Don't blame the dog, blame the owner is the dog owner's version of guns don't kill people, people kill people.
If a dog attacks and kills someone, then the dog usually gets put down, which sometimes causes controversy ("It's the owner, not the dog!!!"). Also, the owners can be jailed.
If people are upset by the dogs being put down and they blame the owners, then we should change things.
I note that The Times has a story on the front page suggesting "Tommy Robinson" may be under investigation for financial and other links to Russia, and that the investigation may also extend to Farage.
If true, then it marks a new determination to fight back against Russian subversion of our democracy.
If the allegations are true, then some prominent figures could well be going to face very long jail sentences.
No proof of anything there yet though, just MI5 will be looking to see if any Russian funding was behind those who organised the riots (and that wouldn't include Farage anyway and even Robinson was abroad at the time albeit using social media)
Reads like maybe private polling is showing Reform ahead of Labour in VI to me...
More likely Reform are behind the Greens now. The 'Civil War' wasn't popular with most - losing it wasn't popular with the rest
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
Don't blame the dog, blame the owner is the dog owner's version of guns don't kill people, people kill people.
If a dog attacks and kills someone, then the dog usually gets put down, which sometimes causes controversy ("It's the owner, not the dog!!!"). Also, the owners can be jailed.
If people are upset by the dogs being put down and they blame the owners, then we should change things.
Put down the owners, and put the dog into jail.
If someone lunged at me in the park, shouting, screaming and threatening violence, I'd be entitled to call the police. But if they do so via the agency of their dog I'm expected to smile sweetly and move on. I have on occasion developed the narrative by responding in kind to the owners rather than the dogs but they never seem to get the point.
.."We are not ashamed of talking about it," said his eldest daughter Kitty, 22. "There is nothing to hide and it is not a stigma. We were trying to help him get better before and trying to protect him, which is why we said nothing. "This is the time now to share the news, however horrible it is. We've wanted to be able to talk and share and we'd now like to raise awareness, too."..
On topic - North Carolina is certainly the most likely to flip to the Dems. Any others would be real outsiders - Indiana, Texas, Ohio, Iowa - if you bet on them make sure the odds are very good.
On the other side Georgia should go back to the Reps - they really were taken by surprise last time.
On vote efficiency. Polls suggest the Dems are leading on that one too. If they win all the swing states bar Georgia and are in a recount for North Carolina then that might be the poster child for vote efficiency.
Democrats are not leading on voter efficiency for the electoral college according to the polling. Less inefficient than last time, but Trump still has the advantage.
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
.."We are not ashamed of talking about it," said his eldest daughter Kitty, 22. "There is nothing to hide and it is not a stigma. We were trying to help him get better before and trying to protect him, which is why we said nothing. "This is the time now to share the news, however horrible it is. We've wanted to be able to talk and share and we'd now like to raise awareness, too."..
I did make that speculation at the time. Suicide
Awful news. Retired pro cricketers have a suicide rate way above the normal, and no one has quite explained it
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
"....Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense...."
I bet on Harris because I wanted to find out if the automated betting machines in the shops would allow that and if I could use them. If, after some research I will pretend is thorough, I think she will win, I will bet on her in the belief that she will win and I can profit thereby
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
Cats are animals, should they be on leads too?
Just get rid of your pet cat. It is destroying Britain’s birdlife and fouling our waterways. Pet ownership is quite incredibly selfish, malign, and wanky
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
Prime Minister Starmer and LD leader Davey beg to differ!
If a market is efficient, it doesn't make foe a bad bet. The odds are more a less a tossup at present but clearly all the momentum is with Harris/Walz over low energy Don.
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
Prime Minister Starmer and LD leader Davey beg to differ!
If a market is efficient, it doesn't make foe a bad bet. The odds are more a less a tossup at present but clearly all the momentum is with Harris/Walz over low energy Don.
Also, I am bewildered by the idea the “markets are efficient”. How many people on here made money on Leave when all the “markets” were still saying Remain
Moreover, you can be ahead of the “markets” if you have personal insight of some kind
I note that The Times has a story on the front page suggesting "Tommy Robinson" may be under investigation for financial and other links to Russia, and that the investigation may also extend to Farage.
If true, then it marks a new determination to fight back against Russian subversion of our democracy.
If the allegations are true, then some prominent figures could well be going to face very long jail sentences.
Interesting. 'Robinson' would presumably be easy prey for Russian intelligence - he's an unedumacated oik who likes his wonga, so there would be numerous ways to get him ensnared. I'd have thought Farage would be shrewder though. Vlad's boys must have found a way to stroke that famously massive ego to get him onboard.
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
A bet on Harris makes sense if you think the polls are going to keep moving towards her and she'll have a solid 5 pt lead before too long. If you hold that view (like me) you get value by betting on her now at 1.9 rather than waiting to be proved correct. If you wait until you're proved correct she'll be 1.5 and the value will have gone.
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
There is betting and there is trading. It's less about how you will think the votes will go in Novemebr and now about where the value is now. IF you think Harris is value to win Ohio and you believe the concern in the GOP about the polls, then 7.2 is a huge bet and as the odds fluctuate between now and November, there may be an opportunity to get out if the state looks like it will stay in the GOP column.
.."We are not ashamed of talking about it," said his eldest daughter Kitty, 22. "There is nothing to hide and it is not a stigma. We were trying to help him get better before and trying to protect him, which is why we said nothing. "This is the time now to share the news, however horrible it is. We've wanted to be able to talk and share and we'd now like to raise awareness, too."..
I did make that speculation at the time. Suicide
Awful news. Retired pro cricketers have a suicide rate way above the normal, and no one has quite explained it
It's a melancholy subject, but there's no hard statistical evidence for an excess of cricketer suicides. It's just as likely to be relative less under-reporting of the phenomenon for professional cricketers.
It's a comparatively small population - and there are no reliable figures for (eg) Indian cricketers.
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
It'd be very risky for Harris to try to win by exactly replicating Biden's map. She has quite a lot of cash in the campaign kitty, and does need to bring other states into play to provide a bit of redundancy - a wider number of paths to 270.
One reason both North Carolina and Ohio are pretty good options are that they have major state-wide races that look competitive in 2024 so Democrats will be campaigning hard anyway. Sherrod Brown is seeking re-election as Senator in Ohio, and Josh Stein to succeed his colleague Roy Cooper as Governor - both are narrow favourites, so Trump will be asking their voters to split the ballot. They both also have serious numbers of electoral votes.
Ignoring Maine's second district (just one electoral college vote) the top five most marginal states carried by Trump are those two plus Texas, Florida and Iowa. Iowa is small, trending against the Democrats, and has no Senate/Governor election in 2024. Texas doesn't look massively competitive for the Senate election, and although it's closer in Florida, Rick Scott has to be a pretty clear favourite.
But it's hard to imagine an election where Harris wins Ohio where she hasn't already won (until some actual polling says different, which would be surprising). North Carolina is different as the polling has it close, and it was much closer last time. Biden 2024 was just as far behind in Ohio as in Texas before he dropped out. But yes a good idea to campaign in Ohio.
I agree I'd not think about targeting Ohio but for a key Senate race there. But Democrats have to run a very active, state-wide campaign there anyway. So in a sense they have to - Sherrod Brown doesn't want to rely too much on Trump/Brown voters, and it's also awkward for Trump (and perhaps even more so for Vance) that a pretty popular Democratic Senator is on the ballot.
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
"....Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense...."
I bet on Harris because I wanted to find out if the automated betting machines in the shops would allow that and if I could use them. If, after some research I will pretend is thorough, I think she will win, I will bet on her in the belief that she will win and I can profit thereby
Not everybody does value betting.
It's not exactly complicated. The odds are around evens, and I think she'll win.
"betting on centrist candidate is a very bad strategy in recent history" is more of a rhetorical point than a convincing argument.
I note that The Times has a story on the front page suggesting "Tommy Robinson" may be under investigation for financial and other links to Russia, and that the investigation may also extend to Farage.
If true, then it marks a new determination to fight back against Russian subversion of our democracy.
If the allegations are true, then some prominent figures could well be going to face very long jail sentences.
Interesting. 'Robinson' would presumably be easy prey for Russian intelligence - he's an unedumacated oik who likes his wonga, so there would be numerous ways to get him ensnared. I'd have thought Farage would be shrewder though. Vlad's boys must have found a way to stroke that famously massive ego to get him onboard.
People who are clever (and NF isn't stupid) but don't get the worldly honours they think their cleverness entitles them to are pretty vulnerable to flattery. A lot of revolutions are really Tier Two Elite overthrowing Tier One Elite.
Plus, clever people who start down the rabbit hole are clever enough to keep justifying what they're doing... to themselves, anyway.
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
"....Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense...."
I bet on Harris because I wanted to find out if the automated betting machines in the shops would allow that and if I could use them. If, after some research I will pretend is thorough, I think she will win, I will bet on her in the belief that she will win and I can profit thereby
Not everybody does value betting.
It's not exactly complicated. The odds are around evens, and I think she'll win.
"betting on centrist candidate is a very bad strategy in recent history" is more of a rhetorical point than a convincing argument.
Harris isn't a centrist candidate, she ran to the liberal left of Biden and Buttigieg in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Haley was a centrist candidate this year, neither Trump nor Harris are centrists
.."We are not ashamed of talking about it," said his eldest daughter Kitty, 22. "There is nothing to hide and it is not a stigma. We were trying to help him get better before and trying to protect him, which is why we said nothing. "This is the time now to share the news, however horrible it is. We've wanted to be able to talk and share and we'd now like to raise awareness, too."..
I did make that speculation at the time. Suicide
Awful news. Retired pro cricketers have a suicide rate way above the normal, and no one has quite explained it
It's a melancholy subject, but there's no hard statistical evidence for an excess of cricketer suicides. It's just as likely to be relative less under-reporting of the phenomenon for professional cricketers.
It's a comparatively small population - and there are no reliable figures for (eg) Indian cricketers.
The evidence is problematic but I’m not sure there’s no evidence at all. Scientific papers have been written on the subject, indeed someone wrote an entire book
“Cricket has an alarming suicide rate.
Among international players for England and several other countries it is far above the national average for all sports: and there have been numerous instances at other levels of the game.
For thirty years, celebrated cricket author David Frith has collected data on this sad subject. Silence of the Heart is his compelling account of over a hundred cricketers - involving top names from the past hundred years - who have taken their own lives, with an explanation of factors that led to their premature deaths.”
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
Cats are animals, should they be on leads too?
Just get rid of your pet cat. It is destroying Britain’s birdlife and fouling our waterways. Pet ownership is quite incredibly selfish, malign, and wanky
also the separation of the kittens and puppies from their parents is cruel.
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
"....Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense...."
I bet on Harris because I wanted to find out if the automated betting machines in the shops would allow that and if I could use them. If, after some research I will pretend is thorough, I think she will win, I will bet on her in the belief that she will win and I can profit thereby
Not everybody does value betting.
It's not exactly complicated. The odds are around evens, and I think she'll win.
"betting on centrist candidate is a very bad strategy in recent history" is more of a rhetorical point than a convincing argument.
Harris isn't a centrist candidate, she ran to the liberal left of Biden and Buttigieg in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Haley was a centrist candidate this year, neither Trump nor Harris are centrists
You are making the assumption that someone in 1 election is going to have a similar stance in the next election.
It's perfectly rational to target 1 audience in the primary and move more centralist in the actual election - the whole point of the primary is to win the primary and that may require making promises to voters that don't last.
I note that The Times has a story on the front page suggesting "Tommy Robinson" may be under investigation for financial and other links to Russia, and that the investigation may also extend to Farage.
If true, then it marks a new determination to fight back against Russian subversion of our democracy.
If the allegations are true, then some prominent figures could well be going to face very long jail sentences.
Interesting. 'Robinson' would presumably be easy prey for Russian intelligence - he's an unedumacated oik who likes his wonga, so there would be numerous ways to get him ensnared. I'd have thought Farage would be shrewder though. Vlad's boys must have found a way to stroke that famously massive ego to get him onboard.
Robinson's main agenda is anti Islam, he even backs Modi in India and his Hindu nationalism as he sees him as an ally on that.
I haven't seen any evidence he cares about Putin or Ukraine as it is from his view just a white Christian v white Christian war. The Times article also just said MI5 was looking to see if any Russian funding not that it had any proof of any. There may be but not at the moment
As we muse about seemingly intractable issues such as health, education, housing and the like amidst the backdrop of a war in Europe, just a reminder 50 years ago we were in the midst of the Cyprus crisis with the second Turkish advance into the Cypriot interior imminent amidst the birth of a new "state", albeit one recognised only by Turkey.
50 years on and the division of the island of Cyprus seems as permanent as the division of Germany once did so perhaps there is a glimmer of hope.
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
"....Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense...."
I bet on Harris because I wanted to find out if the automated betting machines in the shops would allow that and if I could use them. If, after some research I will pretend is thorough, I think she will win, I will bet on her in the belief that she will win and I can profit thereby
Not everybody does value betting.
It's not exactly complicated. The odds are around evens, and I think she'll win.
"betting on centrist candidate is a very bad strategy in recent history" is more of a rhetorical point than a convincing argument.
Harris isn't a centrist candidate, she ran to the liberal left of Biden and Buttigieg in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Haley was a centrist candidate this year, neither Trump nor Harris are centrists
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
"....Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense...."
I bet on Harris because I wanted to find out if the automated betting machines in the shops would allow that and if I could use them. If, after some research I will pretend is thorough, I think she will win, I will bet on her in the belief that she will win and I can profit thereby
Not everybody does value betting.
It's not exactly complicated. The odds are around evens, and I think she'll win.
"betting on centrist candidate is a very bad strategy in recent history" is more of a rhetorical point than a convincing argument.
Harris is not a centrist anyway. She's a raving commie!
Don't blame the dog, blame the owner is the dog owner's version of guns don't kill people, people kill people.
If a dog attacks and kills someone, then the dog usually gets put down, which sometimes causes controversy ("It's the owner, not the dog!!!"). Also, the owners can be jailed.
If people are upset by the dogs being put down and they blame the owners, then we should change things.
Put down the owners, and put the dog into jail.
If someone lunged at me in the park, shouting, screaming and threatening violence, I'd be entitled to call the police. But if they do so via the agency of their dog I'm expected to smile sweetly and move on. I have on occasion developed the narrative by responding in kind to the owners rather than the dogs but they never seem to get the point.
As I think was mentioned below, it is the "Oh, he doesn't normally do this!" rubbish that the majority of owners seem to come out with that amuses me. Yeah, right.
Incidentally, I had a more honest version a few months back. I was running past the local playing fields (where dogs are banned...) when an ugly f***er of a dog comes across the grass and goes at me. It's unfit owner runs after it, then says: "It's just trying to protect me."
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
Cats are animals, should they be on leads too?
Just get rid of your pet cat. It is destroying Britain’s birdlife and fouling our waterways. Pet ownership is quite incredibly selfish, malign, and wanky
also the separation of the kittens and puppies from their parents is cruel.
I come from a pet owning family. I’ve loved animals in my time
But then I took the pet pill and realised how awful it is: once you step away and examine it objectively. We enslave these creatures for our entertainment, and they wreck the natural environment. It’s not popular to say this, no big political party will avow it - yet - but one day we will look back on pet ownership with horror and perplexity
I do still get my buzz out of animals. I adopt stray animals on my travels. Usually hard up quirky street cats, or occasionally dogs. I had one when I “lived” in Tbilisi for a month. A stray cat. We adopted each other, I let him eat my scraps, he kept less pleasant animals away, we sunbathed on my tiny balcony together
.."We are not ashamed of talking about it," said his eldest daughter Kitty, 22. "There is nothing to hide and it is not a stigma. We were trying to help him get better before and trying to protect him, which is why we said nothing. "This is the time now to share the news, however horrible it is. We've wanted to be able to talk and share and we'd now like to raise awareness, too."..
I did make that speculation at the time. Suicide
Awful news. Retired pro cricketers have a suicide rate way above the normal, and no one has quite explained it
It's a melancholy subject, but there's no hard statistical evidence for an excess of cricketer suicides. It's just as likely to be relative less under-reporting of the phenomenon for professional cricketers.
It's a comparatively small population - and there are no reliable figures for (eg) Indian cricketers.
The evidence is problematic but I’m not sure there’s no evidence at all. Scientific papers have been written on the subject, indeed someone wrote an entire book
“Cricket has an alarming suicide rate.
Among international players for England and several other countries it is far above the national average for all sports: and there have been numerous instances at other levels of the game.
For thirty years, celebrated cricket author David Frith has collected data on this sad subject. Silence of the Heart is his compelling account of over a hundred cricketers - involving top names from the past hundred years - who have taken their own lives, with an explanation of factors that led to their premature deaths.”
Yes, that's a work often cited. But as a statistical study, it's close to worthless. What population group has received a comparable scrutiny over the course of the 20th C (the book being published in 2001) ?
It does contain perhaps the most briefly eloquent suicide note ever penned. "Dear Mackenzie, I am off to another sphere via the small bat-drying room. Better call in a policeman to do the investigating."
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
Cats are animals, should they be on leads too?
Just get rid of your pet cat. It is destroying Britain’s birdlife and fouling our waterways. Pet ownership is quite incredibly selfish, malign, and wanky
My cat is not destroying Britain's birdlife or fouling our waterways. It's a delightful creature.
It's also better at assessing probabilities than you are.
Today's riot court cases include Lee James - he was wearing knuckle dusters at a protest in Southampton - this is the mitigation from Saturday..
She said James had picked up the knuckle duster at a property he had previously worked on, and left it in his van, from where he had picked it up and then put it on before the protest.
“He put it on his fingers and couldn’t get it off,” Ms Brownlow told the court.
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
Cats are animals, should they be on leads too?
Just get rid of your pet cat. It is destroying Britain’s birdlife and fouling our waterways. Pet ownership is quite incredibly selfish, malign, and wanky
also the separation of the kittens and puppies from their parents is cruel.
I come from a pet owning family. I’ve loved animals in my time
But then I took the pet pill and realised how awful it is: once you step away and examine it objectively. We enslave these creatures for our entertainment, and they wreck the natural environment. It’s not popular to say this, no big political party will avow it - yet - but one day we will look back on pet ownership with horror and perplexity
I do still get my buzz out of animals. I adopt stray animals on my travels. Usually hard up quirky street cats, or occasionally dogs. I had one when I “lived” in Tbilisi for a month. A stray cat. We adopted each other, I let him eat my scraps, he kept less pleasant animals away, we sunbathed on my tiny balcony together
He was cool
A friend of mine has recently befriended a little robin redbreast in his garden, and has sent me videos of it eating seeds from his hand. I'm just hoping and praying that one of his two cats doesn't gobble it up.
I note that The Times has a story on the front page suggesting "Tommy Robinson" may be under investigation for financial and other links to Russia, and that the investigation may also extend to Farage.
If true, then it marks a new determination to fight back against Russian subversion of our democracy.
If the allegations are true, then some prominent figures could well be going to face very long jail sentences.
Interesting. 'Robinson' would presumably be easy prey for Russian intelligence - he's an unedumacated oik who likes his wonga, so there would be numerous ways to get him ensnared. I'd have thought Farage would be shrewder though. Vlad's boys must have found a way to stroke that famously massive ego to get him onboard.
Robinson's main agenda is anti Islam, he even backs Modi in India and his Hindu nationalism as he sees him as an ally on that.
I haven't seen any evidence he cares about Putin or Ukraine as it is from his view just a white Christian v white Christian war. The Times article also just said MI5 was looking to see if any Russian funding not that it had any proof of any. There may be but not at the moment
The story isn't about what Robinson thinks, it's about what Moscow thinks.
In his head, Robinson may be a brave knight standing up for England. The question is whether he is a knight... but just in the sense of being another piece in someone else's chess game.
(I've nicked that metaphor from somewhere, but I can't for the life of me think where.)
If you have a very pro Harris book and want to de-risk a little bit that 3 on the election winner losing the PV is not a bad one to pop on because that is Trump's best realistic outcome.
Is it? Harris currently about 2% ahead in average national polling. Plenty of time for that to change (in either direction), and also within normal polling average error (in either direction). I'd put Trump's chances of winning popular vote at maybe 25%.
Yes that's where the market is. He's 5 to win the PV. But I'm not with the market on this. It's more like a 10% for me.
OK, I don't have access to BF political markets here, but sounds like you see some value there. What's your reasoning?
Stripped of an unelectable opponent the ceiling on Trump's support is IMO too low to win the PV. He didn't in 16 or 20 and I can't see why he would this time given he's an older weaker candidate now. But I give it a 10'% chance to allow for campaign changes and 'events' etc.
His current net favorability is -8.2 (538 average).
His net favorability at this point in 2016 was nearer -30 in the 538 average.
Ahem. Isn't that a reason why he MIGHT do better in the popular vote than in 2016? He probably won't I guess, but I've given you a reason to be cautious. Of course Clinton was doing worse in the 2016 favorability average than Harris is doing now, but not by such a big margin. And Harris is arguably having a honeymoon.
Awful. Cricket has long had an issue with retired players and suicide. There is something about the all consuming nature of cricket (not that far back that players played pretty much every day through the summer in the county championship, and then potentially playing overseas.). And then if you can't stay in the game as a coach, the emptiness.
Footballers are more used to having time away from the game (train a few hours a day, then the rest is up to you).
.."We are not ashamed of talking about it," said his eldest daughter Kitty, 22. "There is nothing to hide and it is not a stigma. We were trying to help him get better before and trying to protect him, which is why we said nothing. "This is the time now to share the news, however horrible it is. We've wanted to be able to talk and share and we'd now like to raise awareness, too."..
I did make that speculation at the time. Suicide
Awful news. Retired pro cricketers have a suicide rate way above the normal, and no one has quite explained it
It's a melancholy subject, but there's no hard statistical evidence for an excess of cricketer suicides. It's just as likely to be relative less under-reporting of the phenomenon for professional cricketers.
It's a comparatively small population - and there are no reliable figures for (eg) Indian cricketers.
The evidence is problematic but I’m not sure there’s no evidence at all. Scientific papers have been written on the subject, indeed someone wrote an entire book
“Cricket has an alarming suicide rate.
Among international players for England and several other countries it is far above the national average for all sports: and there have been numerous instances at other levels of the game.
For thirty years, celebrated cricket author David Frith has collected data on this sad subject. Silence of the Heart is his compelling account of over a hundred cricketers - involving top names from the past hundred years - who have taken their own lives, with an explanation of factors that led to their premature deaths.”
Yes, that's a work often cited. But as a statistical study, it's close to worthless. What population group has received a comparable scrutiny over the course of the 20th C (the book being published in 2001) ?
It does contain perhaps the most briefly eloquent suicide note ever penned. "Dear Mackenzie, I am off to another sphere via the small bat-drying room. Better call in a policeman to do the investigating."
It must be very hard to retire from any elite professional sport. At a very young age - 30-35 - you know your best years are definitely behind you. And they were brilliant years - of fame and travel and money and sex - and all earned by playing a game you love
You go from that to relative obscurity and swift decline. If you’re lucky you become a commentator or a coach. More likely you buy a pub and become an alcoholic
It would be interesting - if bleak - to see the stats on post-retirement depression and suicide in all pro sports
.."We are not ashamed of talking about it," said his eldest daughter Kitty, 22. "There is nothing to hide and it is not a stigma. We were trying to help him get better before and trying to protect him, which is why we said nothing. "This is the time now to share the news, however horrible it is. We've wanted to be able to talk and share and we'd now like to raise awareness, too."..
I did make that speculation at the time. Suicide
Awful news. Retired pro cricketers have a suicide rate way above the normal, and no one has quite explained it
It's a melancholy subject, but there's no hard statistical evidence for an excess of cricketer suicides. It's just as likely to be relative less under-reporting of the phenomenon for professional cricketers.
It's a comparatively small population - and there are no reliable figures for (eg) Indian cricketers.
The evidence is problematic but I’m not sure there’s no evidence at all. Scientific papers have been written on the subject, indeed someone wrote an entire book
“Cricket has an alarming suicide rate.
Among international players for England and several other countries it is far above the national average for all sports: and there have been numerous instances at other levels of the game.
For thirty years, celebrated cricket author David Frith has collected data on this sad subject. Silence of the Heart is his compelling account of over a hundred cricketers - involving top names from the past hundred years - who have taken their own lives, with an explanation of factors that led to their premature deaths.”
Yes, that's a work often cited. But as a statistical study, it's close to worthless. What population group has received a comparable scrutiny over the course of the 20th C (the book being published in 2001) ?
This is pb. Spurious statistics are what we do.
I remember the number of people on here trying to predict the 2024 election in 2019 and getting it completely wrong, or the people now trying to read the tea leaves about who will edge an incredibly tight race in America in three months despite the abundant evidence that polls often change a lot and don't predict the final result very well anyway.
The cricket study seems to fit into that pattern very well.
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
"....Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense...."
I bet on Harris because I wanted to find out if the automated betting machines in the shops would allow that and if I could use them. If, after some research I will pretend is thorough, I think she will win, I will bet on her in the belief that she will win and I can profit thereby
Not everybody does value betting.
It's not exactly complicated. The odds are around evens, and I think she'll win.
"betting on centrist candidate is a very bad strategy in recent history" is more of a rhetorical point than a convincing argument.
Harris is not a centrist anyway. She's a raving commie!
Today's riot court cases include Lee James - he was wearing knuckle dusters at a protest in Southampton - this is the mitigation from Saturday..
She said James had picked up the knuckle duster at a property he had previously worked on, and left it in his van, from where he had picked it up and then put it on before the protest.
“He put it on his fingers and couldn’t get it off,” Ms Brownlow told the court.
About as believable as the bollocks from some posters on here yesterday about the guy who accidentally made inflammatory racist posts in order to make philosophical points about freedom of speech.
If you have a very pro Harris book and want to de-risk a little bit that 3 on the election winner losing the PV is not a bad one to pop on because that is Trump's best realistic outcome.
Is it? Harris currently about 2% ahead in average national polling. Plenty of time for that to change (in either direction), and also within normal polling average error (in either direction). I'd put Trump's chances of winning popular vote at maybe 25%.
Yes that's where the market is. He's 5 to win the PV. But I'm not with the market on this. It's more like a 10% for me.
OK, I don't have access to BF political markets here, but sounds like you see some value there. What's your reasoning?
Stripped of an unelectable opponent the ceiling on Trump's support is IMO too low to win the PV. He didn't in 16 or 20 and I can't see why he would this time given he's an older weaker candidate now. But I give it a 10'% chance to allow for campaign changes and 'events' etc.
His current net favorability is -8.2 (538 average).
His net favorability at this point in 2016 was nearer -30 in the 538 average.
Ahem. Isn't that a reason why he MIGHT do better in the popular vote than in 2016? He probably won't I guess, but I've given you a reason to be cautious. Of course Clinton was doing worse in the 2016 favorability average than Harris is doing now, but not by such a big margin. And Harris is arguably having a honeymoon.
I don't understand this whole idea of betting on Harris now, it seems madness for several obvious reasons:
1. It is too early given most Americans do not pay attention to the election until post-Labor Day;
2. She is enjoying an honeymoon period where she is being portrayed as the greatest thing ever which won't last;
3. Her faults are still very much there;
4. Americans are not feeling great economically and that is likely to get worse not better;
5. We haven't had the convention out of the way and, far from uniting the party, the progressives smell blood because they felt they stopped Shapiro as the VP pick and now want more. Already, Harris is being portrayed as too pro-corporate.
There is too much going. If I was going to do one trade at the moment, it would be to short Harris on Betfair and then look to exit when her bubble bursts.
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
Cats are animals, should they be on leads too?
Just get rid of your pet cat. It is destroying Britain’s birdlife and fouling our waterways. Pet ownership is quite incredibly selfish, malign, and wanky
also the separation of the kittens and puppies from their parents is cruel.
I come from a pet owning family. I’ve loved animals in my time...
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
Cats are animals, should they be on leads too?
Just get rid of your pet cat. It is destroying Britain’s birdlife and fouling our waterways. Pet ownership is quite incredibly selfish, malign, and wanky
My cat is not destroying Britain's birdlife or fouling our waterways. It's a delightful creature.
It's also better at assessing probabilities than you are.
I’m afraid to say your cat is indeed doing both those things, you just can’t admit it to yourself. Go read the science
On the issue of probabilities you may have a point. Cats are the strangest creatures and they do sometimes seem to possess an eerie wisdom. The Egyptians worshipped them for a reason. They also bred them solely for the purpose of having them killed and mummified and entombed in the great underground cat city of Bubastis
.."We are not ashamed of talking about it," said his eldest daughter Kitty, 22. "There is nothing to hide and it is not a stigma. We were trying to help him get better before and trying to protect him, which is why we said nothing. "This is the time now to share the news, however horrible it is. We've wanted to be able to talk and share and we'd now like to raise awareness, too."..
I did make that speculation at the time. Suicide
Awful news. Retired pro cricketers have a suicide rate way above the normal, and no one has quite explained it
It's a melancholy subject, but there's no hard statistical evidence for an excess of cricketer suicides. It's just as likely to be relative less under-reporting of the phenomenon for professional cricketers.
It's a comparatively small population - and there are no reliable figures for (eg) Indian cricketers.
The evidence is problematic but I’m not sure there’s no evidence at all. Scientific papers have been written on the subject, indeed someone wrote an entire book
“Cricket has an alarming suicide rate.
Among international players for England and several other countries it is far above the national average for all sports: and there have been numerous instances at other levels of the game.
For thirty years, celebrated cricket author David Frith has collected data on this sad subject. Silence of the Heart is his compelling account of over a hundred cricketers - involving top names from the past hundred years - who have taken their own lives, with an explanation of factors that led to their premature deaths.”
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
Cats are animals, should they be on leads too?
Just get rid of your pet cat. It is destroying Britain’s birdlife and fouling our waterways. Pet ownership is quite incredibly selfish, malign, and wanky
also the separation of the kittens and puppies from their parents is cruel.
I come from a pet owning family. I’ve loved animals in my time...
And eaten them.
If you’re a pure vegan who has never eaten meat of any kind, you’d have a point. You’re not so you don’t
Today's riot court cases include Lee James - he was wearing knuckle dusters at a protest in Southampton - this is the mitigation from Saturday..
She said James had picked up the knuckle duster at a property he had previously worked on, and left it in his van, from where he had picked it up and then put it on before the protest.
“He put it on his fingers and couldn’t get it off,” Ms Brownlow told the court.
Let’s hope that they lock his jail cell and then can’t get it back open again..
I note that The Times has a story on the front page suggesting "Tommy Robinson" may be under investigation for financial and other links to Russia, and that the investigation may also extend to Farage.
If true, then it marks a new determination to fight back against Russian subversion of our democracy.
If the allegations are true, then some prominent figures could well be going to face very long jail sentences.
No proof of anything there yet though, just MI5 will be looking to see if any Russian funding was behind those who organised the riots (and that wouldn't include Farage anyway and even Robinson was abroad at the time albeit using social media)
Reads like maybe private polling is showing Reform ahead of Labour in VI to me...
More likely Reform are behind the Greens now. The 'Civil War' wasn't popular with most - losing it wasn't popular with the rest
I might understand that if it were written in English.
.."We are not ashamed of talking about it," said his eldest daughter Kitty, 22. "There is nothing to hide and it is not a stigma. We were trying to help him get better before and trying to protect him, which is why we said nothing. "This is the time now to share the news, however horrible it is. We've wanted to be able to talk and share and we'd now like to raise awareness, too."..
I did make that speculation at the time. Suicide
Awful news. Retired pro cricketers have a suicide rate way above the normal, and no one has quite explained it
It's a melancholy subject, but there's no hard statistical evidence for an excess of cricketer suicides. It's just as likely to be relative less under-reporting of the phenomenon for professional cricketers.
It's a comparatively small population - and there are no reliable figures for (eg) Indian cricketers.
The evidence is problematic but I’m not sure there’s no evidence at all. Scientific papers have been written on the subject, indeed someone wrote an entire book
“Cricket has an alarming suicide rate.
Among international players for England and several other countries it is far above the national average for all sports: and there have been numerous instances at other levels of the game.
For thirty years, celebrated cricket author David Frith has collected data on this sad subject. Silence of the Heart is his compelling account of over a hundred cricketers - involving top names from the past hundred years - who have taken their own lives, with an explanation of factors that led to their premature deaths.”
Yes, that's a work often cited. But as a statistical study, it's close to worthless. What population group has received a comparable scrutiny over the course of the 20th C (the book being published in 2001) ?
It does contain perhaps the most briefly eloquent suicide note ever penned. "Dear Mackenzie, I am off to another sphere via the small bat-drying room. Better call in a policeman to do the investigating."
It must be very hard to retire from any elite professional sport. At a very young age - 30-35 - you know your best years are definitely behind you. And they were brilliant years - of fame and travel and money and sex - and all earned by playing a game you love
You go from that to relative obscurity and swift decline. If you’re lucky you become a commentator or a coach. More likely you buy a pub and become an alcoholic
It would be interesting - if bleak - to see the stats on post-retirement depression and suicide in all pro sports
It’s sadly going to be pretty bleak for a number of sports, especially for older athletes now who didn’t necessarily make the money that current athletes can earn, in cricket from the IPL when playing or from Sky in retirement.
When the likes of Thorpe was playing, even ECB central contracts were rare and the players mostly earned five figures a year. Today’s top players, by contrast, are all millionaires several times over.
If you have a very pro Harris book and want to de-risk a little bit that 3 on the election winner losing the PV is not a bad one to pop on because that is Trump's best realistic outcome.
Is it? Harris currently about 2% ahead in average national polling. Plenty of time for that to change (in either direction), and also within normal polling average error (in either direction). I'd put Trump's chances of winning popular vote at maybe 25%.
Yes that's where the market is. He's 5 to win the PV. But I'm not with the market on this. It's more like a 10% for me.
OK, I don't have access to BF political markets here, but sounds like you see some value there. What's your reasoning?
Stripped of an unelectable opponent the ceiling on Trump's support is IMO too low to win the PV. He didn't in 16 or 20 and I can't see why he would this time given he's an older weaker candidate now. But I give it a 10'% chance to allow for campaign changes and 'events' etc.
His current net favorability is -8.2 (538 average).
His net favorability at this point in 2016 was nearer -30 in the 538 average.
Ahem. Isn't that a reason why he MIGHT do better in the popular vote than in 2016? He probably won't I guess, but I've given you a reason to be cautious. Of course Clinton was doing worse in the 2016 favorability average than Harris is doing now, but not by such a big margin. And Harris is arguably having a honeymoon.
Yep, the weight of the available polling data more supports your (and betfair's) 25% assessment of him winning the PV than my 10%. My view sets more store by the dynamic of where I think the race is going rather than the static of where it is now.
In picture terms, given it's just been the Olympics, coming round the final bend the lithe youngster has closed in on the fat gasping old geezer out front and is now perched on his shoulder. They're about level but it's not a 50/50 for the gold.
.."We are not ashamed of talking about it," said his eldest daughter Kitty, 22. "There is nothing to hide and it is not a stigma. We were trying to help him get better before and trying to protect him, which is why we said nothing. "This is the time now to share the news, however horrible it is. We've wanted to be able to talk and share and we'd now like to raise awareness, too."..
I did make that speculation at the time. Suicide
Awful news. Retired pro cricketers have a suicide rate way above the normal, and no one has quite explained it
It's a melancholy subject, but there's no hard statistical evidence for an excess of cricketer suicides. It's just as likely to be relative less under-reporting of the phenomenon for professional cricketers.
It's a comparatively small population - and there are no reliable figures for (eg) Indian cricketers.
The evidence is problematic but I’m not sure there’s no evidence at all. Scientific papers have been written on the subject, indeed someone wrote an entire book
“Cricket has an alarming suicide rate.
Among international players for England and several other countries it is far above the national average for all sports: and there have been numerous instances at other levels of the game.
For thirty years, celebrated cricket author David Frith has collected data on this sad subject. Silence of the Heart is his compelling account of over a hundred cricketers - involving top names from the past hundred years - who have taken their own lives, with an explanation of factors that led to their premature deaths.”
Yes, that's a work often cited. But as a statistical study, it's close to worthless. What population group has received a comparable scrutiny over the course of the 20th C (the book being published in 2001) ?
It does contain perhaps the most briefly eloquent suicide note ever penned. "Dear Mackenzie, I am off to another sphere via the small bat-drying room. Better call in a policeman to do the investigating."
It must be very hard to retire from any elite professional sport. At a very young age - 30-35 - you know your best years are definitely behind you. And they were brilliant years - of fame and travel and money and sex - and all earned by playing a game you love
You go from that to relative obscurity and swift decline. If you’re lucky you become a commentator or a coach. More likely you buy a pub and become an alcoholic
It would be interesting - if bleak - to see the stats on post-retirement depression and suicide in all pro sports
I don't for a moment minimise the pressures - and the despair of those who can't cope with the end of their careers. I'm just sceptical that the numbers are widely at odds with the general population.
And his daughter's brave statement suggests, suicide has long been socially stigmatised, and that remains the case - which means that it's likely much underreported.
The possible suicide deaths of public figures are considerably more likely to be reported (see also a number of recent examples in rugby) than is the case for those not in the public eye.
If you have a very pro Harris book and want to de-risk a little bit that 3 on the election winner losing the PV is not a bad one to pop on because that is Trump's best realistic outcome.
Is it? Harris currently about 2% ahead in average national polling. Plenty of time for that to change (in either direction), and also within normal polling average error (in either direction). I'd put Trump's chances of winning popular vote at maybe 25%.
Yes that's where the market is. He's 5 to win the PV. But I'm not with the market on this. It's more like a 10% for me.
OK, I don't have access to BF political markets here, but sounds like you see some value there. What's your reasoning?
Stripped of an unelectable opponent the ceiling on Trump's support is IMO too low to win the PV. He didn't in 16 or 20 and I can't see why he would this time given he's an older weaker candidate now. But I give it a 10'% chance to allow for campaign changes and 'events' etc.
His current net favorability is -8.2 (538 average).
His net favorability at this point in 2016 was nearer -30 in the 538 average.
Ahem. Isn't that a reason why he MIGHT do better in the popular vote than in 2016? He probably won't I guess, but I've given you a reason to be cautious. Of course Clinton was doing worse in the 2016 favorability average than Harris is doing now, but not by such a big margin. And Harris is arguably having a honeymoon.
I don't understand this whole idea of betting on Harris now, it seems madness for several obvious reasons:
1. It is too early given most Americans do not pay attention to the election until post-Labor Day;
2. She is enjoying an honeymoon period where she is being portrayed as the greatest thing ever which won't last;
3. Her faults are still very much there;
4. Americans are not feeling great economically and that is likely to get worse not better;
5. We haven't had the convention out of the way and, far from uniting the party, the progressives smell blood because they felt they stopped Shapiro as the VP pick and now want more. Already, Harris is being portrayed as too pro-corporate.
There is too much going. If I was going to do one trade at the moment, it would be to short Harris on Betfair and then look to exit when her bubble bursts.
Can you assist us please by informing us punters as to how your own betting position stands in respect of this market? No need to be too precise - just to the nearest hundred roubles will do.
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
That's an extraordinary statistic. Wow.
The RSPCA/SSPCA should be shouting from the rooftops about that.
Here's a Scottish Govt doc quoting an estimate of 18,500 in 2015 (which includes other livestock) from the National Farmers Union insurance company, who should know:
On the basis of insurance claims in 2015, NFU mutual estimated that 18,500 livestock (in the UK) had been killed by dogs, costing £1.1m (up 35% on the previous year).[6] This had risen further to £1.6m by 2017.
!5,000 is in the ballpark, but data is not *that* extensive; I've occasionally gone looking for it over the last few years.
We now have many more (maybe a quarter to a third more) dogs in the national pack than before COVID, so it is likely to be increasing.
One problem is ignorance. "He ran them around a bit" is thought of as innocent, but can cause many deaths through stress etc.
Mrs C and I have had to deal with one nasty incident in the last 20 years or so, in Dorset as it happened: dog chasing sheep round and round a small field, one sheep bursts right through barbed wire fence next to us - no idea how many if any died, as the owner got the dog away and made off, and we had to go after the damaged sheep and herd it to the farm for safety and find someone to whom to report the incident (chap at farm: "The way you're dealing with the sheep - are you a farmer?" "No, I'm from the Borders!"). A crude Fermi Piano Tuner analysis - assuming 5m walkers like us in the UK and that the event was borderline mortality wise - suggests something of the rough order of 120 000 such severe incidents pa in the Uk - of which not all will kill sheep but some will kill more than one: say something like 100 000 dead sheep a year. Not too far from the NFU Mutual figure, especially as some cases would be settled financially by direct compo to the farmer from the dog owner.
.."We are not ashamed of talking about it," said his eldest daughter Kitty, 22. "There is nothing to hide and it is not a stigma. We were trying to help him get better before and trying to protect him, which is why we said nothing. "This is the time now to share the news, however horrible it is. We've wanted to be able to talk and share and we'd now like to raise awareness, too."..
I did make that speculation at the time. Suicide
Awful news. Retired pro cricketers have a suicide rate way above the normal, and no one has quite explained it
It's a melancholy subject, but there's no hard statistical evidence for an excess of cricketer suicides. It's just as likely to be relative less under-reporting of the phenomenon for professional cricketers.
It's a comparatively small population - and there are no reliable figures for (eg) Indian cricketers.
The evidence is problematic but I’m not sure there’s no evidence at all. Scientific papers have been written on the subject, indeed someone wrote an entire book
“Cricket has an alarming suicide rate.
Among international players for England and several other countries it is far above the national average for all sports: and there have been numerous instances at other levels of the game.
For thirty years, celebrated cricket author David Frith has collected data on this sad subject. Silence of the Heart is his compelling account of over a hundred cricketers - involving top names from the past hundred years - who have taken their own lives, with an explanation of factors that led to their premature deaths.”
Yes, that's a work often cited. But as a statistical study, it's close to worthless. What population group has received a comparable scrutiny over the course of the 20th C (the book being published in 2001) ?
It does contain perhaps the most briefly eloquent suicide note ever penned. "Dear Mackenzie, I am off to another sphere via the small bat-drying room. Better call in a policeman to do the investigating."
It must be very hard to retire from any elite professional sport. At a very young age - 30-35 - you know your best years are definitely behind you. And they were brilliant years - of fame and travel and money and sex - and all earned by playing a game you love
You go from that to relative obscurity and swift decline. If you’re lucky you become a commentator or a coach. More likely you buy a pub and become an alcoholic
It would be interesting - if bleak - to see the stats on post-retirement depression and suicide in all pro sports
It’s sadly going to be pretty bleak for a number of sports, especially for older athletes now who didn’t necessarily make the money that current athletes can earn, in cricket from the IPL when playing or from Sky in retirement.
When the likes of Thorpe was playing, even ECB central contracts were rare and the players mostly earned five figures a year. Today’s top players, by contrast, are all millionaires several times over.
A group I've always wondered about are boys who get into a pro club's football academy as teenagers but don't make the grade and are rejected. That must be hard to deal with.
If you have a very pro Harris book and want to de-risk a little bit that 3 on the election winner losing the PV is not a bad one to pop on because that is Trump's best realistic outcome.
Is it? Harris currently about 2% ahead in average national polling. Plenty of time for that to change (in either direction), and also within normal polling average error (in either direction). I'd put Trump's chances of winning popular vote at maybe 25%.
Yes that's where the market is. He's 5 to win the PV. But I'm not with the market on this. It's more like a 10% for me.
OK, I don't have access to BF political markets here, but sounds like you see some value there. What's your reasoning?
Stripped of an unelectable opponent the ceiling on Trump's support is IMO too low to win the PV. He didn't in 16 or 20 and I can't see why he would this time given he's an older weaker candidate now. But I give it a 10'% chance to allow for campaign changes and 'events' etc.
His current net favorability is -8.2 (538 average).
His net favorability at this point in 2016 was nearer -30 in the 538 average.
Ahem. Isn't that a reason why he MIGHT do better in the popular vote than in 2016? He probably won't I guess, but I've given you a reason to be cautious. Of course Clinton was doing worse in the 2016 favorability average than Harris is doing now, but not by such a big margin. And Harris is arguably having a honeymoon.
I don't understand this whole idea of betting on Harris now, it seems madness for several obvious reasons:
1. It is too early given most Americans do not pay attention to the election until post-Labor Day;
2. She is enjoying an honeymoon period where she is being portrayed as the greatest thing ever which won't last;
3. Her faults are still very much there;
4. Americans are not feeling great economically and that is likely to get worse not better;
5. We haven't had the convention out of the way and, far from uniting the party, the progressives smell blood because they felt they stopped Shapiro as the VP pick and now want more. Already, Harris is being portrayed as too pro-corporate.
There is too much going. If I was going to do one trade at the moment, it would be to short Harris on Betfair and then look to exit when her bubble bursts.
Can you assist us please by informing us punters as to how your own betting position stands in respect of this market? No need to be too precise - just to the nearest hundred roubles will do.
Dearie me. The Russians' latest fiendish plan is casting doubt on the wisdom of betting the house on Kamala Harris is it?
If you have a very pro Harris book and want to de-risk a little bit that 3 on the election winner losing the PV is not a bad one to pop on because that is Trump's best realistic outcome.
Is it? Harris currently about 2% ahead in average national polling. Plenty of time for that to change (in either direction), and also within normal polling average error (in either direction). I'd put Trump's chances of winning popular vote at maybe 25%.
Yes that's where the market is. He's 5 to win the PV. But I'm not with the market on this. It's more like a 10% for me.
OK, I don't have access to BF political markets here, but sounds like you see some value there. What's your reasoning?
Stripped of an unelectable opponent the ceiling on Trump's support is IMO too low to win the PV. He didn't in 16 or 20 and I can't see why he would this time given he's an older weaker candidate now. But I give it a 10'% chance to allow for campaign changes and 'events' etc.
His current net favorability is -8.2 (538 average).
His net favorability at this point in 2016 was nearer -30 in the 538 average.
Ahem. Isn't that a reason why he MIGHT do better in the popular vote than in 2016? He probably won't I guess, but I've given you a reason to be cautious. Of course Clinton was doing worse in the 2016 favorability average than Harris is doing now, but not by such a big margin. And Harris is arguably having a honeymoon.
I don't understand this whole idea of betting on Harris now, it seems madness for several obvious reasons:
1. It is too early given most Americans do not pay attention to the election until post-Labor Day;
2. She is enjoying an honeymoon period where she is being portrayed as the greatest thing ever which won't last;
3. Her faults are still very much there;
4. Americans are not feeling great economically and that is likely to get worse not better;
5. We haven't had the convention out of the way and, far from uniting the party, the progressives smell blood because they felt they stopped Shapiro as the VP pick and now want more. Already, Harris is being portrayed as too pro-corporate.
There is too much going. If I was going to do one trade at the moment, it would be to short Harris on Betfair and then look to exit when her bubble bursts.
Can you assist us please by informing us punters as to how your own betting position stands in respect of this market? No need to be too precise - just to the nearest hundred roubles will do.
Dearie me. The Russians' latest fiendish plan is casting doubt on the wisdom of betting the house on Kamala Harris is it?
The stats on cats and the animals they predate are absolutely appalling. Here are the figures for the UK
“A study published in April estimated that UK cats kill 160 to 270 million animals annually, a quarter of them birds. The real figure is likely to be even higher, as the study used the 2011 pet cat population of 9.5 million; it is now closer to 12 million”
The stats on cats and the animals they predate are absolutely appalling. Here are the figures for the UK
“A study published in April estimated that UK cats kill 160 to 270 million animals annually, a quarter of them birds. The real figure is likely to be even higher, as the study used the 2011 pet cat population of 9.5 million; it is now closer to 12 million”
That could be fifty MILLION wild birds, killed for no reason every year. And we wonder why our birdlife is collapsing
And this is happening around the world
I don’t see how anyone of good conscience can keep a cat. Indeed, you can’t. If you’ve got a cat you’re a selfish twat
Been noticeable how the bird life in our garden has declined since the neighbours got cats. Killed the male bullfinch of the resident pair, and suspected in the demise of a tree sparrow.
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
Cats are animals, should they be on leads too?
Just get rid of your pet cat. It is destroying Britain’s birdlife and fouling our waterways. Pet ownership is quite incredibly selfish, malign, and wanky
My cat is not destroying Britain's birdlife or fouling our waterways. It's a delightful creature.
It's also better at assessing probabilities than you are.
I’m afraid to say your cat is indeed doing both those things, you just can’t admit it to yourself. Go read the science
On the issue of probabilities you may have a point. Cats are the strangest creatures and they do sometimes seem to possess an eerie wisdom. The Egyptians worshipped them for a reason. They also bred them solely for the purpose of having them killed and mummified and entombed in the great underground cat city of Bubastis
You wait till you've seen a picture of him. Doubt you'll be talking about the "science" then.
.."We are not ashamed of talking about it," said his eldest daughter Kitty, 22. "There is nothing to hide and it is not a stigma. We were trying to help him get better before and trying to protect him, which is why we said nothing. "This is the time now to share the news, however horrible it is. We've wanted to be able to talk and share and we'd now like to raise awareness, too."..
I did make that speculation at the time. Suicide
Awful news. Retired pro cricketers have a suicide rate way above the normal, and no one has quite explained it
It's a melancholy subject, but there's no hard statistical evidence for an excess of cricketer suicides. It's just as likely to be relative less under-reporting of the phenomenon for professional cricketers.
It's a comparatively small population - and there are no reliable figures for (eg) Indian cricketers.
The evidence is problematic but I’m not sure there’s no evidence at all. Scientific papers have been written on the subject, indeed someone wrote an entire book
“Cricket has an alarming suicide rate.
Among international players for England and several other countries it is far above the national average for all sports: and there have been numerous instances at other levels of the game.
For thirty years, celebrated cricket author David Frith has collected data on this sad subject. Silence of the Heart is his compelling account of over a hundred cricketers - involving top names from the past hundred years - who have taken their own lives, with an explanation of factors that led to their premature deaths.”
Yes, that's a work often cited. But as a statistical study, it's close to worthless. What population group has received a comparable scrutiny over the course of the 20th C (the book being published in 2001) ?
It does contain perhaps the most briefly eloquent suicide note ever penned. "Dear Mackenzie, I am off to another sphere via the small bat-drying room. Better call in a policeman to do the investigating."
It must be very hard to retire from any elite professional sport. At a very young age - 30-35 - you know your best years are definitely behind you. And they were brilliant years - of fame and travel and money and sex - and all earned by playing a game you love
You go from that to relative obscurity and swift decline. If you’re lucky you become a commentator or a coach. More likely you buy a pub and become an alcoholic
It would be interesting - if bleak - to see the stats on post-retirement depression and suicide in all pro sports
It’s sadly going to be pretty bleak for a number of sports, especially for older athletes now who didn’t necessarily make the money that current athletes can earn, in cricket from the IPL when playing or from Sky in retirement.
When the likes of Thorpe was playing, even ECB central contracts were rare and the players mostly earned five figures a year. Today’s top players, by contrast, are all millionaires several times over.
Although, of course, being a millionaire doesn't guarantee happiness.
The idea of Sport was developed in English public schools as an adjunct to a balanced life. Professionalism was its antithesis and stigmatised as such for generations. At length the battle was lost: first cricket, then football, rugby, tennis and finally the Olympics. 'Fame is the spur that the clear spirit doth raise'. Who in the right mind would wish to be famous today?
If you have a very pro Harris book and want to de-risk a little bit that 3 on the election winner losing the PV is not a bad one to pop on because that is Trump's best realistic outcome.
Is it? Harris currently about 2% ahead in average national polling. Plenty of time for that to change (in either direction), and also within normal polling average error (in either direction). I'd put Trump's chances of winning popular vote at maybe 25%.
Yes that's where the market is. He's 5 to win the PV. But I'm not with the market on this. It's more like a 10% for me.
OK, I don't have access to BF political markets here, but sounds like you see some value there. What's your reasoning?
Stripped of an unelectable opponent the ceiling on Trump's support is IMO too low to win the PV. He didn't in 16 or 20 and I can't see why he would this time given he's an older weaker candidate now. But I give it a 10'% chance to allow for campaign changes and 'events' etc.
His current net favorability is -8.2 (538 average).
His net favorability at this point in 2016 was nearer -30 in the 538 average.
Ahem. Isn't that a reason why he MIGHT do better in the popular vote than in 2016? He probably won't I guess, but I've given you a reason to be cautious. Of course Clinton was doing worse in the 2016 favorability average than Harris is doing now, but not by such a big margin. And Harris is arguably having a honeymoon.
I don't understand this whole idea of betting on Harris now, it seems madness for several obvious reasons:
1. It is too early given most Americans do not pay attention to the election until post-Labor Day;
2. She is enjoying an honeymoon period where she is being portrayed as the greatest thing ever which won't last;
3. Her faults are still very much there;
4. Americans are not feeling great economically and that is likely to get worse not better;
5. We haven't had the convention out of the way and, far from uniting the party, the progressives smell blood because they felt they stopped Shapiro as the VP pick and now want more. Already, Harris is being portrayed as too pro-corporate.
There is too much going. If I was going to do one trade at the moment, it would be to short Harris on Betfair and then look to exit when her bubble bursts.
Indeed. I expect Harris to be clearly ahead after the Democratic convention but of course Dukakis led Bush comfortably in early August 1988 too.
'Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis holds a roughly 10-point lead over George Bush, besting the Republican vice president in every region but the South, according to a poll released Thursday..A regional breakdown of the on-going Times Mirror survey showed Dukakis holding a 49-41 percent lead over Bush in the East, a 47-37 percent edge in the Midwest and a 49-39 percent lead in the West. In the South, Bush -- before the addition of Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen to the Democratic ticket -- held a 47-40 percent lead over Dukakis...in states that have voted Republican in each of the last five elections, Dukakis currently holds a 49-41 percent lead over Bush. Among states that have gone Republican in four of the last five, the Dukakis margin is 50-40 percent. It is 51 percent to 41 percent in states that went to the GOP in three of the last five elections and grows to 56-35 percent in Democratic-leaning states that have voted Republican only twice in the last five outings.' https://www.upi.com/Archives/1988/08/04/Poll-Dukakis-holds-10-point-lead-over-Bush/6044586670400/
Think the North Carolina Poll comes from "Carolina Forward" a partisan Democrat polling group, so one should be aware. Bit like taking The Trafalgar Group polling for real, they are partisan Republican. Best seek somewhere between the two.
If you have a very pro Harris book and want to de-risk a little bit that 3 on the election winner losing the PV is not a bad one to pop on because that is Trump's best realistic outcome.
Is it? Harris currently about 2% ahead in average national polling. Plenty of time for that to change (in either direction), and also within normal polling average error (in either direction). I'd put Trump's chances of winning popular vote at maybe 25%.
Yes that's where the market is. He's 5 to win the PV. But I'm not with the market on this. It's more like a 10% for me.
OK, I don't have access to BF political markets here, but sounds like you see some value there. What's your reasoning?
Stripped of an unelectable opponent the ceiling on Trump's support is IMO too low to win the PV. He didn't in 16 or 20 and I can't see why he would this time given he's an older weaker candidate now. But I give it a 10'% chance to allow for campaign changes and 'events' etc.
His current net favorability is -8.2 (538 average).
His net favorability at this point in 2016 was nearer -30 in the 538 average.
Ahem. Isn't that a reason why he MIGHT do better in the popular vote than in 2016? He probably won't I guess, but I've given you a reason to be cautious. Of course Clinton was doing worse in the 2016 favorability average than Harris is doing now, but not by such a big margin. And Harris is arguably having a honeymoon.
I don't understand this whole idea of betting on Harris now, it seems madness for several obvious reasons:
1. It is too early given most Americans do not pay attention to the election until post-Labor Day;
2. She is enjoying an honeymoon period where she is being portrayed as the greatest thing ever which won't last;
3. Her faults are still very much there;
4. Americans are not feeling great economically and that is likely to get worse not better;
5. We haven't had the convention out of the way and, far from uniting the party, the progressives smell blood because they felt they stopped Shapiro as the VP pick and now want more. Already, Harris is being portrayed as too pro-corporate.
There is too much going. If I was going to do one trade at the moment, it would be to short Harris on Betfair and then look to exit when her bubble bursts.
Can you assist us please by informing us punters as to how your own betting position stands in respect of this market? No need to be too precise - just to the nearest hundred roubles will do.
Sure - and no need to be so catty as to mention the roubles. You can ask @rcs1000 or the admin owners to confirm I am not operating out of some troll factory near Moscow.
My betting position at this point is zero, which should have been obvious from the points I made. It is too early to bet given the changing circumstances and that we are quite far out.
If you want my view on Harris' chances, I think they are overblown - she is the VP in an environment where the US consumer is feeling worse. You don't have to take my word for it, listen to the comments from US companies in their Q2 conference calls. It is a lot more cautious on the consumer and they are starting to see the effects in their results.
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
"....Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense...."
I bet on Harris because I wanted to find out if the automated betting machines in the shops would allow that and if I could use them. If, after some research I will pretend is thorough, I think she will win, I will bet on her in the belief that she will win and I can profit thereby
Not everybody does value betting.
It's not exactly complicated. The odds are around evens, and I think she'll win.
"betting on centrist candidate is a very bad strategy in recent history" is more of a rhetorical point than a convincing argument.
Harris isn't a centrist candidate, she ran to the liberal left of Biden and Buttigieg in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Haley was a centrist candidate this year, neither Trump nor Harris are centrists
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
"....Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense...."
I bet on Harris because I wanted to find out if the automated betting machines in the shops would allow that and if I could use them. If, after some research I will pretend is thorough, I think she will win, I will bet on her in the belief that she will win and I can profit thereby
Not everybody does value betting.
It's not exactly complicated. The odds are around evens, and I think she'll win.
"betting on centrist candidate is a very bad strategy in recent history" is more of a rhetorical point than a convincing argument.
Harris isn't a centrist candidate, she ran to the liberal left of Biden and Buttigieg in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Haley was a centrist candidate this year, neither Trump nor Harris are centrists
That's rubbish. Just because she ran slightly to the left of another centrist doesn't mean she isn't also a centrist.
If you have a very pro Harris book and want to de-risk a little bit that 3 on the election winner losing the PV is not a bad one to pop on because that is Trump's best realistic outcome.
Is it? Harris currently about 2% ahead in average national polling. Plenty of time for that to change (in either direction), and also within normal polling average error (in either direction). I'd put Trump's chances of winning popular vote at maybe 25%.
Yes that's where the market is. He's 5 to win the PV. But I'm not with the market on this. It's more like a 10% for me.
OK, I don't have access to BF political markets here, but sounds like you see some value there. What's your reasoning?
Stripped of an unelectable opponent the ceiling on Trump's support is IMO too low to win the PV. He didn't in 16 or 20 and I can't see why he would this time given he's an older weaker candidate now. But I give it a 10'% chance to allow for campaign changes and 'events' etc.
His current net favorability is -8.2 (538 average).
His net favorability at this point in 2016 was nearer -30 in the 538 average.
Ahem. Isn't that a reason why he MIGHT do better in the popular vote than in 2016? He probably won't I guess, but I've given you a reason to be cautious. Of course Clinton was doing worse in the 2016 favorability average than Harris is doing now, but not by such a big margin. And Harris is arguably having a honeymoon.
I don't understand this whole idea of betting on Harris now, it seems madness for several obvious reasons:
1. It is too early given most Americans do not pay attention to the election until post-Labor Day;
2. She is enjoying an honeymoon period where she is being portrayed as the greatest thing ever which won't last;
3. Her faults are still very much there;
4. Americans are not feeling great economically and that is likely to get worse not better;
5. We haven't had the convention out of the way and, far from uniting the party, the progressives smell blood because they felt they stopped Shapiro as the VP pick and now want more. Already, Harris is being portrayed as too pro-corporate.
There is too much going. If I was going to do one trade at the moment, it would be to short Harris on Betfair and then look to exit when her bubble bursts.
Can you assist us please by informing us punters as to how your own betting position stands in respect of this market? No need to be too precise - just to the nearest hundred roubles will do.
Dearie me. The Russians' latest fiendish plan is casting doubt on the wisdom of betting the house on Kamala Harris is it?
Indeed. The influence of PB.com knows no bounds.
(on a serious note, I think it shows just how emotionally invested many people are on this site re the US election and how it may be warping their views. I always found Peter_the_Punter's posts usually amongst the most well argued on betting issues).
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
"....Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense...."
I bet on Harris because I wanted to find out if the automated betting machines in the shops would allow that and if I could use them. If, after some research I will pretend is thorough, I think she will win, I will bet on her in the belief that she will win and I can profit thereby
Not everybody does value betting.
It's not exactly complicated. The odds are around evens, and I think she'll win.
"betting on centrist candidate is a very bad strategy in recent history" is more of a rhetorical point than a convincing argument.
Harris isn't a centrist candidate, she ran to the liberal left of Biden and Buttigieg in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Haley was a centrist candidate this year, neither Trump nor Harris are centrists
Haley is a fairly right wing conservative.
In US terms she would be centrist
No, in US terms she's a fairly right wing conservative. Just not a loon.
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
Cats are animals, should they be on leads too?
Just get rid of your pet cat. It is destroying Britain’s birdlife and fouling our waterways. Pet ownership is quite incredibly selfish, malign, and wanky
My cat is not destroying Britain's birdlife or fouling our waterways. It's a delightful creature.
It's also better at assessing probabilities than you are.
I'm sure it is. I had cats, and they were delightful too, sort of. But no longer. They kill millions of birds every year and, effectively, make huge areas of otherwise suitable habitat, unavailable to ground-nesting birds.
Dogs are not much better. Roving hounds, off the lead, deter birds from breeding. In fact their very presence, even on a lead, has a serious impact.
Think the North Carolina Poll comes from "Carolina Forward" a partisan Democrat polling group, so one should be aware. Bit like taking The Trafalgar Group polling for real, they are partisan Republican. Best seek somewhere between the two.
It's been a long time since we had an election going into summer and it seems all the polling organisations are having a rethink following their big "miss" on the Labour vote share. I saw something about a BPC meeting in September which I imagine some on here will be attending in one capacity or another.
Even in "normal" years there's a paucity of polling in August.
There will be polling on the Conservative leadership election when anyone can be bothered to a) do the polling or b) care who the new Tory leader is going to be.
As far as recent events are concerned, I suspect it'll be analogous to the 2000 fuel crisis which had, albeit momentarily, the Conservatives under Hague in front but when life returned to what passed for normal so did the Labour leads.
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
"....Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense...."
I bet on Harris because I wanted to find out if the automated betting machines in the shops would allow that and if I could use them. If, after some research I will pretend is thorough, I think she will win, I will bet on her in the belief that she will win and I can profit thereby
Not everybody does value betting.
It's not exactly complicated. The odds are around evens, and I think she'll win.
"betting on centrist candidate is a very bad strategy in recent history" is more of a rhetorical point than a convincing argument.
Harris isn't a centrist candidate, she ran to the liberal left of Biden and Buttigieg in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Haley was a centrist candidate this year, neither Trump nor Harris are centrists
Haley is a fairly right wing conservative.
In US terms she would be centrist
She's now signed up to Donald Trump and all his works. Any previous position she took are now out the window.
That's me exactly. Cats enchant me now I've got one. Dogs, I see the appeal (esp Ian's sweetie pie one) but I'm anxious around them (due to being savaged by an alsatian when I was 3). I really wish I could relax around dogs since they are all over and it's a slight life limiter to be so wary of them.
If you have a very pro Harris book and want to de-risk a little bit that 3 on the election winner losing the PV is not a bad one to pop on because that is Trump's best realistic outcome.
Is it? Harris currently about 2% ahead in average national polling. Plenty of time for that to change (in either direction), and also within normal polling average error (in either direction). I'd put Trump's chances of winning popular vote at maybe 25%.
Yes that's where the market is. He's 5 to win the PV. But I'm not with the market on this. It's more like a 10% for me.
OK, I don't have access to BF political markets here, but sounds like you see some value there. What's your reasoning?
Stripped of an unelectable opponent the ceiling on Trump's support is IMO too low to win the PV. He didn't in 16 or 20 and I can't see why he would this time given he's an older weaker candidate now. But I give it a 10'% chance to allow for campaign changes and 'events' etc.
His current net favorability is -8.2 (538 average).
His net favorability at this point in 2016 was nearer -30 in the 538 average.
Ahem. Isn't that a reason why he MIGHT do better in the popular vote than in 2016? He probably won't I guess, but I've given you a reason to be cautious. Of course Clinton was doing worse in the 2016 favorability average than Harris is doing now, but not by such a big margin. And Harris is arguably having a honeymoon.
I don't understand this whole idea of betting on Harris now, it seems madness for several obvious reasons:
1. It is too early given most Americans do not pay attention to the election until post-Labor Day;
2. She is enjoying an honeymoon period where she is being portrayed as the greatest thing ever which won't last;
3. Her faults are still very much there;
4. Americans are not feeling great economically and that is likely to get worse not better;
5. We haven't had the convention out of the way and, far from uniting the party, the progressives smell blood because they felt they stopped Shapiro as the VP pick and now want more. Already, Harris is being portrayed as too pro-corporate.
There is too much going. If I was going to do one trade at the moment, it would be to short Harris on Betfair and then look to exit when her bubble bursts.
Indeed. I expect Harris to be clearly ahead after the Democratic convention but of course Dukakis led Bush comfortably in early August 1988 too.
'Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis holds a roughly 10-point lead over George Bush, besting the Republican vice president in every region but the South, according to a poll released Thursday..A regional breakdown of the on-going Times Mirror survey showed Dukakis holding a 49-41 percent lead over Bush in the East, a 47-37 percent edge in the Midwest and a 49-39 percent lead in the West. In the South, Bush -- before the addition of Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen to the Democratic ticket -- held a 47-40 percent lead over Dukakis...in states that have voted Republican in each of the last five elections, Dukakis currently holds a 49-41 percent lead over Bush. Among states that have gone Republican in four of the last five, the Dukakis margin is 50-40 percent. It is 51 percent to 41 percent in states that went to the GOP in three of the last five elections and grows to 56-35 percent in Democratic-leaning states that have voted Republican only twice in the last five outings.' https://www.upi.com/Archives/1988/08/04/Poll-Dukakis-holds-10-point-lead-over-Bush/6044586670400/
George Bush headed the CIA.
Donald Trump? Not so much. (Although the CIA no doubt have a chunky dossier on him.)
The stats on cats and the animals they predate are absolutely appalling. Here are the figures for the UK
“A study published in April estimated that UK cats kill 160 to 270 million animals annually, a quarter of them birds. The real figure is likely to be even higher, as the study used the 2011 pet cat population of 9.5 million; it is now closer to 12 million”
That could be fifty MILLION wild birds, killed for no reason every year. And we wonder why our birdlife is collapsing
And this is happening around the world
I don’t see how anyone of good conscience can keep a cat. Indeed, you can’t. If you’ve got a cat you’re a selfish twat
Been noticeable how the bird life in our garden has declined since the neighbours got cats. Killed the male bullfinch of the resident pair, and suspected in the demise of a tree sparrow.
God, that's depressing.
I remember reading about a "cat lady" who moved to the Western Isles with her tribe of felines. Did for the local population of corncrakes.
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
Cats are animals, should they be on leads too?
Just get rid of your pet cat. It is destroying Britain’s birdlife and fouling our waterways. Pet ownership is quite incredibly selfish, malign, and wanky
My cat is not destroying Britain's birdlife or fouling our waterways. It's a delightful creature.
It's also better at assessing probabilities than you are.
I'm sure it is. I had cats, and they were delightful too, sort of. But no longer. They kill millions of birds every year and, effectively, make huge areas of otherwise suitable habitat, unavailable to ground-nesting birds.
Dogs are not much better. Roving hounds, off the lead, deter birds from breeding. In fact their very presence, even on a lead, has a serious impact.
If you need a pet, buy a hamster. Or a goldfish.
Yes. Exactly
Every cat owner convinces themselves that “their” cat is different. It’s absurd
LOOK AT THE STATS
And last night on springwatch (on catch up) they reported new science that says veterinary treatments for cats and dogs (for ticks etc) which are leaching into the water system are killing billions of insects, and crashing the entire UK ecosystem
How can this possibly be justifiable merely because some selfish dorks want an enslaved animal in the house because it’s “delightful”
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
Cats are animals, should they be on leads too?
Just get rid of your pet cat. It is destroying Britain’s birdlife and fouling our waterways. Pet ownership is quite incredibly selfish, malign, and wanky
My cat is not destroying Britain's birdlife or fouling our waterways. It's a delightful creature.
It's also better at assessing probabilities than you are.
I'm sure it is. I had cats, and they were delightful too, sort of. But no longer. They kill millions of birds every year and, effectively, make huge areas of otherwise suitable habitat, unavailable to ground-nesting birds.
Dogs are not much better. Roving hounds, off the lead, deter birds from breeding. In fact their very presence, even on a lead, has a serious impact.
If you need a pet, buy a hamster. Or a goldfish.
Yes. Exactly
Every cat owner convinces themselves that “their” cat is different. It’s absurd
LOOK AT THE STATS
And last night on springwatch (on catch up) they reported new science that says veterinary treatments for cats and dogs (for ticks etc) which are leaching into the water system are killing billions of insects, and crashing the entire UK ecosystem
How can this possibly be justifiable merely because some selfish dorks want an enslaved animal in the house because it’s “delightful”
.."We are not ashamed of talking about it," said his eldest daughter Kitty, 22. "There is nothing to hide and it is not a stigma. We were trying to help him get better before and trying to protect him, which is why we said nothing. "This is the time now to share the news, however horrible it is. We've wanted to be able to talk and share and we'd now like to raise awareness, too."..
I did make that speculation at the time. Suicide
Awful news. Retired pro cricketers have a suicide rate way above the normal, and no one has quite explained it
It's a melancholy subject, but there's no hard statistical evidence for an excess of cricketer suicides. It's just as likely to be relative less under-reporting of the phenomenon for professional cricketers.
It's a comparatively small population - and there are no reliable figures for (eg) Indian cricketers.
The evidence is problematic but I’m not sure there’s no evidence at all. Scientific papers have been written on the subject, indeed someone wrote an entire book
“Cricket has an alarming suicide rate.
Among international players for England and several other countries it is far above the national average for all sports: and there have been numerous instances at other levels of the game.
For thirty years, celebrated cricket author David Frith has collected data on this sad subject. Silence of the Heart is his compelling account of over a hundred cricketers - involving top names from the past hundred years - who have taken their own lives, with an explanation of factors that led to their premature deaths.”
Yes, that's a work often cited. But as a statistical study, it's close to worthless. What population group has received a comparable scrutiny over the course of the 20th C (the book being published in 2001) ?
It does contain perhaps the most briefly eloquent suicide note ever penned. "Dear Mackenzie, I am off to another sphere via the small bat-drying room. Better call in a policeman to do the investigating."
It must be very hard to retire from any elite professional sport. At a very young age - 30-35 - you know your best years are definitely behind you. And they were brilliant years - of fame and travel and money and sex - and all earned by playing a game you love
You go from that to relative obscurity and swift decline. If you’re lucky you become a commentator or a coach. More likely you buy a pub and become an alcoholic
It would be interesting - if bleak - to see the stats on post-retirement depression and suicide in all pro sports
It’s sadly going to be pretty bleak for a number of sports, especially for older athletes now who didn’t necessarily make the money that current athletes can earn, in cricket from the IPL when playing or from Sky in retirement.
When the likes of Thorpe was playing, even ECB central contracts were rare and the players mostly earned five figures a year. Today’s top players, by contrast, are all millionaires several times over.
A group I've always wondered about are boys who get into a pro club's football academy as teenagers but don't make the grade and are rejected. That must be hard to deal with.
That’s a good point, there’s plenty of athletes who fall just short of being able to make a career of it, despite having put in all the work as teenagers and often to the exclusion of other activities.
There will also be plenty of athletes returning from Paris today, who will shortly lose their lottery funding and have to go back to being amateurs. It’s not an easy transition back to civilian life from there, they’ll often need to retrain themselves for an alternative career.
It’s actually one way that American sports work well, by getting the athletes through some sort of academic qualification before turning professional as graduates.
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
Cats are animals, should they be on leads too?
Just get rid of your pet cat. It is destroying Britain’s birdlife and fouling our waterways. Pet ownership is quite incredibly selfish, malign, and wanky
My cat is not destroying Britain's birdlife or fouling our waterways. It's a delightful creature.
It's also better at assessing probabilities than you are.
I'm sure it is. I had cats, and they were delightful too, sort of. But no longer. They kill millions of birds every year and, effectively, make huge areas of otherwise suitable habitat, unavailable to ground-nesting birds.
Dogs are not much better. Roving hounds, off the lead, deter birds from breeding. In fact their very presence, even on a lead, has a serious impact.
If you need a pet, buy a hamster. Or a goldfish.
Yes. Exactly
Every cat owner convinces themselves that “their” cat is different. It’s absurd
LOOK AT THE STATS
And last night on springwatch (on catch up) they reported new science that says veterinary treatments for cats and dogs (for ticks etc) which are leaching into the water system are killing billions of insects, and crashing the entire UK ecosystem
How can this possibly be justifiable merely because some selfish dorks want an enslaved animal in the house because it’s “delightful”
Ugh
Indoor-only cats exist.
Great. So you deal with the issue by imprisoning a naturally roaming and intelligent mammal
Someone on here (Ishmael, I think) once posted that he'd had both stage 4 cancer and clinical depression and it was no contest which was the bigger ordeal - the depression.
That's what I mean. I'm on at 5.5, but there's no volume.
I got a bit higher than that but only for a tiny amount. Where are all those punters who think the election is a toss up? C'mon, take my money!
Ohio is firmly in the Trump column in a toss up election. Won by Trump by 8% in 2020.
But (apparently) his people are worried about Ohio on the basis of their private polling. A sub-50% finding (aparently) brings it into toss-up territory.
I will not be surprised to see Ohio tied or better for Harris after the Convention.
Why his advisors are so worried is because there is no positive narrative coming out of the Trump campaign. No policies are being brought forward. Just Trump's paranoia that his showman schtick is failing. He is now reduced to being the centre of attention only because he is coming out with frankly risible nonsense about how many people want to turn up to see him versus Harris-Walz or even MLK Jnr. Whilst we can see the level of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz's "tour of joy" around the swing states, we just have to take Trump's word for the continuing love for him because there are no empirical ways of measuring it.
two cycles in a row pols have badly underestimated Trump in Ohio. It looks close then on the day it isn't. And two cycles in a row it's PVI has swung bigly to Trump (even if the margin was the same). It has a lot of wwc small towns that no longer vote dems. That won't change this election. In fact Dems still have room to fall in the small towns. ANd whilst GOP have room to fall in the suburbs they matter less in Ohio then e.g in WI where the WOW counties make up a huge chunk of the GOP vote.
I find the rush to bet on Harris very mystifying.
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
"....Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense...."
I bet on Harris because I wanted to find out if the automated betting machines in the shops would allow that and if I could use them. If, after some research I will pretend is thorough, I think she will win, I will bet on her in the belief that she will win and I can profit thereby
Not everybody does value betting.
It's not exactly complicated. The odds are around evens, and I think she'll win.
"betting on centrist candidate is a very bad strategy in recent history" is more of a rhetorical point than a convincing argument.
Harris isn't a centrist candidate, she ran to the liberal left of Biden and Buttigieg in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Haley was a centrist candidate this year, neither Trump nor Harris are centrists
Haley is a fairly right wing conservative.
In US terms she would be centrist
She's now signed up to Donald Trump and all his works. Any previous position she took are now out the window.
So what, Starmer signed up to Jeremy Corbyn and all his works. It is what ambitious politicians have to do to have a chance to lead their party next time
Genuinely think there is a potential anti pet movement out there waiting to coalesce. Particularly since the pandemic, pets have encroached on what were human only spaces.
We have dog friendly cafes and restaurants. Near me there is a normal swimming pool with a dog friendly day.
But the English love their pets. Perhaps more than they love their children.
I'm not a dog person, and I see nothing wrong with those. It becomes a problem when the thing is enforced universally - like the movement to vegetarian options in work restaurants, which is fine until suddenly a day is implemented which BANS non-vegetarian options.
That's where Brighton Greens got it wrong a decade ago, when the Councillors tried to ban bacon butties for bin men.
I think one area we need to look at is dogs off leads in public environments, which is one of those things that causes real problems despite "close control" being a legal requirement. "He's only being friendly" is what some dog owners always reliably say immediately before their hound bites you.
I think one trigger will be in the needed debate about countryside access, and within that the many thousands of livestock killed by "pet" dogs every year. 15,000 or so sheep a year, for example, are killed by dog owners with their dogs (I use that form as the agency and responsibility is with the owner).
Exactly. Dog attacks and bites are not rare.
Just because he's "friendly" to the owner doesn't mean that he's not a threat to anyone else.
Dogs are animals and should be on leads by default.
Cats are animals, should they be on leads too?
Just get rid of your pet cat. It is destroying Britain’s birdlife and fouling our waterways. Pet ownership is quite incredibly selfish, malign, and wanky
My cat is not destroying Britain's birdlife or fouling our waterways. It's a delightful creature.
It's also better at assessing probabilities than you are.
I'm sure it is. I had cats, and they were delightful too, sort of. But no longer. They kill millions of birds every year and, effectively, make huge areas of otherwise suitable habitat, unavailable to ground-nesting birds.
Dogs are not much better. Roving hounds, off the lead, deter birds from breeding. In fact their very presence, even on a lead, has a serious impact.
If you need a pet, buy a hamster. Or a goldfish.
Yes. Exactly
Every cat owner convinces themselves that “their” cat is different. It’s absurd
LOOK AT THE STATS
And last night on springwatch (on catch up) they reported new science that says veterinary treatments for cats and dogs (for ticks etc) which are leaching into the water system are killing billions of insects, and crashing the entire UK ecosystem
How can this possibly be justifiable merely because some selfish dorks want an enslaved animal in the house because it’s “delightful”
"A pro-foxhunting group says it has prepared a legal case to try to prove that hunters are an ethnic minority whose hunts should be protected under equality laws.
"Ed Swales, the chair of Hunting Kind, claims he has been advised by a leading human rights lawyer that hunters unequivocally qualify for legal protection under the UK Equality Act 2010."
Comments
If people are upset by the dogs being put down and they blame the owners, then we should change things.
Put down the owners, and put the dog into jail.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/cy84x7rrppno
*chuckles contentedly*
For betting purposes - and this should be obvious on a betting forum but many posters seem to be unaware of it - public information is useless. Everyone can see Harris going up in the polls. That is reflected in the pricing. People with more money, more data, and faster data feeds than you are betting into the market.
Either you think the polls are essentially correct-in which case you have no bet because the line is efficient. Or you think they are wrong in which case a bet on Trump is correct. There is no scenario where a bet on Harris makes sense.
Betting on centrist candidates is a very, very bad strategy in recent electoral history. They either under-perform polls or meet expectations at best.
"There is nothing to hide and it is not a stigma. We were trying to help him get better before and trying to protect him, which is why we said nothing.
"This is the time now to share the news, however horrible it is. We've wanted to be able to talk and share and we'd now like to raise awareness, too."..
Awful news. Retired pro cricketers have a suicide rate way above the normal, and no one has quite explained it
I bet on Harris because I wanted to find out if the automated betting machines in the shops would allow that and if I could use them. If, after some research I will pretend is thorough, I think she will win, I will bet on her in the belief that she will win and I can profit thereby
Not everybody does value betting.
If a market is efficient, it doesn't make foe a bad bet. The odds are more a less a tossup at present but clearly all the momentum is with Harris/Walz over low energy Don.
Moreover, you can be ahead of the “markets” if you have personal insight of some kind
It's a comparatively small population - and there are no reliable figures for (eg) Indian cricketers.
The odds are around evens, and I think she'll win.
"betting on centrist candidate is a very bad strategy in recent history" is more of a rhetorical point than a convincing argument.
Plus, clever people who start down the rabbit hole are clever enough to keep justifying what they're doing... to themselves, anyway.
Haley was a centrist candidate this year, neither Trump nor Harris are centrists
“Cricket has an alarming suicide rate.
Among international players for England and several other countries it is far above the national average for all sports: and there have been numerous instances at other levels of the game.
For thirty years, celebrated cricket author David Frith has collected data on this sad subject. Silence of the Heart is his compelling account of over a hundred cricketers - involving top names from the past hundred years - who have taken their own lives, with an explanation of factors that led to their premature deaths.”
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Silence-Heart-Suicides-David-Frith/dp/184018406X?dplnkId=5b089ac0-ffd1-4097-9c12-8efcbcfb82df&nodl=1
It's perfectly rational to target 1 audience in the primary and move more centralist in the actual election - the whole point of the primary is to win the primary and that may require making promises to voters that don't last.
I haven't seen any evidence he cares about Putin or Ukraine as it is from his view just a white Christian v white Christian war. The Times article also just said MI5 was looking to see if any Russian funding not that it had any proof of any. There may be but not at the moment
As we muse about seemingly intractable issues such as health, education, housing and the like amidst the backdrop of a war in Europe, just a reminder 50 years ago we were in the midst of the Cyprus crisis with the second Turkish advance into the Cypriot interior imminent amidst the birth of a new "state", albeit one recognised only by Turkey.
50 years on and the division of the island of Cyprus seems as permanent as the division of Germany once did so perhaps there is a glimmer of hope.
Incidentally, I had a more honest version a few months back. I was running past the local playing fields (where dogs are banned...) when an ugly f***er of a dog comes across the grass and goes at me. It's unfit owner runs after it, then says: "It's just trying to protect me."
FOAD mate, FOAD.
But then I took the pet pill and realised how awful it is: once you step away and examine it objectively. We enslave these creatures for our entertainment, and they wreck the natural environment. It’s not popular to say this, no big political party will avow it - yet - but one day we will look back on pet ownership with horror and perplexity
I do still get my buzz out of animals. I adopt stray animals on my travels. Usually hard up quirky street cats, or occasionally dogs. I had one when I “lived” in Tbilisi for a month. A stray cat. We adopted each other, I let him eat my scraps, he kept less pleasant animals away, we sunbathed on my tiny balcony together
He was cool
"City Eye: Facts on a plate: our population is at least 77 million
Martin Baker
Sunday 28 October 2007"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/city-eye-facts-on-a-plate-our-population-is-at-least-77-million-5328454.html
But as a statistical study, it's close to worthless. What population group has received a comparable scrutiny over the course of the 20th C (the book being published in 2001) ?
It does contain perhaps the most briefly eloquent suicide note ever penned.
"Dear Mackenzie, I am off to another sphere via the small bat-drying room. Better call in a policeman to do the investigating."
It's also better at assessing probabilities than you are.
She said James had picked up the knuckle duster at a property he had previously worked on, and left it in his van, from where he had picked it up and then put it on before the protest.
“He put it on his fingers and couldn’t get it off,” Ms Brownlow told the court.
In his head, Robinson may be a brave knight standing up for England. The question is whether he is a knight... but just in the sense of being another piece in someone else's chess game.
(I've nicked that metaphor from somewhere, but I can't for the life of me think where.)
Footballers are more used to having time away from the game (train a few hours a day, then the rest is up to you).
You go from that to relative obscurity and swift decline. If you’re lucky you become a commentator or a coach. More likely you buy a pub and become an alcoholic
It would be interesting - if bleak - to see the stats on post-retirement depression and suicide in all pro sports
I remember the number of people on here trying to predict the 2024 election in 2019 and getting it completely wrong, or the people now trying to read the tea leaves about who will edge an incredibly tight race in America in three months despite the abundant evidence that polls often change a lot and don't predict the final result very well anyway.
The cricket study seems to fit into that pattern very well.
https://x.com/joshtpm/status/1822839873281118279
Oh, and "cheater".
1. It is too early given most Americans do not pay attention to the election until post-Labor Day;
2. She is enjoying an honeymoon period where she is being portrayed as the greatest thing ever which won't last;
3. Her faults are still very much there;
4. Americans are not feeling great economically and that is likely to get worse not better;
5. We haven't had the convention out of the way and, far from uniting the party, the progressives smell blood because they felt they stopped Shapiro as the VP pick and now want more. Already, Harris is being portrayed as too pro-corporate.
There is too much going. If I was going to do one trade at the moment, it would be to short Harris on Betfair and then look to exit when her bubble bursts.
On the issue of probabilities you may have a point. Cats are the strangest creatures and they do sometimes seem to possess an eerie wisdom. The Egyptians worshipped them for a reason. They also bred them solely for the purpose of having them killed and mummified and entombed in the great underground cat city of Bubastis
Highlights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On-C40bzM18
When the likes of Thorpe was playing, even ECB central contracts were rare and the players mostly earned five figures a year. Today’s top players, by contrast, are all millionaires several times over.
In picture terms, given it's just been the Olympics, coming round the final bend the lithe youngster has closed in on the fat gasping old geezer out front and is now perched on his shoulder. They're about level but it's not a 50/50 for the gold.
I'm just sceptical that the numbers are widely at odds with the general population.
And his daughter's brave statement suggests, suicide has long been socially stigmatised, and that remains the case - which means that it's likely much underreported.
The possible suicide deaths of public figures are considerably more likely to be reported (see also a number of recent examples in rugby) than is the case for those not in the public eye.
“A study published in April estimated that UK cats kill 160 to 270 million animals annually, a quarter of them birds. The real figure is likely to be even higher, as the study used the 2011 pet cat population of 9.5 million; it is now closer to 12 million”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/14/cats-kill-birds-wildlife-keep-indoors
That could be fifty MILLION wild birds, killed for no reason every year. And we wonder why our birdlife is collapsing
And this is happening around the world
I don’t see how anyone of good conscience can keep a cat. Indeed, you can’t. If you’ve got a cat you’re a selfish twat
Try here for a quick set of links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Opinion_polling_for_United_Kingdom_elections
The idea of Sport was developed in English public schools as an adjunct to a balanced life. Professionalism was its antithesis and stigmatised as such for generations. At length the battle was lost: first cricket, then football, rugby, tennis and finally the Olympics. 'Fame is the spur that the clear spirit doth raise'. Who in the right mind would wish to be famous today?
'Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis holds a roughly 10-point lead over George Bush, besting the Republican vice president in every region but the South, according to a poll released Thursday..A regional breakdown of the on-going Times Mirror survey showed Dukakis holding a 49-41 percent lead over Bush in the East, a 47-37 percent edge in the Midwest and a 49-39 percent lead in the West. In the South, Bush -- before the addition of Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen to the Democratic ticket -- held a 47-40 percent lead over Dukakis...in states that have voted Republican in each of the last five elections, Dukakis currently holds a 49-41 percent lead over Bush. Among states that have gone Republican in four of the last five, the Dukakis margin is 50-40 percent. It is 51 percent to 41 percent in states that went to the GOP in three of the last five elections and grows to 56-35 percent in Democratic-leaning states that have voted Republican only twice in the last five outings.'
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1988/08/04/Poll-Dukakis-holds-10-point-lead-over-Bush/6044586670400/
My betting position at this point is zero, which should have been obvious from the points I made. It is too early to bet given the changing circumstances and that we are quite far out.
If you want my view on Harris' chances, I think they are overblown - she is the VP in an environment where the US consumer is feeling worse. You don't have to take my word for it, listen to the comments from US companies in their Q2 conference calls. It is a lot more cautious on the consumer and they are starting to see the effects in their results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
(on a serious note, I think it shows just how emotionally invested many people are on this site re the US election and how it may be warping their views. I always found Peter_the_Punter's posts usually amongst the most well argued on betting issues).
Just not a loon.
Dogs are not much better. Roving hounds, off the lead, deter birds from breeding. In fact their very presence, even on a lead, has a serious impact.
If you need a pet, buy a hamster. Or a goldfish.
Even in "normal" years there's a paucity of polling in August.
There will be polling on the Conservative leadership election when anyone can be bothered to a) do the polling or b) care who the new Tory leader is going to be.
As far as recent events are concerned, I suspect it'll be analogous to the 2000 fuel crisis which had, albeit momentarily, the Conservatives under Hague in front but when life returned to what passed for normal so did the Labour leads.
I've often thought that people would be better off without me, and thankfully I don't feel that bad at the moment.
It really can affect anyone.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/aug/12/graham-thorpes-wife-reveals-former-england-cricketer-killed-himself
Donald Trump? Not so much. (Although the CIA no doubt have a chunky dossier on him.)
I remember reading about a "cat lady" who moved to the Western Isles with her tribe of felines. Did for the local population of corncrakes.
Every cat owner convinces themselves that “their” cat is different. It’s absurd
LOOK AT THE STATS
And last night on springwatch (on catch up) they reported new science that says veterinary treatments for cats and dogs (for ticks etc) which are leaching into the water system are killing billions of insects, and crashing the entire UK ecosystem
How can this possibly be justifiable merely because some selfish dorks want an enslaved animal in the house because it’s “delightful”
Ugh
There will also be plenty of athletes returning from Paris today, who will shortly lose their lottery funding and have to go back to being amateurs. It’s not an easy transition back to civilian life from there, they’ll often need to retrain themselves for an alternative career.
It’s actually one way that American sports work well, by getting the athletes through some sort of academic qualification before turning professional as graduates.
The solution is GET RID OF YOUR PETS
Someone on here (Ishmael, I think) once posted that he'd had both stage 4 cancer and clinical depression and it was no contest which was the bigger ordeal - the depression.
"A pro-foxhunting group says it has prepared a legal case to try to prove that hunters are an ethnic minority whose hunts should be protected under equality laws.
"Ed Swales, the chair of Hunting Kind, claims he has been advised by a leading human rights lawyer that hunters unequivocally qualify for legal protection under the UK Equality Act 2010."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/12/pro-foxhunting-group-says-uk-hunters-protected-ethnic-minority