of people using an IPD strategy increased, but with the market constantly crashing, the prices were lower and lower, so the cost for paying them rose.

    The bottom line is, when FI allowed users to undercut each other, they caused a run on the market and that was very much a business decision and one that didn't need to happen.

    It's not about cutting them slack. When COVID hit, they acted with great speed in implementing the 40% spreads and most of us cheered them on for that. It was their decisions to transition the market after that which resulted in the destruction that has followed.

    If you go find a FIG podcast from June, with Adam Cole and the CTO, you'll see them celebrating and patting themselves on the back for the way they handled COVID, boasting about how quickly Sancho's spreads tightened. It was clear to those of us who you say "don't cut them slack", what an absolute disaster this was going to be but the thing is... to them it's not a disaster, because they banked our money. It was a disaster for us, the people who didn't get to make that choice.



  • @Dan-The-Man said in Covid impact and the removal of IPD's:

    It's not the game frequency that has made an impact on the viability of IPD's, after all, it's still the same number of games.

    I disagree with this statement, yes of course its the same number of games, but increased (higher than FI potentially forecast for game days) means there has been more opportunity for users to essentially use the same money to chase more IPD returns. A situation of less game days (but still the same number of games) means users couldn't chase in the same way.

    The rest of your response seems to mis-understand or ignore the basis of my post, I'm not starting another conversation about earlier in the year or specifically about the viability of IPD's. I'm saying, their forecasting, like basically all companies last year and this will have been massively disrupted by Covid and on the basis of the example in my OP (I won't go in to repeating again in this post) may have led to tough decisions being required to be taken.

    I understand that anyone who has deep rooted issues with FI is not going to want to acknowledge the potential for this and I'm also not saying its correct or even true, but it is logical.



  • Lol anyone want to explain the element of that last post that warrants the downvote? lol



  • @Sherbet said in Covid impact and the removal of IPD's:

    @Dan-The-Man said in Covid impact and the removal of IPD's:

    It's not the game frequency that has made an impact on the viability of IPD's, after all, it's still the same number of games.

    I disagree with this statement, yes of course its the same number of games, but increased (higher than FI potentially forecast for game days) means there has been more opportunity for users to essentially use the same money to chase more IPD returns. A situation of less game days (but still the same number of games) means users couldn't chase in the same way.

    Hey look, I'm not saying having the 9 game month didn't give added incentive to some traders... just that 'Fixture Congestion' compared with 'Payout Percentage', is a bit like seeing a house fully on fire and worrying about the candle burning on the porch.

    Overlooking that IPD's were designed to have people chase them and that FI would have been glad for fixture congestion under the old prices because it was more ways to persuade customers to spend money.

    Let's look at some figures:

    • 2019/2020, from the start of the season to this date in the calendar, there had been 58 game days.

    • 2020/2021, from the start fo the season to this date in the calendar, there has been 60 game days.

    Admittedly, those are just for the EPL, and there's another 4 leagues + UCL + UEL, but after counting one league, we're just 2 game days different and let's keep in mind, those extra game days, were probably single match days.

    Now let's look at the IPD numbers for a few players....

    • Lewandowski, has scored 25 times and had 5 assists so far. Last year that would have been 30p's worth of IPD's against a price of £3.30, now it's 60p against a bid price of £1.41. (42% payout vs 10% payout)

    • Immobile was £2.50 last year, he's on bid for 56p (this is last seasons golden boot winner). With 17 goals, 3 assists, giving him 40p worth of IPD's, which is a 71% payout compared to last year where he'd have earned 20p against his £2.50 price, which is an IPD payout of just 8% (easily covered by the commission).

    • Mkhitaryan who has 9 goals, 9 assists, (36p payout) is just 38p on bid

    There's no doubt plenty of players in the seriously cheap range who dwarf Mkhitaryan in the payout percentages and as prices continue to fall, this squeezes FI.



  • @Dan-The-Man that one of my biggest worries about the direction they're going...

    FI are so absolutely sure that prices are not going back up, that they would rather pull the plug on IPDs mid season, and break another promise, than to help get the prices back up.

    When prices were higher, these ipds were fine.



  • @Dan-The-Man Unfortunately I don't have time to dig in to figures in detail, however, I think on the face of it some of your figures above are distorting things slightly, the 2019/2020 season started on 9th August. The 2020/21 season started on 12th September was it? so working it to the current date, the 19/20 season had 58 game days in 164 days compared to 60 game days in 130 days for the 20/21 season (That is on the assumption your game day figures are accurate, I havent checked myself). Also I think by the same date in the 19/20 season we were at round 24 of fixtures in the premier league where as this season we are at round 20 (i.e. there have been more game days so far but we are 4 rounds further back than last season at the same date).

    Regardless, although I'm one that acknowledges Covid would have had an impact on 2020 for FI, per my original post they could have planned for the start of 2020/21 season when releasing the dividend table (i.e. there were plenty of knowns to aid forecasting). What I'm getting at is that I don't believe it would have been an unfair assumption as part of their forecasting to have assumed things now would have been slightly better (slightly more normal) than they are based on how the Covid situation was when the dividend table would have been getting formulated and then released. As an example, 7 game days this week, I think it was 4 game days for the same week last year.

    What I'm getting at is that all of this would have screwed with forecasting massively and in a very negative way. Potentially to the point where, as per my OP, they have had to make a tough decision on whether to reduce PB payouts or remove IPD (I'm not saying this is because of IPD's necessarily but more the PB / game day side of things) and removing IPD was seen as the least bad option. Apologies, this is a very rushed reply on my part as need to do breakfast for the kids and start work!



  • @o_O To be honest I would be more worried about your inability to cash out on a good thing. £13k profit to £2k loss with no action taken is alarming.

    In the interests of being positive could I suggest you install a trading app that allows you to play in simulation / practice mode (don’t deposit for God’s sake!!). Then try and spot the troughs and buy on them, spot the peaks and sell on them. Repeat
    Maybe keep a little spreadsheet and report back to the group on progress made / learnings.



  • @NewUser115892 said in Covid impact and the removal of IPD's:

    @o_O To be honest I would be more worried about your inability to cash out on a good thing. £13k profit to £2k loss with no action taken is alarming.

    In the interests of being positive could I suggest you install a trading app that allows you to play in simulation / practice mode (don’t deposit for God’s sake!!). Then try and spot the troughs and buy on them, spot the peaks and sell on them. Repeat
    Maybe keep a little spreadsheet and report back to the group on progress made / learnings.

    Who the fuck are you? and why are you pretending you know anything about me and my trading?

    I've never had 13k profit what are you even talking about you loony?



  • Sorry my bad. It was 3k profit to £12k loss. I got it the wrong way round. Sometimes it’s easy to do that isnt it. E.g buy high, sell low.
    Anyway, principals still the same. 15k swing with no action / cash out.
    That’s okay, get the anger out. Now get that simulation spreadsheet set up!!



  • @NewUser115892 just unblocked you and realised you've been posting bullshit replies on all my posts hahaha

    Obsessed much you little prick? Haha



  • Morning hun, you okay?



  • @NewUser115892 said in Covid impact and the removal of IPD's:

    Sorry my bad. It was 3k profit to £12k loss. I got it the wrong way round. Sometimes it’s easy to do that isnt it. E.g buy high, sell low.
    Anyway, principals still the same. 15k swing with no action / cash out.
    That’s okay, get the anger out. Now get that simulation spreadsheet set up!!

    You know nothing. So shut up little child.



  • I am being a twat to you because you are proactively trying to lose other people money, due to bitterness of your own loss. That’s bad vibes man.
    Shame because some of your views are very valid. But when you go on record saying “I hope you all lose your money”, it’s game over in terms of respect.
    Anyway, said my piece. I’ll stop being an arse now, as it’s not my style.
    Genuinely, good luck to you on whether you decide to stay in the game. But either way, let others enjoy what’s left of this game without trying to sabotage it (FI are doing a good enough job on their own!!)



  • @NewUser115892 said in Covid impact and the removal of IPD's:

    Sorry my bad. It was 3k profit to £12k loss. I got it the wrong way round. Sometimes it’s easy to do that isnt it. E.g buy high, sell low.
    Anyway, principals still the same. 15k swing with no action / cash out.
    That’s okay, get the anger out. Now get that simulation spreadsheet set up!!

    Also, there's nothing more pathetic than someone in here laughing at people's lost money...

    Everyone here has lost money over the last few months, whether that's taken them negative, or eaten profit if they started earlier, so stop being such a piece of shit.



  • @NewUser115892 actually, just do what you want

    I'm done


Log in to reply