I had thought 3/1 on the Tories was good value, but changed my mind after Thursday's results. Neither of these potential candidates look much more than typical A-lister - certainly not in the Sarah Wollaston league. I'd be amazed if UKIP don't win.
Agreed, Thomas, that the candidates look nothing special, but I did take that into account when I suggested 3/1 was the value.
I've just got some free bets at Bet365 I need to use up.
They have this bizarre thing, you have use up free bet winnings via two further bets before you can transfer the money into your bank account.
You mean it was value because it won you money? That's not the same thing.
It was highly unlikely to be value to lay the rag that took the lead back to a bookie in the World Cup, and probably not on Betfair either. I am not trying to rub you down, I am trying to help you out
That just auto-lays for you to square off your position.
By the way, it's simply not the case that betfair is the best option on these liquid markets. With 5% commission you're nearly always better off taking the bookie's price, provided they are top price.
e.g. on Germany - ROI, the "best bookie" price equates to a 100.2% book. Betfair's back prices, with 5% commission, represent a 102.7% book.
If you must cash out (generally you shouldn't) then betfair may be the best option at that point - but again, you may do better looking for best price elsewhere on the other two selections (or on Double Chance).
If you only want to use one firm (why would you do that?) then betfair is probably the best option, provided you're sticking to the highly liquid stuff (TV matches etc.)
If you can get on with every bookie, and they let you play at better prices than Betfair then yes
Then your account gets closed
Doesn't have to be a better price than betfair. The betfair price itself will do. Paddys & Coral aren't going to close you for taking 1/4 Germany when it's 1.24-1.25 on the fair.
Christopher Chope MP.....wants 2/3rds majority for Scots to leave the UK.....smart Labour MP asks if he agrees with same criterion for leaving the EU.......(short answer 'no')
That just auto-lays for you to square off your position.
By the way, it's simply not the case that betfair is the best option on these liquid markets. With 5% commission you're nearly always better off taking the bookie's price, provided they are top price.
e.g. on Germany - ROI, the "best bookie" price equates to a 100.2% book. Betfair's back prices, with 5% commission, represent a 102.7% book.
If you must cash out (generally you shouldn't) then betfair may be the best option at that point - but again, you may do better looking for best price elsewhere on the other two selections (or on Double Chance).
If you only want to use one firm (why would you do that?) then betfair is probably the best option, provided you're sticking to the highly liquid stuff (TV matches etc.)
If you can get on with every bookie, and they let you play at better prices than Betfair then yes
Then your account gets closed
Double chance is the biggest overround in history isn't it?
Double chance is the "other side" of the win prices. Ironically as win margins have been driven down Double Chance has generally got worse. But never mind the over-round, look at the individual prices. It's quite possible (and quite frequent when it comes to political betting) to find a value bet even amongst e.g. a 140% book over 8 runners.
That just auto-lays for you to square off your position.
By the way, it's simply not the case that betfair is the best option on these liquid markets. With 5% commission you're nearly always better off taking the bookie's price, provided they are top price.
e.g. on Germany - ROI, the "best bookie" price equates to a 100.2% book. Betfair's back prices, with 5% commission, represent a 102.7% book.
If you must cash out (generally you shouldn't) then betfair may be the best option at that point - but again, you may do better looking for best price elsewhere on the other two selections (or on Double Chance).
If you only want to use one firm (why would you do that?) then betfair is probably the best option, provided you're sticking to the highly liquid stuff (TV matches etc.)
If you can get on with every bookie, and they let you play at better prices than Betfair then yes
Then your account gets closed
Double chance is the biggest overround in history isn't it?
Double chance is the "other side" of the win prices. Ironically as win margins have been driven down Double Chance has generally got worse. But never mind the over-round, look at the individual prices. It's quite possible (and quite frequent when it comes to political betting) to find a value bet even amongst e.g. a 140% book over 8 runners.
I know what double chance is.. its a way of getting a 116% book on a football match where the 12X is 108%
Actually I disagree with your original comment about getting out with bookmakers in running re over round
If you get out with them you have to have two bets ( backing the two results you didn't back pre off)
I cant believe that is more effective than laying your original bet on Betfair even if you shop around every bookie, disregarding the time it takes, and the ability to get on
Re political bets ands a 140% book, didn't this convo start because you didn't like betting into Shadsys 120% book on R&S UKIP %?
That just auto-lays for you to square off your position.
By the way, it's simply not the case that betfair is the best option on these liquid markets. With 5% commission you're nearly always better off taking the bookie's price, provided they are top price.
e.g. on Germany - ROI, the "best bookie" price equates to a 100.2% book. Betfair's back prices, with 5% commission, represent a 102.7% book.
If you must cash out (generally you shouldn't) then betfair may be the best option at that point - but again, you may do better looking for best price elsewhere on the other two selections (or on Double Chance).
If you only want to use one firm (why would you do that?) then betfair is probably the best option, provided you're sticking to the highly liquid stuff (TV matches etc.)
If you can get on with every bookie, and they let you play at better prices than Betfair then yes
Then your account gets closed
Doesn't have to be a better price than betfair. The betfair price itself will do. Paddys & Coral aren't going to close you for taking 1/4 Germany when it's 1.24-1.25 on the fair.
Betting shops are no more than a fence for the FOBT's now... all the staff I have spoken to recently openly admit it
The issue has been raised at PMQ's by Ed M.
I would add for those reading that I believe there are a max. four per shop.
Betting shops were a great innovation when they were first legalised. They regularised an uncontrolled industry and took bookies off the street corner and out of the hands of criminals.
Now they serve only as a refuge for the poor and lonely. There are better ways of helping them.
If the bookies don't want to go back to their traditional role, the shops should be closed down, and the FOBTs should be restricted to private clubs and subject to strict licencing conditions.
when you can simply get 3/1 or bigger on the Tories?
The tories would survive a defeat, but how about UKIP?
For a start, a defeat would be a shock.
Good post. It's true: there might be gnashing of teeth but the Tories will survive a defeat.
UKIP could be derailed by one.
By the same token, a Conservative win would actually be strangely anti-climactic and signify very little for them for the GE.
Disagree. A Tory victory would get the centre-right media back onside, enthuse the activist base and probably herald Tory most seats I think. Especially as Labour would be nowhere in a seat they held not so long ago.
The Daily Mail/Sun will be gushing, utterly fawning over Dave and co if they win. It will be sick bags at the ready.
Betting shops are no more than a fence for the FOBT's now... all the staff I have spoken to recently openly admit it
The issue has been raised at PMQ's by Ed M.
I would add for those reading that I believe there are a max. four per shop.
Betting shops were a great innovation when they were first legalised. They regularised an uncontrolled industry and took bookies off the street corner and out of the hands of criminals.
Now they serve only as a refuge for the poor and lonely. There are better ways of helping them.
If the bookies don't want to go back to their traditional role, the shops should be closed down, and the FOBTs should be restricted to private clubs and subject to strict licencing conditions.
Gordon Brown in the commons today " You cannot have unity in the UK if you have two classes of MP's" I've got news for him,.We already have two classes.English Mp's can't vote on many Sottish matter.
"Schools at the centre of the Trojan Horse scandal are still promoting an “unbalanced curriculum” and segregating boys and girls in the classroom, according to Ofsted.
The education watchdog said "very little action" had been taken to address major failings at five Birmingham schools suspected of being subjected to an alleged takeover plot by hard-line Muslims
This includes an example of one school that requires pupils to teach themselves about any faith other than Islam, including Christianity. At another, a supply teacher taught a religious education lesson that "appeared to promote an inappropriate Islamist agenda".
I know what double chance is.. its a way of getting a 116% book on a football match where the 12X is 108%
Actually I disagree with your original comment about getting out with bookmakers in running re over round
If you get out with them you have to have two bets ( backing the two results you didn't back pre off)
I cant believe that is more effective than laying your original bet on Betfair even if you shop around every bookie, disregarding the time it takes, and the ability to get on
Re political bets ands a 140% book, didn't this convo start because you didn't like betting into Shadsys 120% book on R&S UKIP %?
It's not a 116% book, it's a 216% book with 2 winners - which works out as much the same thing as 108%. The reason it's so lucrative for bookies is the number of punters who are prepared to take 1/50 on "Chelsea & Draw" [mostly in accas, though there are some chunky singles] when Sunderland are 16/1.
As for cash out with the bookies, the catch isn't so much in the offer (which is generally the current "other side"), it's that you're constricted to the same bookie you placed the original (hopefully value) bet with.
So yeah, betfair is probably the best option if you want to keep things simple. However, you're unlikely to beat betfair long-term on the high-profile stuff as there are plenty of very smart operators (and their bots) playing those markets. The exception perhaps being cricket (especially Tests) as it's notoriously warped by subcontinental bookies.
Re Shadsy's 120% book - I don't want to bet into that because it looks about right.
I'm intrigued about the language of Cameron's letter to the people of Rochester
Nigel Farage and Mark Reckless want to turn this election into a national media circus – we want it to be about you and what you want for the future of this area.
The decision is in your hands. There’s no stunts or backroom deals, just a strong local candidate you can trust.
And then he repeats
No stunts: just a strong local candidate you can trust.
Putting aside the roll on the floor laughing at such irony, does that mean the media circus of Shapps and his Roadkill 2015 Roadshow are not going to be in town?
Did I also read that Tory MP's are not being required to take a mandatory number of trips to Rochester because CCHQ believes people are sufficiently fired up to get down there in sufficient numbers under their own motivation.
Remember this isn't Newark in May/ June but Rochester in a cold damp October / November and we've just had Clacton & Heywood as well where the Tories did really poorly?
It will be interesting to see exactly what sort of response the Tories offer.
I've just got some free bets at Bet365 I need to use up.
They have this bizarre thing, you have use up free bet winnings via two further bets before you can transfer the money into your bank account.
Back in the day when you could make a few bob from it, I did bonus bagging at the online casinos by playing basically a million hands of blackjack lol. They put these rules in so you can't just bet on one easy bet and cash out the bonus for profit.
If you want to get a strange look had into a high street bookie and try and place a bet on politics other than the next General Election result.
And allow twenty minutes for it while they try to read and make sense of the slip, look for it on their screens, search for Head Office's number when they cannot find it on said screens, wait until Head Office finds somebody with sufficient authority to give them the all clear, and finally give you the bet in a lesser amount than the one you asked for.
Mr. H, I quite agree. Labour, including Brown, are quite happy for an unbalanced pro-Scottish devolution, but a balanced and fair one for England is 'putting the union at risk'.
I know what double chance is.. its a way of getting a 116% book on a football match where the 12X is 108%
Actually I disagree with your original comment about getting out with bookmakers in running re over round
If you get out with them you have to have two bets ( backing the two results you didn't back pre off)
I cant believe that is more effective than laying your original bet on Betfair even if you shop around every bookie, disregarding the time it takes, and the ability to get on
Re political bets ands a 140% book, didn't this convo start because you didn't like betting into Shadsys 120% book on R&S UKIP %?
It's not a 116% book, it's a 216% book with 2 winners - which works out as much the same thing as 108%. The reason it's so lucrative for bookies is the number of punters who are prepared to take 1/50 on "Chelsea & Draw" [mostly in accas, though there are some chunky singles] when Sunderland are 16/1.
As for cash out with the bookies, the catch isn't so much in the offer (which is generally the current "other side"), it's that you're constricted to the same bookie you placed the original (hopefully value) bet with.
So yeah, betfair is probably the best option if you want to keep things simple. However, you're unlikely to beat betfair long-term on the high-profile stuff as there are plenty of very smart operators (and their bots) playing those markets. The exception perhaps being cricket (especially Tests) as it's notoriously warped by subcontinental bookies.
Re Shadsy's 120% book - I don't want to bet into that because it looks about right.
Random Match on b365
Finland vs Romania
Finland 13/8 Draw 21/10 Romania 21/10
Finland or Draw 2/5 Draw or Romania 1/2 Finland or Romania 2/5
In each case you would be better off backing the two options individually, and that's with the same bookmaker!! Why on earth would anyone ever do it?
Same applies for Denmark vs Portugal. You end up giving away 1-2% per bet
I've just got some free bets at Bet365 I need to use up.
They have this bizarre thing, you have use up free bet winnings via two further bets before you can transfer the money into your bank account.
Back in the day when you could make a few bob from it, I did bonus bagging at the online casinos by playing basically a million hands of blackjack lol. They put these rules in so you can't just bet on one easy bet and cash out the bonus for profit.
I did that, made a few hundred quid iirc.
Nowadays Blackjack is normally excluded from the offer or if it is in you need to gamble 30* stake where 1 hand of Blackjack is worth 1/5 of it's actual value leading to such crazy requirements that the house edge will have taken your bonus and then some before you can cash out.
Gordon Brown in the commons today " You cannot have unity in the UK if you have two classes of MP's" I've got news for him,.We already have two classes.English Mp's can't vote on many Sottish matter.
I've just got some free bets at Bet365 I need to use up.
They have this bizarre thing, you have use up free bet winnings via two further bets before you can transfer the money into your bank account.
Back in the day when you could make a few bob from it, I did bonus bagging at the online casinos by playing basically a million hands of blackjack lol. They put these rules in so you can't just bet on one easy bet and cash out the bonus for profit.
I did that, made a few hundred quid iirc.
Nowadays Blackjack is normally excluded from the offer or if it is in you need to gamble 30* stake where 1 hand of Blackjack is worth 1/5 of it's actual value leading to such crazy requirements that the house edge will have taken your bonus and then some before you can cash out.
I made several thousand (paid for all the beer at uni!), but I did basically every offer under the sun. God only know who has a scan of my drivers license at this point!!
when you can simply get 3/1 or bigger on the Tories?
The tories would survive a defeat, but how about UKIP?
For a start, a defeat would be a shock.
Good post. It's true: there might be gnashing of teeth but the Tories will survive a defeat.
UKIP could be derailed by one.
By the same token, a Conservative win would actually be strangely anti-climactic and signify very little for them for the GE.
Disagree. A Tory victory would get the centre-right media back onside, enthuse the activist base and probably herald Tory most seats I think. Especially as Labour would be nowhere in a seat they held not so long ago.
The Daily Mail/Sun will be gushing, utterly fawning over Dave and co if they win. It will be sick bags at the ready.
I think there would be a lot of talk from opponents about them just hanging on in their own seat etc.
I don't know: I think we might be over-playing the importance of this. As Kentman unwittingly points out below, we're talking about a late November by election. There will be a lot of 'meh' outside the constituency I fancy.
I know what double chance is.. its a way of getting a 116% book on a football match where the 12X is 108%
Actually I disagree with your original comment about getting out with bookmakers in running re over round
If you get out with them you have to have two bets ( backing the two results you didn't back pre off)
I cant believe that is more effective than laying your original bet on Betfair even if you shop around every bookie, disregarding the time it takes, and the ability to get on
Re political bets ands a 140% book, didn't this convo start because you didn't like betting into Shadsys 120% book on R&S UKIP %?
It's not a 116% book, it's a 216% book with 2 winners - which works out as much the same thing as 108%. The reason it's so lucrative for bookies is the number of punters who are prepared to take 1/50 on "Chelsea & Draw" [mostly in accas, though there are some chunky singles] when Sunderland are 16/1.
As for cash out with the bookies, the catch isn't so much in the offer (which is generally the current "other side"), it's that you're constricted to the same bookie you placed the original (hopefully value) bet with.
So yeah, betfair is probably the best option if you want to keep things simple. However, you're unlikely to beat betfair long-term on the high-profile stuff as there are plenty of very smart operators (and their bots) playing those markets. The exception perhaps being cricket (especially Tests) as it's notoriously warped by subcontinental bookies.
Re Shadsy's 120% book - I don't want to bet into that because it looks about right.
Random Match on b365
Finland vs Romania
Finland 13/8 Draw 21/10 Romania 21/10
Finland or Draw 2/5 Draw or Romania 1/2 Finland or Romania 2/5
In each case you would be better off backing the two options individually, and that's with the same bookmaker!! Why on earth would anyone ever do it?
Same applies for Denmark vs Portugal. You end up giving away 1-2 per bet%
I'm not good enough at my numbers to understand Exactly what you are saying.
However, me and my mate (@misulovins, twitter, a Latvian basketball sports agent) have ended up with an even book on one of our accounts because we were betting in different ways. It certainly wasn't morally wrong.
Gordon Brown in the commons today " You cannot have unity in the UK if you have two classes of MP's" I've got news for him,.We already have two classes.English Mp's can't vote on many Sottish matter.
Neither can Scottish MPs.
Indeed. The actual two classes of MPs are those that have responsibility for devolved matters for their constituents, and those that do not.
Anyway. Gordon Brown can #### off. As a Scot for a Scottish seat, his views on devolution to England are no more relevant than an Australian's.
I know what double chance is.. its a way of getting a 116% book on a football match where the 12X is 108%
Actually I disagree with your original comment about getting out with bookmakers in running re over round
If you get out with them you have to have two bets ( backing the two results you didn't back pre off)
I cant believe that is more effective than laying your original bet on Betfair even if you shop around every bookie, disregarding the time it takes, and the ability to get on
Re political bets ands a 140% book, didn't this convo start because you didn't like betting into Shadsys 120% book on R&S UKIP %?
It's not a 116% book, it's a 216% book with 2 winners - which works out as much the same thing as 108%. The reason it's so lucrative for bookies is the number of punters who are prepared to take 1/50 on "Chelsea & Draw" [mostly in accas, though there are some chunky singles] when Sunderland are 16/1.
As for cash out with the bookies, the catch isn't so much in the offer (which is generally the current "other side"), it's that you're constricted to the same bookie you placed the original (hopefully value) bet with.
So yeah, betfair is probably the best option if you want to keep things simple. However, you're unlikely to beat betfair long-term on the high-profile stuff as there are plenty of very smart operators (and their bots) playing those markets. The exception perhaps being cricket (especially Tests) as it's notoriously warped by subcontinental bookies.
Re Shadsy's 120% book - I don't want to bet into that because it looks about right.
Random Match on b365
Finland vs Romania
Finland 13/8 Draw 21/10 Romania 21/10
Finland or Draw 2/5 Draw or Romania 1/2 Finland or Romania 2/5
In each case you would be better off backing the two options individually, and that's with the same bookmaker!! Why on earth would anyone ever do it?
Same applies for Denmark vs Portugal. You end up giving away 1-2 per bet%
I'm not good enough at my numbers to understand Exactly what you are saying.
However, my and my mate (@misulovins, twitter, a Latvian basketball sports agent) have ended up with an even book on one of our accounts because we were betting in different ways. It certainly wasn't morally wrong.
Basically if you have £38.1 on Finland and £32.26 on the draw you lay out £70.36 and if either cops, you return £100
If you take their "Finland or draw" price you have to bet £71.43 to return £100
In most shops if you buy more than one you get a discount, but here you pay more!
Its like going into the off licence and buying a bottle of wine for £4.99, but if you buy two they charge you £11!
"Schools at the centre of the Trojan Horse scandal are still promoting an “unbalanced curriculum” and segregating boys and girls in the classroom, according to Ofsted.
The education watchdog said "very little action" had been taken to address major failings at five Birmingham schools suspected of being subjected to an alleged takeover plot by hard-line Muslims
This includes an example of one school that requires pupils to teach themselves about any faith other than Islam, including Christianity. At another, a supply teacher taught a religious education lesson that "appeared to promote an inappropriate Islamist agenda".
I know what double chance is.. its a way of getting a 116% book on a football match where the 12X is 108%
Actually I disagree with your original comment about getting out with bookmakers in running re over round
If you get out with them you have to have two bets ( backing the two results you didn't back pre off)
I cant believe that is more effective than laying your original bet on Betfair even if you shop around every bookie, disregarding the time it takes, and the ability to get on
Re political bets ands a 140% book, didn't this convo start because you didn't like betting into Shadsys 120% book on R&S UKIP %?
It's not a 116% book, it's a 216% book with 2 winners - which works out as much the same thing as 108%. The reason it's so lucrative for bookies is the number of punters who are prepared to take 1/50 on "Chelsea & Draw" [mostly in accas, though there are some chunky singles] when Sunderland are 16/1.
As for cash out with the bookies, the catch isn't so much in the offer (which is generally the current "other side"), it's that you're constricted to the same bookie you placed the original (hopefully value) bet with.
So yeah, betfair is probably the best option if you want to keep things simple. However, you're unlikely to beat betfair long-term on the high-profile stuff as there are plenty of very smart operators (and their bots) playing those markets. The exception perhaps being cricket (especially Tests) as it's notoriously warped by subcontinental bookies.
Re Shadsy's 120% book - I don't want to bet into that because it looks about right.
Random Match on b365
Finland vs Romania
Finland 13/8 Draw 21/10 Romania 21/10
Finland or Draw 2/5 Draw or Romania 1/2 Finland or Romania 2/5
In each case you would be better off backing the two options individually, and that's with the same bookmaker!! Why on earth would anyone ever do it?
Same applies for Denmark vs Portugal. You end up giving away 1-2% per bet
That's a consequence of the way it's been implemented [simply taking the "other side" of a price] and the fact that the match book is so competitive [102.6%, better than betfair once you allow for commission].
If you find a higher-margin match e.g. Birmingham v Bolton (106.1%) the double chance (206.3%) can work out as a better bet than backing the two individually.
when you can simply get 3/1 or bigger on the Tories?
The tories would survive a defeat, but how about UKIP?
For a start, a defeat would be a shock.
Good post. It's true: there might be gnashing of teeth but the Tories will survive a defeat.
UKIP could be derailed by one.
By the same token, a Conservative win would actually be strangely anti-climactic and signify very little for them for the GE.
Disagree. A Tory victory would get the centre-right media back onside, enthuse the activist base and probably herald Tory most seats I think. Especially as Labour would be nowhere in a seat they held not so long ago.
The Daily Mail/Sun will be gushing, utterly fawning over Dave and co if they win. It will be sick bags at the ready.
I think there would be a lot of talk from opponents about them just hanging on in their own seat etc.
I don't know: I think we might be over-playing the importance of this. As Kentman unwittingly points out below, we're talking about a late November by election. There will be a lot of 'meh' outside the constituency I fancy.
Come off it. I can't remember a more fascinating by-election since the days of the big SDP gains.
Gordon Brown in the commons today " You cannot have unity in the UK if you have two classes of MP's" I've got news for him,.We already have two classes.English Mp's can't vote on many Sottish matter.
Neither can Scottish MPs.
Indeed. The actual two classes of MPs are those that have responsibility for devolved matters for their constituents, and those that do not.
Anyway. Gordon Brown can #### off. As a Scot for a Scottish seat, his views on devolution to England are no more relevant than an Australian's.
As a member of the UK Parliament (not to mention former Prime Minister) Gordon Brown's views are probably, oooh, infinitely more relevant than yours.
In fact, is there a number even bigger than infinity? The number of times a day Socrates gets scared and angry about muslims and immigrants perhaps?
So far, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), which produces about 40% of the world's crude oil, has shown no signs of reducing supply.
Gordon Brown in the commons today " You cannot have unity in the UK if you have two classes of MP's" I've got news for him,.We already have two classes.English Mp's can't vote on many Sottish matter.
Neither can Scottish MPs.
Indeed. The actual two classes of MPs are those that have responsibility for devolved matters for their constituents, and those that do not.
Anyway. Gordon Brown can #### off. As a Scot for a Scottish seat, his views on devolution to England are no more relevant than an Australian's.
As a member of the UK Parliament (not to mention former Prime Minister) Gordon Brown's views are probably, oooh, infinitely more relevant than yours.
In fact, is there a number even bigger than infinity? The number of times a day Socrates gets scared and angry about muslims and immigrants perhaps?
Got time on my hands now, so logged back into PB. Most disappointed to find that the posts on a betting site are now about betting! Where have all the extreme political rants gone?
I know what double chance is.. its a way of getting a 116% book on a football match where the 12X is 108%
Actually I disagree with your original comment about getting out with bookmakers in running re over round
If you get out with them you have to have two bets ( backing the two results you didn't back pre off)
I cant believe that is more effective than laying your original bet on Betfair even if you shop around every bookie, disregarding the time it takes, and the ability to get on
Re political bets ands a 140% book, didn't this convo start because you didn't like betting into Shadsys 120% book on R&S UKIP %?
It's not a 116% book, it's a 216% book with 2 winners - which works out as much the same thing as 108%. The reason it's so lucrative for bookies is the number of punters who are prepared to take 1/50 on "Chelsea & Draw" [mostly in accas, though there are some chunky singles] when Sunderland are 16/1.
As for cash out with the bookies, the catch isn't so much in the offer (which is generally the current "other side"), it's that you're constricted to the same bookie you placed the original (hopefully value) bet with.
So yeah, betfair is probably the best option if you want to keep things simple. However, you're unlikely to beat betfair long-term on the high-profile stuff as there are plenty of very smart operators (and their bots) playing those markets. The exception perhaps being cricket (especially Tests) as it's notoriously warped by subcontinental bookies.
Re Shadsy's 120% book - I don't want to bet into that because it looks about right.
Random Match on b365
Finland vs Romania
Finland 13/8 Draw 21/10 Romania 21/10
Finland or Draw 2/5 Draw or Romania 1/2 Finland or Romania 2/5
In each case you would be better off backing the two options individually, and that's with the same bookmaker!! Why on earth would anyone ever do it?
Same applies for Denmark vs Portugal. You end up giving away 1-2% per bet
That's a consequence of the way it's been implemented [simply taking the "other side" of a price] and the fact that the match book is so competitive [102.6%, better than betfair once you allow for commission].
If you find a higher-margin match e.g. Birmingham v Bolton (106.1%) the double chance (206.3%) can work out as a better bet than backing the two individually.
But Betfair odds on Birmingham vs Bolton are better than Bet 365s so you might as well back both there.. or even better lay the other side!
when you can simply get 3/1 or bigger on the Tories?
The tories would survive a defeat, but how about UKIP?
For a start, a defeat would be a shock.
Good post. It's true: there might be gnashing of teeth but the Tories will survive a defeat.
UKIP could be derailed by one.
By the same token, a Conservative win would actually be strangely anti-climactic and signify very little for them for the GE.
Disagree. A Tory victory would get the centre-right media back onside, enthuse the activist base and probably herald Tory most seats I think. Especially as Labour would be nowhere in a seat they held not so long ago.
The Daily Mail/Sun will be gushing, utterly fawning over Dave and co if they win. It will be sick bags at the ready.
I think there would be a lot of talk from opponents about them just hanging on in their own seat etc.
I don't know: I think we might be over-playing the importance of this. As Kentman unwittingly points out below, we're talking about a late November by election. There will be a lot of 'meh' outside the constituency I fancy.
Come off it. I can't remember a more fascinating by-election since the days of the big SDP gains.
That's not quite what I meant. It's fascinating to me too. I may even stay up if the result is close, which I've never done for a by election. It is indeed fascinating for us on here, and for media politics.
I just don't know how seismic it really is. Not very I suspect. The only result which will seriously affect any party, apart from a Labour win, is if UKIP lose. The Conservatives won't win or lose that much in the long run either way.
when you can simply get 3/1 or bigger on the Tories?
The tories would survive a defeat, but how about UKIP?
For a start, a defeat would be a shock.
Good post. It's true: there might be gnashing of teeth but the Tories will survive a defeat.
UKIP could be derailed by one.
By the same token, a Conservative win would actually be strangely anti-climactic and signify very little for them for the GE.
Disagree. A Tory victory would get the centre-right media back onside, enthuse the activist base and probably herald Tory most seats I think. Especially as Labour would be nowhere in a seat they held not so long ago.
The Daily Mail/Sun will be gushing, utterly fawning over Dave and co if they win. It will be sick bags at the ready.
I think there would be a lot of talk from opponents about them just hanging on in their own seat etc.
I don't know: I think we might be over-playing the importance of this. As Kentman unwittingly points out below, we're talking about a late November by election. There will be a lot of 'meh' outside the constituency I fancy.
Come off it. I can't remember a more fascinating by-election since the days of the big SDP gains.
There are probably about a dozen or so Conservative MPs that are weighing up their chances of saving their seat by crossing over to UKIP.
No doubt they are currently the recipients of the whips' maximum tender loving care, but some may jump ship nevertheless.
Got time on my hands now, so logged back into PB. Most disappointed to find that the posts on a betting site are now about betting! Where have all the extreme political rants gone?
Quite - in response to Isam - your numbers are way too hot for Team casio - but thanks for the data.
So far, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), which produces about 40% of the world's crude oil, has shown no signs of reducing supply.
Squishing the shale producers, with the added effect of dumping Vlad in it.
Mr. Nat, welcome back. Bad luck with the referendum, but, on the bright side (from your perspective) Brown appears to be doing his best to divide the UK by pissing off the English as much as possible.
Mr. Nat, welcome back. Bad luck with the referendum, but, on the bright side (from your perspective) Brown appears to be doing his best to divide the UK by pissing off the English as much as possible.
Brown seems to believe the English are just there for the Scots to rule over...
Anyway, we can solve this concern about two classes of MP by having an English parliament...
when you can simply get 3/1 or bigger on the Tories?
The tories would survive a defeat, but how about UKIP?
For a start, a defeat would be a shock.
Good post. It's true: there might be gnashing of teeth but the Tories will survive a defeat.
UKIP could be derailed by one.
By the same token, a Conservative win would actually be strangely anti-climactic and signify very little for them for the GE.
Disagree. A Tory victory would get the centre-right media back onside, enthuse the activist base and probably herald Tory most seats I think. Especially as Labour would be nowhere in a seat they held not so long ago.
The Daily Mail/Sun will be gushing, utterly fawning over Dave and co if they win. It will be sick bags at the ready.
If you want to be truly cynical The Daily Mail/Sun like to stir up outrage (immigration/ foreign criminals/ muslim terrorists) which helps boost ukip and results in a Labour win at GE2015. Although they might prefer a Tory government, a Labour government would give them 5 years of outrage and in their hopes, a boost to their circulations.
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
when you can simply get 3/1 or bigger on the Tories?
The tories would survive a defeat, but how about UKIP?
For a start, a defeat would be a shock.
Good post. It's true: there might be gnashing of teeth but the Tories will survive a defeat.
UKIP could be derailed by one.
By the same token, a Conservative win would actually be strangely anti-climactic and signify very little for them for the GE.
Disagree. A Tory victory would get the centre-right media back onside, enthuse the activist base and probably herald Tory most seats I think. Especially as Labour would be nowhere in a seat they held not so long ago.
The Daily Mail/Sun will be gushing, utterly fawning over Dave and co if they win. It will be sick bags at the ready.
I think there would be a lot of talk from opponents about them just hanging on in their own seat etc.
I don't know: I think we might be over-playing the importance of this. As Kentman unwittingly points out below, we're talking about a late November by election. There will be a lot of 'meh' outside the constituency I fancy.
Come off it. I can't remember a more fascinating by-election since the days of the big SDP gains.
There are probably about a dozen or so Conservative MPs that are weighing up their chances of saving their seat by crossing over to UKIP.
You've got not one scrap of evidence for that claim: just regurgitating the more fanciful far reaches of kipper tweets which doesn't become you or this site.
Re. the betting point just out of curiosity does anyone on here flutter on the lotto or premium bonds? I know it's not betting, and little different from a roulette wheel, so I'm only asking out of idle curiosity what with that £111m jackpot tonight and all that.
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
when you can simply get 3/1 or bigger on the Tories?
The tories would survive a defeat, but how about UKIP?
For a start, a defeat would be a shock.
Good post. It's true: there might be gnashing of teeth but the Tories will survive a defeat.
UKIP could be derailed by one.
By the same token, a Conservative win would actually be strangely anti-climactic and signify very little for them for the GE.
Disagree. A Tory victory would get the centre-right media back onside, enthuse the activist base and probably herald Tory most seats I think. Especially as Labour would be nowhere in a seat they held not so long ago.
The Daily Mail/Sun will be gushing, utterly fawning over Dave and co if they win. It will be sick bags at the ready.
I think there would be a lot of talk from opponents about them just hanging on in their own seat etc.
I don't know: I think we might be over-playing the importance of this. As Kentman unwittingly points out below, we're talking about a late November by election. There will be a lot of 'meh' outside the constituency I fancy.
Come off it. I can't remember a more fascinating by-election since the days of the big SDP gains.
Rochester is absolutely fascinating.
I agree it's fascinating.
But fascinating and relevant aren't quite the same.
Why postal only? There's nothing like a public meeting to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and any voting can't be frauded, as postal voting invariably is.
It seems to me that resigning your seat and standing for a new party creates several problems for those who want to unseat you. The main one being attacking someone they so recently endorsed. It doesn't work the opposite way -defectors seem to be able to slate their former parties with abandon.
This is a really interesting wiki page of floor crossings (apols if posted already):
I count 4 resignings of the whip and re-standing under different colours in an immediate by-elections now, 3 successful (Carswell, Lady Sylvia Hermon, Dick Taverne), one not (Bruce Douglas-Mann). That's quite a good record now.
However, Lady Hermon didn't stand in an immediate by-election, she was re-elected at the 2010 GE.
Oh, you're right I misread. So it's 2 vs 1 if you include Carswell and 1 vs 1 if not.
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Mr. Nat, welcome back. Bad luck with the referendum, but, on the bright side (from your perspective) Brown appears to be doing his best to divide the UK by pissing off the English as much as possible.
Brown seems to believe the English are just there for the Scots to rule over...
Anyway, we can solve this concern about two classes of MP by having an English parliament...
Quite right. That so many in England obsess over the Imperial Parliament also being the English Parliament, however, is one of those quaint behaviours that we so love about our neighbours.
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
I don't know the poll it refers to, but the article implies not:
those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK
OT. Any betting odds on the next Labour leader? I heard today that Chuka Umunna is gay and following my new theory that Labour should be going out of their way to support minority groups I can only see this as a positive for his and Labour's chances.
The big question is whether it happens before or after the election
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
I don't know the poll it refers to, but the article implies not:
those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK
I modified my post in the meanwhile after realising your second sentence mentioned a different effect to your first and third.
when you can simply get 3/1 or bigger on the Tories?
The tories would survive a defeat, but how about UKIP?
For a start, a defeat would be a shock.
Good post. It's true: there might be gnashing of teeth but the Tories will survive a defeat.
UKIP could be derailed by one.
By the same token, a Conservative win would actually be strangely anti-climactic and signify very little for them for the GE.
Disagree. A Tory victory would get the centre-right media back onside, enthuse the activist base and probably herald Tory most seats I think. Especially as Labour would be nowhere in a seat they held not so long ago.
The Daily Mail/Sun will be gushing, utterly fawning over Dave and co if they win. It will be sick bags at the ready.
I think there would be a lot of talk from opponents about them just hanging on in their own seat etc.
I don't know: I think we might be over-playing the importance of this. As Kentman unwittingly points out below, we're talking about a late November by election. There will be a lot of 'meh' outside the constituency I fancy.
Come off it. I can't remember a more fascinating by-election since the days of the big SDP gains.
Rochester is absolutely fascinating.
I agree it's fascinating.
But fascinating and relevant aren't quite the same.
It's the big UKIP-Tory battle of the parliament, it's very relevant.
"... is there a number even bigger than infinity?"
Well, there are an infinite number of infinities some of which will be infinitely larger than others but there isn't actually a number bigger than infinity.
OT. Any betting odds on the next Labour leader? I heard today that Chuka Umunna is gay and following my new theory that Labour should be going out of their way to support minority groups and causes I can only see this as a positive for his and Labour's chances.
The big question is whether it happens before or after the election
Yvette cooper was 3/1 on laddies the last time I looked many months ago.
Why postal only? There's nothing like a public meeting to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and any voting can't be frauded, as postal voting invariably is.
There would be very little point in this case. It's a choice between the one with the sunglasses on her head and the one without. It's not exactly Tower Hamlets.
OT. Any betting odds on the next Labour leader? I heard today that Chuka Umunna is gay and following my new theory that Labour should be going out of their way to support minority groups I can only see this as a positive for his and Labour's chances.
The big question is whether it happens before or after the election
"... is there a number even bigger than infinity?"
Well, there are an infinite number of infinities some of which will be infinitely larger than others but there isn't actually a number bigger than infinity.
There are more points on a 1 millimetre pencil line than whole numbers and they are both infinitely bigger than the number of atoms in the universe... ^_~
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
I think Trevor Phillips cited evidence that White British voters in Greater London were as likely to vote Conservative or UKIP as White British voters in the rest of the country. It's just that there are fewer of them.
But as you say, one would expect immigrants to be generally favourable towards immigration.
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
I don't know the poll it refers to, but the article implies not:
those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK
Furthermore, this probably shows up the effect of immigrant integration. If you are a white person in an area that is very segregated between whites and an immigrant group, you're more likely to not know any immigrants well but, very understandably, are more concerned by immigration than someone who lives in an area with French and Swedish management consultants who are well integrated. The question then is whether more or less immigration would help with greater integration.
"I just don't know how seismic it really is. Not very I suspect."
It's not just who wins, but the size of the win that matters.
At the two extremes, you could see UKIP's wings clipped to the extent they struggle to take more than a couple of seats at the GE; or they could win big and go on to score anything up to sixty (sic). Either way (and at all points in between) there would be far reaching implications for seats and share of vote taken by all other Parties. It follows therefore that the outcome at Rochester could determine the colour of the next Government, whether it is Majorty, or NOM, or Minority, how long it might last and what kind of legitimacy it can claim.
OT. Any betting odds on the next Labour leader? I heard today that Chuka Umunna is gay and following my new theory that Labour should be going out of their way to support minority groups I can only see this as a positive for his and Labour's chances.
The big question is whether it happens before or after the election
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
It takes no account of people who have previously lived in high immigrant areas and then for whatever reason moved out. For example, I lived in Tooting, Hounslow, Docklands, Woolwich, Forest Hill, Hornchurch, Sydenham, Westminster, Crystal Palace etc etc. Now some of those had relatively high migrant populations and others didn't. I don't live in London anymore and so is the case for millions who previously have lived in London. Such statistics are meaningless for the purpose that some are trying to use them for.
OT. Any betting odds on the next Labour leader? I heard today that Chuka Umunna is gay and following my new theory that Labour should be going out of their way to support minority groups I can only see this as a positive for his and Labour's chances.
The big question is whether it happens before or after the election
Is that so that they can steal the gay vote back from ukip?
Do you live in a parallel universe as well as a different country?
Why postal only? There's nothing like a public meeting to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and any voting can't be frauded, as postal voting invariably is.
There would be very little point in this case. It's a choice between the one with the sunglasses on her head and the one without. It's not exactly Tower Hamlets.
Is this the best line UKIP have got? They're both women, and therefore they're both identical?
Just shows why UKIP's failing to attract many women ...
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
I think Trevor Phillips cited evidence that White British voters in Greater London were as likely to vote Conservative or UKIP as White British voters in the rest of the country. It's just that there are fewer of them.
But as you say, one would expect immigrants to be generally favourable towards immigration.
Citing London as a place where people were more favourable to immigration was one of tims logical fallacies
OT. Any betting odds on the next Labour leader? I heard today that Chuka Umunna is gay and following my new theory that Labour should be going out of their way to support minority groups I can only see this as a positive for his and Labour's chances.
The big question is whether it happens before or after the election
A rich, privately educated, London lawyer, with an often reported liking for the finer things in life, such as exclusive clubs and bars. How would that bring voters back?
And would he appeal to those Labour supporters who've left for the Kippers? Somehow, I doubt it.
Tories using the EV4EL issue to deal with the UKIP threat. It won't work.
You cannot just change Westminster standing orders to restrict voting rights of MP's. Who would decide what was purely an English issue that had no impact elsewhere within the UK ?
What do the Tories propose to do about the House of Lords ?
Better to have a constituitional committee that would look at reform in the round. I suspect the conclusion will be a federal arrangement.
Why postal only? There's nothing like a public meeting to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and any voting can't be frauded, as postal voting invariably is.
There would be very little point in this case. It's a choice between the one with the sunglasses on her head and the one without. It's not exactly Tower Hamlets.
Probably because they had a public meeting in Clacton, and only 240 people bothered voting
when you can simply get 3/1 or bigger on the Tories?
The tories would survive a defeat, but how about UKIP?
For a start, a defeat would be a shock.
Good post. It's true: there might be gnashing of teeth but the Tories will survive a defeat.
UKIP could be derailed by one.
By the same token, a Conservative win would actually be strangely anti-climactic and signify very little for them for the GE.
Disagree. A Tory victory would get the centre-right media back onside, enthuse the activist base and probably herald Tory most seats I think. Especially as Labour would be nowhere in a seat they held not so long ago.
The Daily Mail/Sun will be gushing, utterly fawning over Dave and co if they win. It will be sick bags at the ready.
I think there would be a lot of talk from opponents about them just hanging on in their own seat etc.
I don't know: I think we might be over-playing the importance of this. As Kentman unwittingly points out below, we're talking about a late November by election. There will be a lot of 'meh' outside the constituency I fancy.
Come off it. I can't remember a more fascinating by-election since the days of the big SDP gains.
Rochester is absolutely fascinating.
I agree it's fascinating.
But fascinating and relevant aren't quite the same.
It's the big UKIP-Tory battle of the parliament, it's very relevant.
In some ways that proves my point. It's not relevant. It is interesting, even fascinating, but it is no more relevant to the eventual outcome next May than whether I plant daffodils in my flower beds.
Place yourself in the position of various scenarios come, say, December 01st and ask how much relevance any of them will really have to the country at large, even over the medium term? A Labour win certainly would. So perhaps a UKIP defeat for a time. The rest is just flotsam and jetsam. I'll be delighted if the Conservatives win but it will have bog-all relevance for May 07th.
By December no-one outside these bubbles gives a flying fig about politics.
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
I think Trevor Phillips cited evidence that White British voters in Greater London were as likely to vote Conservative or UKIP as White British voters in the rest of the country. It's just that there are fewer of them.
But as you say, one would expect immigrants to be generally favourable towards immigration.
And not just immigrants: second-generation immigrants in segregated communities. If you're born into a Eritrean family in the UK, identity as Eritrean and plan on marrying an Eritrean to bring over here, then you're probably not too concerned by immigration. If you live in an area of a lot of Eritreans, then this will show up in poll results as people being "less concerned" of immigration in your area, even though the rest of the population in the area has just as many concerns as the non-Eritrean place next door.
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
People who actually know immigrants know they aren't the root of all evil. As such they're less receptive to the scaremongering, scapegoating, bigotry and outright racism from certain quarters.
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
I don't know the poll it refers to, but the article implies not:
those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK
Furthermore, this probably shows up the effect of immigrant integration. If you are a white person in an area that is very segregated between whites and an immigrant group, you're more likely to not know any immigrants well but, very understandably, are more concerned by immigration than someone who lives in an area with French and Swedish management consultants who are well integrated. The question then is whether more or less immigration would help with greater integration.
Or white flight. Whites who are uncomfortable with immigration move out to white areas.
when you can simply get 3/1 or bigger on the Tories?
The tories would survive a defeat, but how about UKIP?
For a start, a defeat would be a shock.
Good post. It's true: there might be gnashing of teeth but the Tories will survive a defeat.
UKIP could be derailed by one.
By the same token, a Conservative win would actually be strangely anti-climactic and signify very little for them for the GE.
Disagree. A Tory victory would get the centre-right media back onside, enthuse the activist base and probably herald Tory most seats I think. Especially as Labour would be nowhere in a seat they held not so long ago.
The Daily Mail/Sun will be gushing, utterly fawning over Dave and co if they win. It will be sick bags at the ready.
I think there would be a lot of talk from opponents about them just hanging on in their own seat etc.
I don't know: I think we might be over-playing the importance of this. As Kentman unwittingly points out below, we're talking about a late November by election. There will be a lot of 'meh' outside the constituency I fancy.
Come off it. I can't remember a more fascinating by-election since the days of the big SDP gains.
Rochester is absolutely fascinating.
I agree it's fascinating.
But fascinating and relevant aren't quite the same.
when you can simply get 3/1 or bigger on the Tories?
The tories would survive a defeat, but how about UKIP?
For a start, a defeat would be a shock.
Good post. It's true: there might be gnashing of teeth but the Tories will survive a defeat.
UKIP could be derailed by one.
By the same token, a Conservative win would actually be strangely anti-climactic and signify very little for them for the GE.
Disagree. A Tory victory would get the centre-right media back onside, enthuse the activist base and probably herald Tory most seats I think. Especially as Labour would be nowhere in a seat they held not so long ago.
The Daily Mail/Sun will be gushing, utterly fawning over Dave and co if they win. It will be sick bags at the ready.
I think there would be a lot of talk from opponents about them just hanging on in their own seat etc.
I don't know: I think we might be over-playing the importance of this. As Kentman unwittingly points out below, we're talking about a late November by election. There will be a lot of 'meh' outside the constituency I fancy.
Come off it. I can't remember a more fascinating by-election since the days of the big SDP gains.
Rochester is absolutely fascinating.
I agree it's fascinating.
But fascinating and relevant aren't quite the same.
For punters, it is relevant, Audrey. Believe me.
Again, don't get me wrong: I completely agree. It's very big for punters.
"Schools at the centre of the Trojan Horse scandal are still promoting an “unbalanced curriculum” and segregating boys and girls in the classroom, according to Ofsted.
The education watchdog said "very little action" had been taken to address major failings at five Birmingham schools suspected of being subjected to an alleged takeover plot by hard-line Muslims
This includes an example of one school that requires pupils to teach themselves about any faith other than Islam, including Christianity. At another, a supply teacher taught a religious education lesson that "appeared to promote an inappropriate Islamist agenda".
when you can simply get 3/1 or bigger on the Tories?
The tories would survive a defeat, but how about UKIP?
For a start, a defeat would be a shock.
Good post. It's true: there might be gnashing of teeth but the Tories will survive a defeat.
UKIP could be derailed by one.
By the same token, a Conservative win would actually be strangely anti-climactic and signify very little for them for the GE.
Disagree. A Tory victory would get the centre-right media back onside, enthuse the activist base and probably herald Tory most seats I think. Especially as Labour would be nowhere in a seat they held not so long ago.
The Daily Mail/Sun will be gushing, utterly fawning over Dave and co if they win. It will be sick bags at the ready.
I think there would be a lot of talk from opponents about them just hanging on in their own seat etc.
I don't know: I think we might be over-playing the importance of this. As Kentman unwittingly points out below, we're talking about a late November by election. There will be a lot of 'meh' outside the constituency I fancy.
Come off it. I can't remember a more fascinating by-election since the days of the big SDP gains.
Rochester is absolutely fascinating.
I agree it's fascinating.
But fascinating and relevant aren't quite the same.
For punters, it is relevant, Audrey. Believe me.
Again, don't get me wrong: I completely agree. It's very big for punters.
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
I think Trevor Phillips cited evidence that White British voters in Greater London were as likely to vote Conservative or UKIP as White British voters in the rest of the country. It's just that there are fewer of them.
But as you say, one would expect immigrants to be generally favourable towards immigration.
And not just immigrants: second-generation immigrants in segregated communities. If you're born into a Eritrean family in the UK, identity as Eritrean and plan on marrying an Eritrean to bring over here, then you're probably not too concerned by immigration. If you live in an area of a lot of Eritreans, then this will show up in poll results as people being "less concerned" of immigration in your area, even though the rest of the population in the area has just as many concerns as the non-Eritrean place next door.
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
I think Trevor Phillips cited evidence that White British voters in Greater London were as likely to vote Conservative or UKIP as White British voters in the rest of the country. It's just that there are fewer of them.
But as you say, one would expect immigrants to be generally favourable towards immigration.
And not just immigrants: second-generation immigrants in segregated communities. If you're born into a Eritrean family in the UK, identity as Eritrean and plan on marrying an Eritrean to bring over here, then you're probably not too concerned by immigration. If you live in an area of a lot of Eritreans, then this will show up in poll results as people being "less concerned" of immigration in your area, even though the rest of the population in the area has just as many concerns as the non-Eritrean place next door.
How do non-white communities view immigration?
"According to the survey, 39% of Asian Britons, 34% of white Britons and 21% of black Britons wanted all immigration into the UK to be stopped permanently, or at least until the economy improved. And 43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons agreed with the statement that "immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country". Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that "Muslims create problems in the UK".
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
I don't know the poll it refers to, but the article implies not:
those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK
Furthermore, this probably shows up the effect of immigrant integration. If you are a white person in an area that is very segregated between whites and an immigrant group, you're more likely to not know any immigrants well but, very understandably, are more concerned by immigration than someone who lives in an area with French and Swedish management consultants who are well integrated. The question then is whether more or less immigration would help with greater integration.
Or white flight. Whites who are uncomfortable with immigration move out to white areas.
Not even that. There are large concentrations of immigrants in cities. There are also large concentrations of younger white people attracted there by work, the night life or higher education for example. However when they settle down and have kids they decide that urban life (crime, traffic, overcrowding, lack of green spaces etc etc) is no longer for them and move.
I heard today that Chuka Umunna is gay and following my new theory that Labour should be going out of their way to support minority groups I can only see this as a positive for his and Labour's chances.
It really shouldn't matter one way or the other - but I fear it might - and not to Labour's advantage. And while everyone is entitled to a private life, one wonders why a 36 year old would feel the need to be coy about this.....three years ago the Mirror had him dating Luciana Berger:
And I'm old enough to remember the Express's hilarious rumours about Edward Heath taking a new 'beauty' on Morning Cloud and 'would he pop the question' - when it was as clear as a pikestaff it wouldn't enter his head....
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
I think Trevor Phillips cited evidence that White British voters in Greater London were as likely to vote Conservative or UKIP as White British voters in the rest of the country. It's just that there are fewer of them.
But as you say, one would expect immigrants to be generally favourable towards immigration.
And not just immigrants: second-generation immigrants in segregated communities. If you're born into a Eritrean family in the UK, identity as Eritrean and plan on marrying an Eritrean to bring over here, then you're probably not too concerned by immigration. If you live in an area of a lot of Eritreans, then this will show up in poll results as people being "less concerned" of immigration in your area, even though the rest of the population in the area has just as many concerns as the non-Eritrean place next door.
How do non-white communities view immigration?
"According to the survey, 39% of Asian Britons, 34% of white Britons and 21% of black Britons wanted all immigration into the UK to be stopped permanently, or at least until the economy improved. And 43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons agreed with the statement that "immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country". Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that "Muslims create problems in the UK".
Interesting the proportion of non-whites who feel immigration has been a bad thing for the country. Presumably they exclude themselves? Or do they just mean immigration after them?
Immigrants wanting to draw the bridge up behind them is hardly a new thing. Look at the USA. IIRC not all Saxons were keen on further waves of immigrants either!
That people in low immigration areas are more likely to be worried about immigration is confirmed by a poll by Survation for Sky News. They found that those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK. The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
Isn't this simply explained by the fact that people in high immigration area/who know a lot of immigrants are more likely to be immigrants themselves, and who will be less concerned about immigration?
I think Trevor Phillips cited evidence that White British voters in Greater London were as likely to vote Conservative or UKIP as White British voters in the rest of the country. It's just that there are fewer of them.
But as you say, one would expect immigrants to be generally favourable towards immigration.
And not just immigrants: second-generation immigrants in segregated communities. If you're born into a Eritrean family in the UK, identity as Eritrean and plan on marrying an Eritrean to bring over here, then you're probably not too concerned by immigration. If you live in an area of a lot of Eritreans, then this will show up in poll results as people being "less concerned" of immigration in your area, even though the rest of the population in the area has just as many concerns as the non-Eritrean place next door.
How do non-white communities view immigration?
"According to the survey, 39% of Asian Britons, 34% of white Britons and 21% of black Britons wanted all immigration into the UK to be stopped permanently, or at least until the economy improved. And 43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons agreed with the statement that "immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country". Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that "Muslims create problems in the UK".
Interesting the proportion of non-whites who feel immigration has been a bad thing for the country. Presumably they exclude themselves? Or do they just mean immigration after them?
They are almost certainly not immigrants I would have thought
Interesting the proportion of non-whites who feel immigration has been a bad thing for the country. Presumably they exclude themselves? Or do they just mean immigration after them?
They are almost certainly not immigrants I would have thought
Three of my friends who are immigrants (from the USA, France and Sweden respectively) think immigration has overall been a bad thing for the country. Generally they follow the line of believing high skill immigration being good, but low skill third world immigration is bad. In the words of that Labour Lord "we're importing too many of the wrong sort."
Incidentally I see that the location that the Tories have booked for their primary hustings in Rochester holds about 420 people. How does that compare with previous primaries?
Comments
UKIP could be derailed by one.
By the same token, a Conservative win would actually be strangely anti-climactic and signify very little for them for the GE.
Actually I disagree with your original comment about getting out with bookmakers in running re over round
If you get out with them you have to have two bets ( backing the two results you didn't back pre off)
I cant believe that is more effective than laying your original bet on Betfair even if you shop around every bookie, disregarding the time it takes, and the ability to get on
Re political bets ands a 140% book, didn't this convo start because you didn't like betting into Shadsys 120% book on R&S UKIP %?
We'd have the same sort of post mortem as for H&M and Clacton, except in reverse. What did voters reject in the UKIP offering?
Now they serve only as a refuge for the poor and lonely. There are better ways of helping them.
If the bookies don't want to go back to their traditional role, the shops should be closed down, and the FOBTs should be restricted to private clubs and subject to strict licencing conditions.
The Daily Mail/Sun will be gushing, utterly fawning over Dave and co if they win. It will be sick bags at the ready.
Is it time to shove my swatch up my ass again?
I've got news for him,.We already have two classes.English Mp's can't vote on many Sottish matter.
The education watchdog said "very little action" had been taken to address major failings at five Birmingham schools suspected of being subjected to an alleged takeover plot by hard-line Muslims
This includes an example of one school that requires pupils to teach themselves about any faith other than Islam, including Christianity. At another, a supply teacher taught a religious education lesson that "appeared to promote an inappropriate Islamist agenda".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11161330/Ofsted-Trojan-Horse-schools-still-failing-to-promote-British-values.html
As for cash out with the bookies, the catch isn't so much in the offer (which is generally the current "other side"), it's that you're constricted to the same bookie you placed the original (hopefully value) bet with.
So yeah, betfair is probably the best option if you want to keep things simple. However, you're unlikely to beat betfair long-term on the high-profile stuff as there are plenty of very smart operators (and their bots) playing those markets. The exception perhaps being cricket (especially Tests) as it's notoriously warped by subcontinental bookies.
Re Shadsy's 120% book - I don't want to bet into that because it looks about right.
Nigel Farage and Mark Reckless want to turn this election into a national media circus – we want it to be about you and what you want for the future of this area.
The decision is in your hands. There’s no stunts or backroom deals, just a strong local candidate you can trust.
And then he repeats
No stunts: just a strong local candidate you can trust.
Putting aside the roll on the floor laughing at such irony, does that mean the media circus of Shapps and his Roadkill 2015 Roadshow are not going to be in town?
Did I also read that Tory MP's are not being required to take a mandatory number of trips to Rochester because CCHQ believes people are sufficiently fired up to get down there in sufficient numbers under their own motivation.
Remember this isn't Newark in May/ June but Rochester in a cold damp October / November and we've just had Clacton & Heywood as well where the Tories did really poorly?
It will be interesting to see exactly what sort of response the Tories offer.
Mr. H, I quite agree. Labour, including Brown, are quite happy for an unbalanced pro-Scottish devolution, but a balanced and fair one for England is 'putting the union at risk'.
Nae in Scotland, or my experience in England for any valid bet (non-politics in reference to England) - always <5mins
Strange looks are par for the course in bookies I feel.
Finland vs Romania
Finland 13/8
Draw 21/10
Romania 21/10
Finland or Draw 2/5
Draw or Romania 1/2
Finland or Romania 2/5
In each case you would be better off backing the two options individually, and that's with the same bookmaker!! Why on earth would anyone ever do it?
Same applies for Denmark vs Portugal. You end up giving away 1-2% per bet
Nowadays Blackjack is normally excluded from the offer or if it is in you need to gamble 30* stake where 1 hand of Blackjack is worth 1/5 of it's actual value leading to such crazy requirements that the house edge will have taken your bonus and then some before you can cash out.
This is going to a vote before 2015, isn't it? Hague intends to make labour and the libs vote against??
Ticklish decisions for some in English marginals there...??
I don't know: I think we might be over-playing the importance of this. As Kentman unwittingly points out below, we're talking about a late November by election. There will be a lot of 'meh' outside the constituency I fancy.
However, me and my mate (@misulovins, twitter, a Latvian basketball sports agent) have ended up with an even book on one of our accounts because we were betting in different ways. It certainly wasn't morally wrong.
Anyway. Gordon Brown can #### off. As a Scot for a Scottish seat, his views on devolution to England are no more relevant than an Australian's.
If you take their "Finland or draw" price you have to bet £71.43 to return £100
In most shops if you buy more than one you get a discount, but here you pay more!
Its like going into the off licence and buying a bottle of wine for £4.99, but if you buy two they charge you £11!
If you find a higher-margin match e.g. Birmingham v Bolton (106.1%) the double chance (206.3%) can work out as a better bet than backing the two individually.
In fact, is there a number even bigger than infinity? The number of times a day Socrates gets scared and angry about muslims and immigrants perhaps?
Global oil prices have fallen further after the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported higher output and cut its forecast for demand growth.
Brent crude fell $2.72 to $86.17 a barrel before seeing a slight recovery, while US crude dropped $1.75 to $83.99.
The price of Brent has fallen by 20% since the summer on concerns of oversupply, as output increases and demand wanes.
"Recent price drops appear both supply and demand driven," the IEA said.
"Further oil price drops would likely be needed for supply to take a hit - or for demand growth to get a lift."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29613914
So far, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), which produces about 40% of the world's crude oil, has shown no signs of reducing supply.
I just don't know how seismic it really is. Not very I suspect. The only result which will seriously affect any party, apart from a Labour win, is if UKIP lose. The Conservatives won't win or lose that much in the long run either way.
No doubt they are currently the recipients of the whips' maximum tender loving care, but some may jump ship nevertheless.
Rochester is absolutely fascinating.
Anyway, we can solve this concern about two classes of MP by having an English parliament...
The question we are left with after looking at this data is: if people in low immigration areas are worried about their future in general and immigration in particular, is the answer less immigration: or more?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/telegraphwire/2014/10/14/just-how-much-immigration-is-there-in-ukip-targets/
Re. the betting point just out of curiosity does anyone on here flutter on the lotto or premium bonds? I know it's not betting, and little different from a roulette wheel, so I'm only asking out of idle curiosity what with that £111m jackpot tonight and all that.
But fascinating and relevant aren't quite the same.
And you're linking to the Telegraph...
Happy days one and all happy days.
May I ask, in all seriousness, if anyone of this parish follows Wikiwikiguidio?
those individuals who do not know any immigrants well were more likely to be concerned about immigration to the UK
The big question is whether it happens before or after the election
Well, there are an infinite number of infinities some of which will be infinitely larger than others but there isn't actually a number bigger than infinity.
He is 8/1 anyway
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader
But as you say, one would expect immigrants to be generally favourable towards immigration.
"I just don't know how seismic it really is. Not very I suspect."
It's not just who wins, but the size of the win that matters.
At the two extremes, you could see UKIP's wings clipped to the extent they struggle to take more than a couple of seats at the GE; or they could win big and go on to score anything up to sixty (sic). Either way (and at all points in between) there would be far reaching implications for seats and share of vote taken by all other Parties. It follows therefore that the outcome at Rochester could determine the colour of the next Government, whether it is Majorty, or NOM, or Minority, how long it might last and what kind of legitimacy it can claim.
How seismic do you want?
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/politics
Do you live in a parallel universe as well as a different country?
Just shows why UKIP's failing to attract many women ...
Edit: unless they're in a massage parlour ...
And would he appeal to those Labour supporters who've left for the Kippers? Somehow, I doubt it.
via comment on Guido.
http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/three_more_jump_from_medway_tories_to_ukip_1_3806236
You cannot just change Westminster standing orders to restrict voting rights of MP's. Who would decide what was purely an English issue that had no impact elsewhere within the UK ?
What do the Tories propose to do about the House of Lords ?
Better to have a constituitional committee that would look at reform in the round. I suspect the conclusion will be a federal arrangement.
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2014/09/cllr-giles-watling-selected-to-fight-the-clacton-by-election.html
Place yourself in the position of various scenarios come, say, December 01st and ask how much relevance any of them will really have to the country at large, even over the medium term? A Labour win certainly would. So perhaps a UKIP defeat for a time. The rest is just flotsam and jetsam. I'll be delighted if the Conservatives win but it will have bog-all relevance for May 07th.
By December no-one outside these bubbles gives a flying fig about politics.
From Telegraph's Preview of tonight's The Apprentice.
"and of course, receiving an object lesson in how to judge character. This pretty much amounts to “if someone looks weird they probably are weird”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/the-apprentice/11160706/The-Apprentice-is-like-an-excruciating-visit-to-the-zoo-but-Ill-still-watch-it.html
People who actually know immigrants know they aren't the root of all evil. As such they're less receptive to the scaremongering, scapegoating, bigotry and outright racism from certain quarters.
"Would he appeal to those Labour voters who've left for the Kippers?"
Anyfin is possible
Or white flight. Whites who are uncomfortable with immigration move out to white areas.
How do non-white communities view immigration?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right
"The Irish finance minister has said he is abolishing the controversial "Double Irish" tax structure."
Can someone with more knowledge of Ireland and tax law say whether this move by the Irish government is in any way meaningful or important?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29613065
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bad-news-girls-labours-handsome-1695518
And I'm old enough to remember the Express's hilarious rumours about Edward Heath taking a new 'beauty' on Morning Cloud and 'would he pop the question' - when it was as clear as a pikestaff it wouldn't enter his head....
Three of my friends who are immigrants (from the USA, France and Sweden respectively) think immigration has overall been a bad thing for the country. Generally they follow the line of believing high skill immigration being good, but low skill third world immigration is bad. In the words of that Labour Lord "we're importing too many of the wrong sort."