Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The battle does seem to be getting tighter: Both tonight’s

13»

Comments

  • Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    The NFL efforts in London continue to be interesting.

    Tomorrow's game at Wembley starts at 13.30 GMT, 9.30 EDT (6.30 PDT!). This is deliberate. The cover story is so that the team can fly home that night. The real story is so that the league can see what the TV ratings are for the game at that time, both in the UK and US.

    Wembley NFL games are already among the highest in merchandise sales in regular season games, over $1 million every game.

    The NFL is serious about having a London based team. They have already talked with Wembley about availability and upgrading the playing surface, and the favorite candidate to relocate is the Jacksonville Jaguars.

    There are 3 games there this year - tomorrow and November 9 when America's Team hits town. There will be 4 games next year.

    The Football Association want an NFL franchise to help pay the bills for Wembley, as they want the England team to go back on tour as when Wembley was being rebuilt.
    It's just 2 pre-season games per year plus 8 regular season games, mainly on a Sunday but one Thursday game. If it's Jacksonville then playoffs are unlikely for a while.

    As an aside, why would the FA need help paying Wembley bills? A place that size should be able to be filled with everything from motocross to concerts frequently.
    Because it cost nearly £800 million to build (£425 million being a loan)
    That's an absurdly large amount for a place that size. The new Dallas Cowboys Stadium - much bigger, more luxurious and with more and better facilities, cost $1.2 billion (about the same as Wembley), all funded by the Cowboys and Jerry Jones.

    They have a huge lot of functions there of all sorts. I suspect Wembley is woefully under-utilized, as the FA seems to have no business sense at all based on the TV contracts it negotiates.
    Indeed and not only that have you ever tried getting there or getting back from there. Its hardly the most accessible of places.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564
    Thanks very much, both - Rod's tip solves it. It's not .zip that was wrongly associated, but .pdf, which was associated with Firefox instead of with Adobe Reader. So Firefox desperately tried to open the .pdf file with tab after tab - peculiar, as it's not done it before, but there we are!

    Apols to anyone who has logged on looking for political betting and found me hogging the thread on this!
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    The NFL efforts in London continue to be interesting.

    Tomorrow's game at Wembley starts at 13.30 GMT, 9.30 EDT (6.30 PDT!). This is deliberate. The cover story is so that the team can fly home that night. The real story is so that the league can see what the TV ratings are for the game at that time, both in the UK and US.

    Wembley NFL games are already among the highest in merchandise sales in regular season games, over $1 million every game.

    The NFL is serious about having a London based team. They have already talked with Wembley about availability and upgrading the playing surface, and the favorite candidate to relocate is the Jacksonville Jaguars.

    There are 3 games there this year - tomorrow and November 9 when America's Team hits town. There will be 4 games next year.

    The Football Association want an NFL franchise to help pay the bills for Wembley, as they want the England team to go back on tour as when Wembley was being rebuilt.
    It's just 2 pre-season games per year plus 8 regular season games, mainly on a Sunday but one Thursday game. If it's Jacksonville then playoffs are unlikely for a while.

    As an aside, why would the FA need help paying Wembley bills? A place that size should be able to be filled with everything from motocross to concerts frequently.
    Because it cost nearly £800 million to build (£425 million being a loan)
    That's an absurdly large amount for a place that size. The new Dallas Cowboys Stadium - much bigger, more luxurious and with more and better facilities, cost $1.2 billion (about the same as Wembley), all funded by the Cowboys and Jerry Jones.

    They have a huge lot of functions there of all sorts. I suspect Wembley is woefully under-utilized, as the FA seems to have no business sense at all based on the TV contracts it negotiates.
    Indeed and not only that have you ever tried getting there or getting back from there. Its hardly the most accessible of places.
    I went to see Elton John there in the 70s when he performed the entire Captain Fantastic album live at the old stadium, which was a dreadful place.

    As I recall you take the Bakerloo line to Wembley Park. Yup - it sucks. What you really need is a greenfield site near a major highway with lots of parking.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    edited October 2014

    Thanks very much, both - Rod's tip solves it. It's not .zip that was wrongly associated, but .pdf, which was associated with Firefox instead of with Adobe Reader. So Firefox desperately tried to open the .pdf file with tab after tab - peculiar, as it's not done it before, but there we are!

    Apols to anyone who has logged on looking for political betting and found me hogging the thread on this!

    You're welcome Nick - it's God's way of telling you to stick with Word files :-)

    The fact that the answer was found on the Winzip site says that there is a winzip angle to this. I haven't used it for over a decade.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited October 2014

    Thanks very much, both - Rod's tip solves it. It's not .zip that was wrongly associated, but .pdf, which was associated with Firefox instead of with Adobe Reader. So Firefox desperately tried to open the .pdf file with tab after tab - peculiar, as it's not done it before, but there we are!

    Apols to anyone who has logged on looking for political betting and found me hogging the thread on this!

    You're welcome. Google and creative use of keywords are your friend. I've never had a PC problem to which the answer wasn't out there... somewhere! Except when I had a polymorphic virus. Game Over.

    Which brings me to *why* you had this problem. Could be something nasty you picked up. You need to protect yourself.

    I heartily recommend BULLGUARD. About £25 a year, and a license covers 3 machines.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Hello :)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    I'm trying to spreadsheet all my GE bets and work out various contingencies and so forth that I have myself into.

    Is there a quick and easy way to work out say for the following scenarios

    Lab Maj
    NOM Seats Lab
    NOM Seats Tory
    Tory Maj

    The probabilities for each scenario of North Warks staying blue

    0%
    0%
    50%
    95%

    Something like that ?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Pulpstar said:

    I'm trying to spreadsheet all my GE bets and work out various contingencies and so forth that I have myself into.

    Is there a quick and easy way to work out say for the following scenarios

    Lab Maj
    NOM Seats Lab
    NOM Seats Tory
    Tory Maj

    The probabilities for each scenario of North Warks staying blue

    0%
    0%
    50%
    95%

    Something like that ?

    Not really.

    You could work out the national swing "required" for the national outcomes you mention. But UNS is fuzzy, not deterministic.

    I have a calculator which, given the national swing, estimates the chance of a hold/gain given the seat majority, based on the likely standard deviation in swing (3.4% in 2010.) Again this assumes the seat is subject only to "average" factors, where in reality any seat can be subject to regional, local, special or personal factors, etc. And the standard dev of swing could change next time.

    So you can never say, given this national swing party X will win that seat, nor can you say given they win that seat they will win this national majority...

    But it's better than nothing, I suppose.
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    As I'm off to bed, and some people need lessons on Latin.

    I suggest people read Catullus 16.

    It will help you understand Latin better and I will help educate you when I return from holiday in a week's time or so.

    So, are you suggesting Farage is feminine?

    Naive Nino thought that the poem you quoted contained a gerundive in the form that you used it. I do know that the Romans sometimes got the use wrong.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited October 2014
    e.g. North Warks, 0.1% Tory majority 2010

    Swings required (per Wells, UKPollingReport)

    Lab maj of 1, 4.9% swing
    prob seat staying blue, 9.5%

    Lab or Con largest, 2.0% swing
    prob seat staying blue, 30.4%

    Con maj of 1, 1.9% swing (to Con)
    prob seat staying blue, 70.6%

    As stated previously, these are just estimates based on a very simple model.

    You might get closer using Monte Carlos and Bayes' Theorem...

  • manofkent2014manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited October 2014
    Ukip forces Tories on to the back foot in battle for marginal seats

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-forces-tories-on-to-the-back-foot-in-battle-for-marginal-seats-9818672.html

    Interesting take on how the Tories are being forced to rework the distribution of funds for the General election. That said I suspect little of it is going to some of UKIPs primary targets
  • Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    The NFL efforts in London continue to be interesting.

    Tomorrow's game at Wembley starts at 13.30 GMT, 9.30 EDT (6.30 PDT!). This is deliberate. The cover story is so that the team can fly home that night. The real story is so that the league can see what the TV ratings are for the game at that time, both in the UK and US.

    Wembley NFL games are already among the highest in merchandise sales in regular season games, over $1 million every game.

    The NFL is serious about having a London based team. They have already talked with Wembley about availability and upgrading the playing surface, and the favorite candidate to relocate is the Jacksonville Jaguars.

    There are 3 games there this year - tomorrow and November 9 when America's Team hits town. There will be 4 games next year.

    The Football Association want an NFL franchise to help pay the bills for Wembley, as they want the England team to go back on tour as when Wembley was being rebuilt.
    It's just 2 pre-season games per year plus 8 regular season games, mainly on a Sunday but one Thursday game. If it's Jacksonville then playoffs are unlikely for a while.

    As an aside, why would the FA need help paying Wembley bills? A place that size should be able to be filled with everything from motocross to concerts frequently.
    Because it cost nearly £800 million to build (£425 million being a loan)
    That's an absurdly large amount for a place that size. The new Dallas Cowboys Stadium - much bigger, more luxurious and with more and better facilities, cost $1.2 billion (about the same as Wembley), all funded by the Cowboys and Jerry Jones.

    They have a huge lot of functions there of all sorts. I suspect Wembley is woefully under-utilized, as the FA seems to have no business sense at all based on the TV contracts it negotiates.
    Indeed and not only that have you ever tried getting there or getting back from there. Its hardly the most accessible of places.
    I went to see Elton John there in the 70s when he performed the entire Captain Fantastic album live at the old stadium, which was a dreadful place.

    As I recall you take the Bakerloo line to Wembley Park. Yup - it sucks. What you really need is a greenfield site near a major highway with lots of parking.
    That was pre-1979. In 1979 the Stanmore section of the Bakerloo became the Jubilee line. Metropolitan line also calls at Wembley Park.
  • Swiss_BobSwiss_Bob Posts: 619
    As no one else has mentioned it:

    Observer/Opinium poll shows 31% of voters would back Nigel Farage’s party if they believed it could win in their constituency
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    RodCrosby said:

    e.g. North Warks, 0.1% Tory majority 2010

    Swings required (per Wells, UKPollingReport)

    Lab maj of 1, 4.9% swing
    prob seat staying blue, 9.5%

    Lab or Con largest, 2.0% swing
    prob seat staying blue, 30.4%

    Con maj of 1, 1.9% swing (to Con)
    prob seat staying blue, 70.6%

    As stated previously, these are just estimates based on a very simple model.

    You might get closer using Monte Carlos and Bayes' Theorem...

    Unsurprisingly, the probabilities for Broxtowe (under this model) are not dissimilar...

    Lab maj of 1, 4.9% swing
    prob seat staying blue, 11.2%

    Lab or Con largest, 2.0% swing
    prob seat staying blue, 33.3%

    Con maj of 1, 1.9% swing (to Con)
    prob seat staying blue, 73.3%
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited October 2014
    Swiss_Bob said:

    As no one else has mentioned it:

    Observer/Opinium poll shows 31% of voters would back Nigel Farage’s party if they believed it could win in their constituency

    tut, tut...

    IIRC, the equivalent figure for the LDs from 1950 to 2010 (any recent polling of this question?) was around 40%...

    31% is probably a losing percentage under FPTP, whereas 40% is probably a winner, in any case...
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Hey, we've just been awarded another hour of this scintillating discussion!

    Where y'all gone? (^_-)
  • Swiss_BobSwiss_Bob Posts: 619
    edited October 2014
    RodCrosby said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    As no one else has mentioned it:

    Observer/Opinium poll shows 31% of voters would back Nigel Farage’s party if they believed it could win in their constituency

    tut, tut...

    IIRC, the equivalent figure for the LDs from 1950 to 2010 (any recent polling of this question?) was around 40%...

    31% is probably a losing percentage under FPTP, whereas 40% is probably a winner, in any case...
    Yeah, 31% would be awful.

    Who's on 40%?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Swiss_Bob said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    As no one else has mentioned it:

    Observer/Opinium poll shows 31% of voters would back Nigel Farage’s party if they believed it could win in their constituency

    tut, tut...

    IIRC, the equivalent figure for the LDs from 1950 to 2010 (any recent polling of this question?) was around 40%...

    31% is probably a losing percentage under FPTP, whereas 40% is probably a winner, in any case...
    Yeah, 31% would be awful.

    Who's on 40%?
    The (approx.) figures quoted by the LDs in both 1950 and 2010 (unsure about the intervening 60 years... or since!)

    (^_-)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    edited October 2014
    Analysing my spreadsheet, the following comes out

    Value analysis of betting thus far... Value increase/decrease on stake

    (Paddy Power, various bets current GE period)

    Tory 56.67%
    UKIP 295.3%
    Anti-UKIP -99.81%
    Green 333% (1 bet Norwich south)
    Labour 10.21%
    Neutral 20.35%
    SNP 70.33%
    Lib Dem 11.53%
    Respect -18.75%
    Anti-Lib Dem 151.4%





  • Swiss_BobSwiss_Bob Posts: 619
    Pulpstar said:

    Analysing my spreadsheet, the following comes out

    Value analysis of betting thus far... Value increase/decrease on stake

    (Paddy Power, various bets current GE period)

    Tory 56.67%
    UKIP 295.3%
    Anti-UKIP -99.81%
    Green 333% (1 bet Norwich south)
    Labour 10.21%
    Neutral 20.35%
    SNP 70.33%
    Lib Dem 11.53%
    Respect -18.75%
    Anti-Lib Dem 151.4%

    I've certainly done well out of UKIP, sadly couldn't find anything of worth on the Greens with Betfair.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Pulpstar said:

    Analysing my spreadsheet, the following comes out

    Value analysis of betting thus far... Value increase/decrease on stake

    (Paddy Power, various bets current GE period)

    Tory 56.67%
    UKIP 295.3%
    Anti-UKIP -99.81%
    Green 333% (1 bet Norwich south)
    Labour 10.21%
    Neutral 20.35%
    SNP 70.33%
    Lib Dem 11.53%
    Respect -18.75%
    Anti-Lib Dem 151.4%

    ¿Qué?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    RodCrosby said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Analysing my spreadsheet, the following comes out

    Value analysis of betting thus far... Value increase/decrease on stake

    (Paddy Power, various bets current GE period)

    Tory 56.67%
    UKIP 295.3%
    Anti-UKIP -99.81%
    Green 333% (1 bet Norwich south)
    Labour 10.21%
    Neutral 20.35%
    SNP 70.33%
    Lib Dem 11.53%
    Respect -18.75%
    Anti-Lib Dem 151.4%

    ¿Qué?
    Just shows that backing UKIP has been by far the best move this parliament methinks.

    Backing Tories in various seats has not been bad either.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Pulpstar said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Analysing my spreadsheet, the following comes out

    Value analysis of betting thus far... Value increase/decrease on stake

    (Paddy Power, various bets current GE period)

    Tory 56.67%
    UKIP 295.3%
    Anti-UKIP -99.81%
    Green 333% (1 bet Norwich south)
    Labour 10.21%
    Neutral 20.35%
    SNP 70.33%
    Lib Dem 11.53%
    Respect -18.75%
    Anti-Lib Dem 151.4%

    ¿Qué?
    Just shows that backing UKIP has been by far the best move this parliament methinks.

    Backing Tories in various seats has not been bad either.

    I'm none the wiser as to what your numbers represent...
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    RodCrosby said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Analysing my spreadsheet, the following comes out

    Value analysis of betting thus far... Value increase/decrease on stake

    (Paddy Power, various bets current GE period)

    Tory 56.67%
    UKIP 295.3%
    Anti-UKIP -99.81%
    Green 333% (1 bet Norwich south)
    Labour 10.21%
    Neutral 20.35%
    SNP 70.33%
    Lib Dem 11.53%
    Respect -18.75%
    Anti-Lib Dem 151.4%

    ¿Qué?
    Just shows that backing UKIP has been by far the best move this parliament methinks.

    Backing Tories in various seats has not been bad either.

    I'm none the wiser as to what your numbers represent...
    I think if the current odds are 2x as high as what he got on them at, it's +100%
This discussion has been closed.