Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The bookies have got it right more times than the pollsters have, AND YET people on here are using the narrowing of the polls (despite 2015) to talk up some dramatic outcome. It won't happen. UK bookmakers have not always got it right, but when it comes to GE results, they've not missed out on the majority party since 74. Ignore them by all means, but they're considerably more reliable indicators than any other. Nothing is of course full proof.


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The bookies have got it right more times than the

> pollsters have, AND YET people on here are using

> the narrowing of the polls (despite 2015) to talk

> up some dramatic outcome. It won't happen. UK

> bookmakers have not always got it right, but when

> it comes to GE results, they've not missed out on

> the majority party since 74. Ignore them by all

> means, but they're considerably more reliable

> indicators than any other. Nothing is of course

> full proof.

>

> Louisa.


Even so.


Let us have our moment. It's crushing when that exit poll comes out

if you're not a Tory.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ladbrokes were offering 3/1 on Trump and 1/5 on

> Clinton the day of the US election, and 3/1 on

> Brexit with Remain odds-on, so they're not always

> the best indicators.



Go one step further, what do those probabilities mean - what is generating them and why ?

Borky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A bookmaker does not have an opinion after a

> market has initially been made, they are neither

> right or wrong. Anything suggesting the contrary

> in the bright sparkly light of knowledge is utter

> stupidity and show a basic lack of understanding

> of how things work.


It's a free market surely the bookie wants people to bet - but also must make money. So sets the odds in order to do both.


Do betfair have odds - that's a slightly different system ?

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bookmakers don't solely predict as such, their

> odds are also a reflection of what's already been

> bet, so for instance if a series of large bets

> were placed on a Labour win today, the odds would

> immediately be shortened to limit their pay out on

> a Labour win...



This is indeed the case. Once up and running and assuming a level field of information dissemination, the bookmakers has no interest in the actual outcome of a wager, he crunches numbers and reflects this in the price. To suggest that a bookmaker is somehow ahead of the curve is erroneous. He has no skin in the game if he chews his numbers correctly.

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Each of you middle class lefties and keyboard

> warriors should put your money where your mouth

> is. I'm particularly talking about those of you

> who over the last few days have been whipping

> yourselves into something resembling teenage

> schoolboy arousal about the 'closing' of the gap

> in the polls.


Always name calling from the right wing. Delightful.

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Borky Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > a free market does not trump basic maths

>

> Yes, and irrespective of how things work, basic

> maths shows that bookies odds are right more often

> than not.


Yes/No


They are right in that they are able to profit from either outcome. The odds are not a reflection of anything apart from what people are putting into the bookies. The odds are condensate of other peoples opinions. Those opinions are driven by an infinite numbers of potential drivers This is what is not being taken on board by some.

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Each of you middle class lefties and keyboard

> warriors should put your money where your mouth

> is. I'm particularly talking about those of you

> who over the last few days have been whipping

> yourselves into something resembling teenage

> schoolboy arousal about the 'closing' of the gap

> in the polls.


I have placed small bets on a number of outcomes across a range of bookmakers. I only gamble on politics .They are now squared with a little bit of wriggle room I have a minimum profit of ?150 or so and a higher one of ?1000 for fat tail outcomes.


I firmly expect to take at the lower end of the range if that helps.

It sounds a bit Reaganite but it would definitely save us a few bob


Borky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> lets nuke ourselves and do the world a favour.

>

> You utter coward Corbyn, give us a straight answer

> on this - would you nuke the country and ease our

> suffering ? its what the people want. They have

> spoken.

>

> Nuclear winter means nuclear winter, A red white

> and blue self inflicted Armageddon. let us be

> clear on this.

If there's any positives for Labour, it's that the bookies are offering much shorter odds on them retaining more seats than was the case a month ago, and if you believe all this stuff you'll also notice Labour are highly likely to increase their share of the vote following the last election.


Individual constituency bets are where things start to go wrong for Labour, marginals like Halifax and Exeter are looking considerably favourable for the Tories, which would go along with the wider picture, a swing from left to right enough to give May her majority.


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If there's any positives for Labour, it's that the

> bookies are offering much shorter odds on them

> retaining more seats than was the case a month

> ago, and if you believe all this stuff you'll also

> notice Labour are highly likely to increase their

> share of the vote following the last election.

>

> Individual constituency bets are where things

> start to go wrong for Labour, marginals like

> Halifax and Exeter are looking considerably

> favourable for the Tories, which would go along

> with the wider picture, a swing from left to right

> enough to give May her majority.

>

> Louisa.


Yet that YouGov poll was meant to look at individual constituencies - although they did have a huge margin of error.


Might be egg on the face for them (again)

The pollsters (not the bookmakers) know pretty much exactly what is going on (plus or minus 2%). The problem is that there are two questions, one of which is relatively knowable despite changing over the campaign (in this election dramatically and unusually) - for whom would you vote? The other is highly volatile and unpredictable - will you turn out to vote? The YouGov focus group is 50,000 people - it has an extraordinary degree of accuracy on the first question. It shows a very considerable narrowing of the polls. Yet, this will still leave May with a landslide if young people do not turn out to vote.


It is going to be raining all day tomorrow.

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The pollsters (not the bookmakers) know pretty

> much exactly what is going on (plus or minus 2%).

> The problem is that there are two questions, one

> of which is relatively knowable despite changing

> over the campaign (in this election dramatically

> and unusually) - for whom would you vote? The

> other is highly volatile and unpredictable - will

> you turn out to vote? The YouGov focus group is

> 50,000 people - it has an extraordinary degree of

> accuracy on the first question. It shows a very

> considerable narrowing of the polls. Yet, this

> will still leave May with a landslide if young

> people do not turn out to vote.

>

> It is going to be raining all day tomorrow.



I agree with you on the point about turnout. Younger people will not turn out in significant enough numbers to change the course of this election result. Most of the people placing bets know this, pollsters know this too but can't predict by what degree this will hit turnout in specific seats. Politically active youngsters will enthusiastically get out and vote, but the silent majority of less involved younger people will simply stay at home. With the grey vote, it's certain that both politically active and non-active voters will turn out in similarly high numbers.


Louisa.

Most of the pollsters on their blogs are saying Tory majority 50-70


Tory on the ground reports via canvassing/their own polling are pretty optimistic


Labour ones (off the record via journalists - so make of that what you will) much less so


Corbymania will likely result in some swings in University Towns


Social media it's a Labour Landslide


A lot of millennials likely to be shattered and disappointed by Friday is my call, but we never know.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Yes - adult care is a large part of the CT bill.  That does not mean the council spend our money well or wisely.        
    • “What do councils spend all the money on?” Is, in my view, one of the most profoundly emblematic of our times  we go about our lives, backed up by councils and governments and complain they aren’t needed  reform win elections based on “we’re gonna go in and slash all the waste!” Only to later admit there effectively isn’t any oh and by the way we need to increase council tax   Now all we have to offer is racism and ineptitude sorry about that  https://www.gbnews.com/money/reform-elon-musk-doge-failed-savings So where does the money go? On a multitude of services - but the increasingly aged population and the care provision required is a large part of it  the government could give councils more money to avoid council tax rises  - but the we would have to pay more in jewels taxation  and as a country we tend to pay less than other similar countries  so we end up with an expensive mend and make do approach  I don’t see any political parties offering a solution   Starmer is obviously lacking in many areas but he is the result of a hostile media and a reluctant population willing to hear truths  (wait until we hear how much we will need to increase defence spending by in the coming years) If a party stopped pretending all the money was wasted but published a list of costs, projections and proposals that wasn’t gutted to suit the landscape of needing to not bemonstered by the press or deemed too expensive by voters I would be very interested      can’t see that happening tho  (also worth reminding ourselves of all the brexiters who said things like “I don’t care how much it costs   I don’t care if I lose my job  it’s about taking back control!” And yet now we find them complaining about increasing costs. As they always will complain about everything  because it’s always someone else’s fault)   
    • I wouldn't be going all the way to Dobbies  just to take flowerpots! 😀 It's a very good garden centre with a wide range of well kept  plants and helpful staff, at least it was on the only occasion I've visited it, last year!
    • Why do Councils need more funding? What are they spending our money on, how efficiently are they running? are they performing an adequate service as is? Are they viewing the public with contempt, that we will continually foot larger bills to cover all and any costs? Do our counsellors do their best, for us? why are they adding this on to the residents, on top of tax already paid? Council tax is not insubstantial. The service provided is not great. I do not believe they use our money effectively.  Our CT Bill is £50 a week.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...