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

    • Can’t say I approve but equally staff can vote with their feet. Cabs to collect and deliver - not bad.Maybe Gail’s know something none of us do… Having said that, sure those that are walking in and around Dulwich might prefer cake, hot drinks etc in a venue that is not a pub with the noise from over loud punters… so guess one waits and sees…  Do take some pics or let us know if people are popping in… my guess is yes… 
    • OP has perhaps inadvertently provided free advertising for Gails, drawing attention to Dulwich Gails being open on Christmas Day.
    • Staff get taxis in and out and get paid extra (which I think is x2). Some people like to work on Bank Holidays and others don’t. Some people actively avoid Christmas for personal reasons. Long live freedom of choice! 
    • Here is another article from the excellent Special Needs Jungle (SNJ) with tips for responses to the SEND conversation survey. Including shoe horning in EHCPs which they "forget" to ask a question about in the conversation. And living as we do in Southwark with the huge misfortune of 100% academy secondary schools, some thoughts on this and how unlikely inclusion in mainstream is within the current education landscape. Closing date 14 Jan 2026. And please consider a donation to the excellent entirely run by volunteers SNJ. In my view the government could save money by creating some smaller mainstream secondary schools for kids who can cope in primary school but not  with the scale of secondary, and need a calmer less busy setting. The funding would have to be different - it is currently on a per pupil basis which favours larger schools. But it would undoubtedly be cheaper than specialist provision, and the huge cost to individual children and families (emotional and financial) and to society. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/tips-help-complete-governments-send-conversation-survey-law/ If anyone wants to take a radical step to help their struggling child, my tip is to move far away: these are the best two schools I have ever visited and in a beautiful part of the country. I only wish we'd moved there before it was too late for my son who had to suffer multiple failings at Charter North and then at the hands of Southwark SEND, out of education from February to October in year 10-11, having already suffered the enduring trauma of a very difficult early life, which in combination with ADHD made his time at schools which just don't care so very unbearable for all of us. https://www.cartmelprioryschool.co.uk/ https://settlebeck.org/ As an add on, I would say to anybody considering adoption, please take into account the education battles that you are very much more likely to face than the average parent. First you have schools to deal with, already terrible; then being passed from pillar to post within Southwark Education, SEND, Education Inclusion Team, round and round as they all do their best to explain why they are not responsible and you need someone different, let's hold another multi-agency meeting, never for one minute considering that if they put the child at the centre and used common sense they would achieve a lot more in much less time without loads of Southwark employees sitting in endless meetings with long suffering parents. It is hard to fully imagine this at the start of your adoption journey, full of hope as you are, but truly education is not for the faint hearted, and should be factored into your decision. You'll never hear from people who are really struggling and continue to do so, only from those who've had challenges but overcome them and it's all lovely. And education, the very people who should be there to help, are the ones who make your lives the most hellish out of everything your child and you face.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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