Saturday 10 April 2010

Grand National

I landed in Sydney this morning, where I am attending the Asian Racing Conference, to the largest flurry of e-mails I have had for some time. Most of them revolved around the Grand National.

In any circumstances other than that I would have been roughly over Darwin at the time the race went off, I'd have been very sorry to miss it. The Grand National holds a huge number of special memories for me.

One of the first things I remember in my life was watching Red Rum win his third National, at my grandparents' small terraced house in Kensal Rise. It made an agreeable change to the usual Saturday afternoon fare, which involved my grandfather watching the wrestling on World of Sport.

Four years later, I persuaded the nanny, with both my parents away, to let me raid the house-keeping jar for a couple of quid, which she then obligingly put on Aldaniti for me at Datchet's tiny Turf Accountant - her first-ever visit to such an establishment. I put the stake back in the jar later, and the winnings kept me in Cola Bottles for some time to come.

In 1992, my first year as part of Cambridge University Boat Club's squad, the Grand National and the Boat Race took place on the same day (April 4th). I delayed our crew's departure from our base at the Bank of England Sports Club in Roehampton because of my insistence that I wanted to see the titles of Grandstand, complete with the music from Champions. Now, just a bar of the theme tune is enough to transport me back to that emotional day, which saw Cambridge beaten in a spookily identical fashion to that by which they triumphantly won last week. (Goldie won by three and a half lengths, and I almost took the bows off Isis in my eagerness to get their water along Crabtree Reach, more or less opposite where Betfair's offices are today.)

The memories of this year's race will sadly be limited to the various pieces of commentary that appeared in my inbox, although they give what seems a complete picture. From comments about McCoy's emotional interview, through reports about Ladbrokes' site going down (sorry - couldn't resist!), to a gleeful missive from my parents telling me that they had backed the winner; it was all there.

The bulk of the mails I got, though, involved discussion about what the result means for racing, given two things: first, that it couldn't really have been a worse result for the bookmakers; and second, whether it is right or wrong that the over-round should have got progressively worse as the race approached, to finish at 155%.

To deal with each in turn...

One of my colleagues who is most knowledgeable on the subject suggested to me that, "I'm not sure that any of the other thousands of 'first four' permutations could have been worse for them". Brace yourself for plenty of 'it cost us millions' stories in the press tomorrow, but the reality is that those millions will be back. But I won't be bracing myself for anyone (in racing) recognising the sense (for racing) in managing risk perfectly like we do at Betfair, which delivers levy returns whatever the result.

As regards the SP, it's worth having a look at what SP has been at the National over the last 10 years. Courtesy of the same colleague, here are the numbers:

2000 - 138%

2001 - 142%

2002 - 143%

2003 - 143%

2004 - 133%

2005 - 139%

2006 - 147%

2007 - 152%

2008 - 146%

2009 - 146%

2010 - 155%


To put that into perspective, the winner returned 10/1 at SP today; and 18/1 at Betfair SP.

Now, there's an argument that says that Grand National Day is the one day that the bookies should have an over-round that represents daylight robbery to any value-seeking punter. The vast majority of their customers today are not just not value-seekers, but are not betting with any knowledge whatsoever of whether a horse should be 10/1 or 33/1. Equally, many of them are not likely to come back again until the Grand National is run next year. On that basis, you could argue that it makes sense to charge as much money as possible, safe in the knowledge that they're going to buy the product just this once.

The counter, though, was put succinctly in an e-mail by one of Betfair's very early customers, who suggested that maybe an idea for Racing for Change would be to look at how the biggest betting day in the calendar could become an opportunity to welcome new people into the sport, rather than "treating them as people who have strayed into the wrong part of town and deserve to be mugged".

I think it's a powerful argument.

There's no question - and this year proves it - that there is a trend for false gambles which ignores the broader market as captured by Betfair. Horses are shortened in price late in the day, and nothing is lengthened to compensate. The pricing experience is one which I don't think any other industry would get away with.

Does it matter? I think it does. You might argue that adding 55% to fair value would have gone some way to mitigate the disastrous result; but it seems more likely that someone who picked up £180 for a tenner will return and have another go, than someone who picked up £100.

Certainly, any customer who learns that he'd have got twice the price half an hour earlier, or in the morning, or on Betfair, or even on the Tote (which was paying £15) will feel short-changed, and a 'good customer experience' will become a mediocre one at best. So, given that we know that more regular punters tend to return to the bookies what they win, I would have thought that giving new customers a fair go in the hope (or expectation based on experience) that they can then be retained for lifetime value would be a more sensible business model.

But I suspect I'm in a minority confined to Betfair.

12 comments:

  1. Hi Mark,

    I read this latest blog post and the saying, ‘Those in glass houses....’ immediately came to mind.

    Firstly, it was a great race and to see McCoy win at last was tremendous!

    I personally found the Betfair site perfectly useable for this year’s Grand National which is the first time I can remember, but it wasn’t running at 100%, well at least the API wasn’t. But it did stay up which was good to see unlike the Ladbrokes site as you report.

    But let’s not forget Betfair’s recent troubles with the site going down on a near daily basis and the shockingly poor communication that followed as has been mentioned elsewhere on the blog. As I understand it Ladbrokes’ shops and telephone betting didn’t go down and people were not left with positions that could not be closed out and no one lost any actual money I wouldn’t have thought because of their website going down unlike what happens each time Betfair goes down, granted there are winners when Betfair goes down as well.

    With regards to your point about Betfair managing it’s risk perfectly which in turn delivers levy returns whatever the result, that is true, but if everyone did as Betfair did wouldn’t the overall Levy returns be much much lower and racing be worse off? I maybe wrong and look forward to being put right but I would have thought that the Levy from Commissions would not be anywhere near the present Levy levels?

    Don’t think I am an advocate of the present situation mind you, but I just feel that if everyone for example were to bet on Betfair the Levy returns each year would be much less. I do not have any calculations to prove this but it is my understanding of the situation without looking into it in any great detail.

    You have gone on to highlight the fact that the industry SP returned 10/1 v Betfair’s 18.18/1 but you have failed to take account of Commission and more importantly Premium Charge! If I had placed £10 on Don’t Push It at BFSP I would end up with nothing like £181, more like £145 which is less than the Tote as you point out, but to be fair it is still more than the industry £100.

    But again you failed to highlight that you are comparing a Win and Each Way market with plenty paying 5 places (Industry) with a Win Only market (Betfair). The entirely separate Betfair Place market was only paying 4 places I believe.

    Again I am not arguing that the Bookies Over round was in anyway fair but I think when you make an argument you should give the full story.

    Had the horse not been sweating up badly just before the off I don’t think you would have been shouting from the rooftops about the BFSP nor would you if the other Joint Favourite Big Bucks had won where the BFSP was far worse than the Industry after Commission and Premium Charge.

    Also we shouldn’t forget when Betfair were not shouting from the rooftops about the Comply Or Die SP returned a couple of years back!

    I had a look back through the results service and it seems that Betfair have not even put the BFSP’s up for that race!

    If I remember right the BFSP was originally just over 3/1 compared to the Industry 7/1. We all know the only reason that Betfair went in and played around with the BFSP on that one occasion!

    You had never done it before and haven’t since to my knowledge despite at times BFSP’s returning far worse than that Grand National SP.

    Of course altering it on that occasion helped out all the new customers who had backed Comply Or Die at SP.

    Finally, don’t get me wrong I am fully aware of the benefits of the BFSP and that Punters are much better off using it long term than the Industry SP and I make regular use of it myself.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Again, I wouldn't normally get into a debate, but I'm not sure I agree with much of this to be honest.

    The ref. to Ladbrokes is (or should be) clearly tongue-in-cheek. They will have hated going down, as would we have done. I’m perfectly (painfully!) aware we go down sometimes. I just happened to be the subject of one of the many e-mails. If we'd gone down they'd have ribbed us; I am sure they can take a small poke in the ribs and will take it in good heart.

    Second, in relation to BSP (which is not intended to be the subject of the post at all but almost an adjunct to it). If you'd had £1 on every winner at BSP since we started it instead of £1 at SP, you'd be 40% better off now, even with commission.

    On the Comply or Die example that you quote, yes, it is true that we were not ready for the demand we saw that day and it caused us a problem. But we recognised that, and we not only rolled back all of our Betfair SPs to reflect what the bookies SP was, but then bonused winning customers to reflect a 100% book rather than the 140% industry odds. So, horse was sent off the 7-1 favourite on the conventional market, and the BSP initially returned 7-2. But we paid out as if the horse was 9-1, which was the price it would have been had the bookies bet to 100% rather than the 140%+ that they did net to. Obviously, we took the hit on it, leaving the customers who laid Comply or Die at BSP to pay out at just the 7-2. So I think using it as an example is irrelevant.

    Equally irrelevant IMO is the premium charge. If you're arguing that the fact that we let you successfully place bets which you'd have been knocked back for long ago by all other operators should be built into a debate about new customers coming to bet for the first time, then I'd agree to disagree.

    Fair point about adding commission to the 18/1, but if you want to be what I would call picky, the BSP was actually just over 18/1; and 10 to 18 is a great deal more than 5% last I looked... In any case, I'm not sure it detracts a great deal from the general argument, which is not confined to Betfair at all but to the fact that punters like my parents opened their newspapers on Saturday morning to see Don't Push It showing at 20/1, and ended up getting 10/1 without anything else lengthening commensurately. Even the live commentary text on BBC Sport asked the question 'are punters being ripped off here?' and IMO it's a legitimate question to ask whether GN day is a day to take advantage of customers (which as I state is arguable on the basis that they are one-off visitors) or not (on the basis that we'd like them to join the game properly).

    Also don't agree at all that if everyone bet on Betfair the levy returns would be lower. In fact, completely disagree with it, for the reasons contained in our levy booklet cited above (http://corporate.betfair.com/everything-you-thought-you-knew-about-the-levy-and-perhaps-a-few-things-you-didnt.pdf)

    All in all, agree with many of your postings but not at all with this one! :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Mark thanks for taking the time to reply.

    I guess I didn’t take the reference to Ladbrokes going down in the manner in which it was meant. I have been caught out by Betfair going down previously so it is a subject that gets to me a bit (I am aware though it is a risk that I have to accept as technology and most definitely technology as complicated as Betfair will never work 100% correct 100% of the time).

    As I said in my original comment ‘I am fully aware of the benefits of the BFSP and that Punters are much better off using it long term than the Industry SP and I make regular use of it myself’. What I don’t agree with is that the PC is irrelevant.

    True it is irrelevant with regards to new customers as they would not be liable for it but it is not irrelevant for your long term customers who pay it. It has a huge impact on the true odds for people liable for it but this factor seems to never be mentioned anywhere as if it doesn’t exist.

    I am sure I was not alone when after explaining to friends and family the actual odds they would be getting were far lower than what they first thought if I were to put their bet on for them via Betfair said thanks but no thanks.

    My point with regards to Comply or Die was rather that the Betfair SP does at times return worse than the Bookies, especially when Com. and PC are taken into account but these examples are forgotten about. Nearly every week on RUK (which of course is independent of you) in the evenings they have the debate, with people emailing in, about the Bookies Prices v Betfair’s prices but on every occasion they fail to take account of the PC which is not irrelevant as it affects some users, it should be mentioned and explained in order to keep the argument fair and also the times when the Betfair SP is worse it is virtually never mentioned. If they are going to highlight one side of the argument I feel they should highlight the other.

    I think it was right that you went in and played with the Comply Or Die SP for the backers, it will have saved you more than it cost you long term I would have thought as the negative advertising that could have been done by say Ladbrokes was averted and it created goodwill to those it helped out. So it clearly was a PR job rather than anything else and the fact that it has never been done before or since would highlight that. That was the reason for me using it as an example i.e. the Betfair SP is not perfect either but it is a hell of a lot better than the Industry SP!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Continued from previous comment......

    I wasn’t trying to be picky (I am just a person who likes to have all the detail as I am sure some of my previous comments have highlighted though this comes across as picky to some people, though sometimes I get it wrong and don’t have the correct detail as some of my previous comments have also highlighted and I am happy to admit when I am wrong) with regards to adding Com. and PC, I was just trying to give the full story as was the point of my whole comment. As you can see I highlighted the actual BFSP of 18.18/1 and as I said even after Com. and PC it was still more than the Industry £100. I wasn’t trying to detract from the general argument that the Industry SP was far from fair as I said ‘Again I am not arguing that the Bookies Over round was in anyway fair, but I think when you make an argument you should give the full story’.

    I agree with the overall point of your post to ask whether GN day is a day to take advantage of customers, it is a question that should be being asked by Racing For Change and the likes of the Racing Post but won’t and that is the exact reason I no longer buy the RP. There are just to many vested interests for anyone to come out and rock the boat. So it is good that you highlight the point by making a post about it.

    I will look into the Levy point some more as I am happy to be proved wrong.

    Looks like we both misunderstood the tone of each other’s posts ;-)

    Glad you agree with some of my postings though and I thoroughly enjoy reading your blog and questioning what you write as it allows me to learn more and I do appreciate the time you take to respond to mine and others comments.

    ReplyDelete
  5. leonthefixer,

    I don't know how many customers bet on the Grand National on Betfair. 100,000 maybe? How many of them:

    a. were on 5% commission, AND
    b. aren't traders (otherwise they'd pay less than 5% *per bet* because commission isn't taken per bet but on market winnings), AND
    c. have a strike rate good enough to pay Premium charge, AND
    d. can still get a bet on with the bookies.

    3? 5? 10 perhaps?

    Are you seriously suggesting a "fair" comparison with the bookies should include every possible charge on Betfair, even if 99.99% of customers pay less than that, while pretending that the bookies will lay any bet advertised to any customer without restriction?

    Your comments about each way betting are just a straight lie. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I have to say it as it is. At the bookies SP the overround for the place part of the market was 539%. Betfair's place market paid 4 places to 408%. So even if you pay out on 5 places I would hope it was obvious that paying 5 places to 539% is stingier than 4 places to 408%.

    I thought it would be obvious that the perennial threads on the Betfair forum moaning that the place market only pays 4 places were a piss take. It's staggering to think that there are people out who presumably are numerate enough to win regularly at betting but who can't even be bothered to calculate whether the place terms offered by the bookies are a steal or a rip off.

    And if you're going to compare fairly then of course you'd note that you can't bet place only at the bookies. The only way to "take advantage" of the abysmal 539% book was to place half your cash into the 155% win market by betting "each way".

    Consider this: If you'd had a £1 each way bet at the bookies on the first 5 horses to finish on Saturday (and they'd paid 1/4 the odds the first 5) then you would have won £23.50. If you'd had the equivalent bet on Betfair, £1 on each of the five to win and to place, then even though you'd have done your money on 5th placed Hello Bud you'd still have won £27.23 overall because the winnings on the other 4 horses would have been that much higher. And that assumes 5% commission.

    This is a genuine question for you leonthefixer: are you Gerald Ratner? If you pay the Premium Charge on Betfair presumably you make good money from betting, and even with the Premium Charge Betfair's the site that allows you to make the most money (otherwise presumably you'd bet somewhere else if you could make more money there). So you tell anyone who'll listen to you or read your posts that Betfair is terrible value compared to the bookies, when we all know the opposite is true. If no one reads your opinions what's the point? And if anyone does, and is fooled by your nonsense, then they'll lose their money to the bookies, instead of to you. Isn't that a bit retarded?

    I don't want to start an argument, but virtually everything you've written is factually wrong, to the point where Mark has to take time to rebut it (and I thought he was remarkably reasonable not to hammer you for the lies about each way betting, or the complete codswallop about the horse sweating up - that didn't make the bookies rape their customers).

    If every blog post he makes is followed by a tedious whine from you about the Premium Charge containing cobblers he has to rebut then I can't see this blog lasting very long. Give the guy a break FFS and at least post something relevant to the original post, rather than "I only make wheelbarrowloads each year, Premium Charge boo hoo hoo etc. etc.".

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Johnn, my reply:

    1.
    “Are you seriously suggesting a "fair" comparison with the bookies should include every possible charge on Betfair, even if 99.99% of customers pay less than that”

    No. What I am suggesting is that they include the two ball park charges. 1. Commission; 2. Commission + Premium Charge.

    2.
    “while pretending that the bookies will lay any bet advertised to any customer without restriction?”

    I didn’t suggest they do that at all.

    3.
    “Your comments about each way betting are just a straight lie.”

    I said:

    “you failed to highlight that you are comparing a Win and Each Way market with plenty paying 5 places (Industry) with a Win Only market (Betfair). The entirely separate Betfair Place market was only paying 4 places I believe.”

    That is factually correct and not a lie. I do not disagree with your figures at all and never suggested otherwise. I merely pointed out the above statement.

    4.
    “I thought it would be obvious that the perennial threads on the Betfair forum moaning that the place market only pays 4 places were a piss take”

    I have not read the Betfair Forum for years.

    5.
    “And if you're going to compare fairly then of course you'd note that you can't bet place only at the bookies.”

    Yes, good point.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 6.
    “If you'd had a £1 each way bet at the bookies on the first 5 horses to finish on Saturday...then you would have won £23.50...If you'd had the equivalent bet on Betfair...you'd still have won £27.23...And that assumes 5% commission.”

    No I would not as you have not taken account of the commission I would have to pay the following Wednesday.

    7.
    “This is a genuine question for you leonthefixer: are you Gerald Ratner?”

    No I am not.

    8.
    “even with the Premium Charge Betfair's the site that allows you to make the most money (otherwise presumably you'd bet somewhere else if you could make more money there).”

    Yes even with the PC Betfair is the site that allows me to make the most money. Yes I would bet elsewhere if I could make more money there.

    9.
    “So you tell anyone who'll listen to you or read your posts that Betfair is terrible value compared to the bookies, when we all know the opposite is true.”

    I didn’t say Betfair was terrible value compared to the bookies. I said:

    “I am not arguing that the Bookies Over round was in anyway fair but I think when you make an argument you should give the full story.

    And

    “I am fully aware of the benefits of the BFSP and that Punters are much better off using it long term than the Industry SP”

    10.
    “he was remarkably reasonable not to hammer you for the lies about each way betting”

    See point 3.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 11.
    “the complete codswallop about the horse sweating up”
    From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/horse_racing/8612946.stm):
    “1614: Don't Push It is "drenched in sweat", according to Rishi Persad on BBC1”
    And
    “1642: If you'd seen the amount of sweat pouring off Don't Push It at the start you wouldn't have given this one much of a chance.”
    I suspect you have seen enough Betfair markets to know what happens to the horse’s price when a horse does the above just before the off.

    12.
    “that didn't make the bookies rape their customers”
    I never said it did.

    13.
    “If every blog post he makes is followed by a tedious whine from you about the Premium Charge”
    I have mentioned the PC in 2 (I believe) of the posts where I have commentated. I think they were relevant in both. I have commented on numerous other posts.

    14.
    “Give the guy a break FFS and at least post something relevant to the original post”
    I feel my comments were relevant, you don’t.

    15.
    Back to the Gerald Ratner comment. This blog has been made public and open to comment from all without the need to have comments verified and I respect that and am thankful for the blog as I find it an interesting read. I am fully aware of what I have on the line, my livelihood. But that does not mean I am going to sit quietly and not comment on subjects that are of interest and matter to me. I live in the UK and Betfair is a UK company. We do not live in China. It would be a sad day when we are not allowed to express our views and opinions and if a company were to start not excepting peoples custom just because someone questioned them I think that would speak volumes about the company, the better solution is to educate.

    Mark on this blog does allow you to ask questions which I think speaks highly of him and the time he takes to point things out and correct those views is greatly appreciated by myself and others I am sure.

    I ran a blog (I am guessing you didn’t read it given your comments about me) for several years which detailed my journey and I questioned a lot of things, Myself and Betfair included. I like to question things, if you don’t you don’t learn as much. I do not claim to know everything and as I have said previously I look forward to being corrected as from that I can learn more. I have a hunger to learn and by asking questions constantly I have got to where I am today and will continue to ask questions on this blog but if Mark would prefer I didn’t he is more than welcome to ask me to stop and I shall. I would hope he would do that before banning me from using Betfair.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If anyone is the Gerald Ratner round these parts, it would be that bundle of happiness & political correctness, lil ol me. And FYI, I'm way past the stage of caring if I look a pillock.

    ;-)

    And please chill some dude, we were simply entertaining Mark until somebody nice like you showed up to keep him company whilst he's on the road. I for one am totally appreciative of the freedom to post here, and also that he hasn't sent the men in white coats to take me away yet.

    Apart from that, ditto most of what Leon said.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jeez no one's asking for anyone's free speech to be impeded - I'm just saying that I've seen plenty of blogs like this start where someone posts genuinely interesting views, then after a while they realise they're spending hours constructing rebuttals to tyre-kicking comments, and they conclude that it's not worth the effort.

    So in reply to your points:

    1. Are you seriously suggesting that every time someone talks about a single price on Betfair they have to quote it less commission, and less commission and premium charge? Anyway I thought you were the person arguing the other day that it's wrong to talk about charges per bet, because it's not the "right" unit, a market is. If you shouldn't pay charges per bet (and you don't), then why should Betfair's prices be quoted as if you did? No one pays commission per bet, and no one pays premium charge per bet, so what would it tell you if you did it your way other than Betfair's prices are terrible, when we both know they're not.

    2.If you're aware that the bookies don't let successful customers bet at advertised prices, then shouldn't you include that in a fair comparison? You said "I think when you make an argument you should give the full story". Doesn't the same principle apply to you?

    3. If, as you say, you do agree with me that the Betfair's place market was more generous than the bookies place terms then I'm absolutely baffled. What's the point of pulling Mark up for not mentioning the bookies place terms, if it doesn't change the story (that the bookies prices were scandalous)?

    4, 5, 6, 7 whatever.

    8. Erm even more baffled. So you're saying the prices you get on Betfair are terrible because of that nasty premium charge, yet at the end of the day they're still better than any of the hundreds of other bookies you could place bets on the sports you gamble on.

    11. You're making yourself look an idiot. I wasn't referring to the horse sweating up being codswallop - I have two eyes and a television set and I saw it as clearly as anyone else. I was referring to this inane comment by you:

    "Had the horse not been sweating up badly just before the off I don’t think you would have been shouting from the rooftops about the BFSP"

    Don't Push It was the following prices on Betfair:

    9am 25
    10.30am 25
    12.30pm 26
    1.30pm 26
    2.15pm 26
    3pm 26
    3.30pm 25
    3.45pm 25

    At which point it started getting backed in on Betfair, to under 20 by the off. I realise horses may drift if punters take sweating up as a bad sign, but that didn't happen on Saturday, except in your head. If your explanation for the difference in industry price to BFSP is that the horse sweated up and it therefore drifted on Betfair without drifting on course, then you're talking about a different Don't Push It, a different Tony McCoy and a different Grand National to the one everyone else was watching.

    The reason the prices were so different is because the bookies were betting to a staggering 155%, the original point you felt you had to counter.

    13. I had a look back and saw that your last premium charge moan was in reply to a post about sponsorship at Punchestown. Highly relevant LOL.

    15. Living in China? Censorship? Banning you from betting on Betfair? What on Earth are you babbling about? I'm just pointing out that I'd like to read Mark's comments and be able to ask sensible questions every now and again. I'm concerned that if you bury him under timewasting rubbish he'll think better of doing this. I think that would be a shame.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just a couple more thoughts that occurred to me leonthefixer. You said this:

    "I am sure I was not alone when after explaining to friends and family the actual odds they would be getting were far lower than what they first thought if I were to put their bet on for them via Betfair said thanks but no thanks."

    You gave the impression to your friends and family that they'd be getting odds they wouldn't be happy with if you placed a bet for them at Betfair? You didn't say if any of them wanted to back the winner, but if they did, and you persuaded them to bet at the bookies then they've been shafted. I can understand why you might want to tuck up the in-laws, but that's a horrible thing to do to friends. You wouldn't be my friend for long if you did that.

    There are two obvious questions that occur to me:

    1. Why didn't you tell them that you make so much money on Betfair that you get charged extra, and that they'd be best off opening their own Betfair accounts where there's no chance they'd pay it?

    2. Why not just put a bit more on? e.g. if the premium charge you usually pay tops you up by 10%, then if your "friends" and family wanted £10 on just put £11 on for them instead. If their horse wins you've won enough to pay their winnings and cover your premium charge. If their horse loses then you've got their £10 to pay for it and you're temporarily out of pocket for £1. But your £11 loss reduces next week's premium charge by £1, so you get it back. Simples.

    Everyone's happy except people who like to whine incessantly about the premium charge, but you're not one of them, so happy days.

    ReplyDelete