Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Interesting new leaders’ betting market – but where’s the v

124»

Comments

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Apparently the NI parties need to be in the debates now for Cameron to be happy.

    We've gone round the circle from clever politics back to chicken again.

    That's ridiculous, and one of the reasons I'm severely wavering from voting for him in May.
    If you've won a lot of concessions already, why not play hard to get and see if you can get a few more?
    Indeed. Dave knows that broadcasters realise having the debates without the PM is a bit like having an orgy on your own.
    It seems pretty clear to me that David Cameron is going to turn up. These were his precise words, as reported by the BBC:

    "Asked whether he would "turn up" for the debates, scheduled to take place in April, Mr Cameron gave no commitment but indicated he was happy with the changes made.

    "I was told it was appalling and outrageous that I had suggested that you could not have one minor party without having the other minor party," he said.

    sound like a man who is going to back out to me, but a man who is turning the screw.
    .
    How about this bet I offered?

    Even money who gets the least % of votes in their constituency

    You get Clegg, I get Farage

    You said Clegg was a bet at 4/6 with the other three leaders involved, so Evens is a gift, not to mention your insider knowledge

    Don't worry about having an edge, that's what betting is all about

    How much?

    No thank you.
    I don't get it, why not?

    You're getting a better price & better terms on a bet you make value & you don't have to pay on...
    I don't bet on private polling with other posters.

    For the same reason I don't bet on embargoed polling.

    It gives me an advantage that other people don't have which is manifestly unfair.
    But I know that and don't mind, so its irrelevant... I think I have a much better advantage than that over you and don't mind using it so all's fair

    Why haven't you backed it with Betfair though? You said it was value at 4/6 and now it has drifted to 4/5
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    Socrates: you can libel a company you know. Whatever your views about Goldman Sachs, a Rolling Stone article is not proof of a giant "ongoing crime" and some of the matters you have mentioned are not, in any case, breaches of the criminal law.

    To get to your key point: the Greek government made the decision to massage/fiddle its figures. GS helped it do it. The Italians did the same. Even the Germans failed to comply with the initial euro tests. They didn't involve GS to my knowledge. They just rewrote the rules.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Apparently the NI parties need to be in the debates now for Cameron to be happy.

    We've gone round the circle from clever politics back to chicken again.

    That's ridiculous, and one of the reasons I'm severely wavering from voting for him in May.
    If you've won a lot of concessions already, why not play hard to get and see if you can get a few more?
    Indeed. Dave knows that broadcasters realise having the debates without the PM is a bit like having an orgy on your own.
    It seems pretty clear to me that David Cameron is going to turn up. These were his precise words, as reported by the BBC:

    "Asked whether he would "turn up" for the debates, scheduled to take place in April, Mr Cameron gave no commitment but indicated he was happy with the changes made.

    "I was told it was appalling and outrageous that I had suggested that you could not have one minor party without having the other minor party," he said.

    sound like a man who is going to back out to me, but a man who is turning the screw.
    .
    How about this bet I offered?

    Even money who gets the least % of votes in their constituency

    You get Clegg, I get Farage

    You said Clegg was a bet at 4/6 with the other three leaders involved, so Evens is a gift, not to mention your insider knowledge

    Don't worry about having an edge, that's what betting is all about

    How much?

    No thank you.
    I don't get it, why not?

    You're getting a better price & better terms on a bet you make value & you don't have to pay on...
    I don't bet on private polling with other posters.

    For the same reason I don't bet on embargoed polling.

    It gives me an advantage that other people don't have which is manifestly unfair.
    But I know that and don't mind, so its irrelevant... I think I have a much better advantage than that over you and don't mind using it so all's fair

    Why haven't you backed it with Betfair though? You said it was value at 4/6 and now it has drifted to 4/5
    I did back it.

    You know when I was the first Pber to post the odds this morning.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited January 2015

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Apparently the NI parties need to be in the debates now for Cameron to be happy.

    We've gone round the circle from clever politics back to chicken again.

    That's ridiculous, and one of the reasons I'm severely wavering from voting for him in May.
    If you've won a lot of concessions already, why not play hard to get and see if you can get a few more?
    Indeed. Dave knows that broadcasters realise having the debates without the PM is a bit like having an orgy on your own.
    It seems pretty clear to me that David Cameron is going to turn up. These were his precise words, as reported by the BBC:

    "Asked whether he would "turn up" for the debates, scheduled to take place in April, Mr Cameron gave no commitment but indicated he was happy with the changes made.

    "I was told it was appalling and outrageous that I had suggested that you could not have one minor party without having the other minor party," he said.

    sound like a man who is going to back out to me, but a man who is turning the screw.
    .
    How about this bet I offered?

    Even money who gets the least % of votes in their constituency

    You get Clegg, I get Farage


    No thank you.
    I don't get it, why not?

    You're getting a better price & better terms on a bet you make value & you don't have to pay on...
    I don't bet on private polling with other posters.

    For the same reason I don't bet on embargoed polling.

    It gives me an advantage that other people don't have which is manifestly unfair.
    But I know that and don't mind, so its irrelevant... I think I have a much better advantage than that over you and don't mind using it so all's fair

    Why haven't you backed it with Betfair though? You said it was value at 4/6 and now it has drifted to 4/5
    I did back it.

    You know when I was the first Pber to post the odds this morning.
    Oh.. but the odds have drifted and my mate at Betfair said that they were going to cut the prices on political bets v quickly if anyone half shrewd came on

    I assumed no one touched the 4/6 other than mug money

    Have you gone in again at 4/5?
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited January 2015
    Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Socrates

    So you've found things that come to - in total - less than 5% of the value of fines paid for by (any of):

    BNP Paribas
    Citigroup
    Lloyds TSB
    RBS
    JP Morgan
    Well Fargo
    Barclays

    Yet, none of those seem to be "giant criminal conspiracies".

    Preumably, therefore, Citigroup is a giant criminal conspiracy too, as they've been fined repeatedly and had to settle criminal suits?

    Socrates sees giant lizards and little grey aliens everywhere.
    And you're a pathetic sycophant to the rich and powerful, no matter how unethical and criminal.
    Nisbets are a good stockist of catering rolls of Bacofoil. Free delivery too, if you buy enough.
  • Lord Ashcroft poll

    Major ouch for the Lib Dems

    Con 32 (+3) Lab 32 (+4) LD 6 (-3) UKIP 15 (nc) Greens 9 (-2)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Cons ahead by 10.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534

    In case TSE missed it:

    IndyPeople ‏@TheIndyPeople · 34m34 minutes ago
    Benedict Cumberbatch criticised for using the term 'coloured' to describe black actors: http://ind.pn/15C8WT2

    That's the Oscar nominated Mr Cumberbatch to you.
    I did some work in South Africa in the marketing arena. The politically correct up here would be mighty upset with the Saffer's of all colours as they segment markets & demographics by colour ie Black, coloured,Indian, Afrikaans, English white etc.

    They think nothing of it.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 16s 16 seconds ago
    Ashcroft National Poll, 23-25 January: CON 32%, LAB 32%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 9%. Full details on @ConHome, 4pm.
    0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
    Reply Retweet Favorite
  • Gold standard - Labour version... ie ignore (until next week). Clearly an outlier. Tories obv 6% ahead.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    Terrible poll for the Lib Dems.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,632
    Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Socrates

    So you've found things that come to - in total - less than 5% of the value of fines paid for by (any of):

    BNP Paribas
    Citigroup
    Lloyds TSB
    RBS
    JP Morgan
    Well Fargo
    Barclays

    Yet, none of those seem to be "giant criminal conspiracies".

    Preumably, therefore, Citigroup is a giant criminal conspiracy too, as they've been fined repeatedly and had to settle criminal suits?

    You speak as if the fines levied on Goldman are an accurate gauge of their criminal wrong-doing, rather than watered down slaps on the wrists for a company that is, in allegedly the words of one of its own employees, "too connected to fail". Goldman has its tentacles more effectively in government than several of the other organisations you list, so it can dodge the fines better. That's all part of the game.

    Although I am amused at the argument "The bank Goldman Sachs isn't a legally and criminally dodgy organisation - all these other bankers have been fined even more!"
    In any organisation where people are paid for the profits they generate, then the temptation to bend the rules to make personal profit will be strong.

    In software companies, this is shown by dodgy sales deals to secure commission revenue.
    In consumer electronics, there have been numerous examples of "side letters" which allowed buyers to back out of contracts under certain circumstances.
    In finance companies (including, but not limited to, Goldman Sachs), employees have entered into transactions that have turned out to be illegal.

    That human beings are greedy and will twist rules for personal profit is not news. Investment banks, which give their employees unprecedented degrees of freedom to make money, will likely end up paying fines and firing employees with alarming regularity. But this is also why compliance departments have become increasingly important within banks; because, in the real world, it is costly to hand over billions of dollars to regulators, and most banks would rather not do so.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    New thread.
This discussion has been closed.