politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two new betting markets
As he said yesterday, If, when the market goes up, you see a price bigger than this on any of these I’d tentatively suggest that it might be value. Labour 4/7 Green 7/2 Conservatives 6/1
In it, Danny lists some of the explanations put forward to him for this failure by the pollsters themselves. One was that they simply did not have enough traditional Conservative voters in their polling samples. Another was that they misjudged turnout. A third was that they got the basic demographic composition of their samples wrong.
Listen, On the poll - it is most likely too good for Labour - heck I'd be out of pocket with my various constituency bets and Labour getting a decent majority (Even with Scotland taken into account) if this was the result that came to pass. .... What we should and must be extremely careful to look out for are pollsters changing methodology, particularly to get results more in line with each other, as this will cause herding towards a false average and the poll of polls average will be a far less accurate guide
If the pollsters get the wrong result then they are putting themselves out of work. Herding would do them no good would it? But do they understand what is going on? Its all this talk of methodologies which makes me suspicious.
No, if one pollster gets the wrong result then they are out of work qv. Angus Reid. If they all do, then it's 1992 all over again, learn lessons and all that, but polls will still be commissioned. Hence the temptation to herd.
Hmm Those 2nd pref prices look about right to me, also the Labour price is 3% wrong according to Tissue_Price analysis. So it's a smidgen of value, but too low to invest in.
Listen, On the poll - it is most likely too good for Labour - heck I'd be out of pocket with my various constituency bets and Labour getting a decent majority (Even with Scotland taken into account) if this was the result that came to pass. .... What we should and must be extremely careful to look out for are pollsters changing methodology, particularly to get results more in line with each other, as this will cause herding towards a false average and the poll of polls average will be a far less accurate guide
If the pollsters get the wrong result then they are putting themselves out of work. Herding would do them no good would it? But do they understand what is going on? Its all this talk of methodologies which makes me suspicious.
No, if one pollster gets the wrong result then they are out of work qv. Angus Reid. If they all do, then it's 1992 all over again, learn lessons and all that, but polls will still be commissioned. Hence the temptation to herd.
There are some shrewd commentators on here, aren't there?
FWIW I have some sympathy with Dan's excoriation of the pollsters but it can't be the full story, because even the phone pollsters' outliers fell short of the result. Shy Tories imo.
Hmm Those 2nd pref prices look about right to me, also the Labour price is 3% wrong according to Tissue_Price analysis. So it's a smidgen of value, but too low to invest in.
"Analysis" is a bit strong - it's just my opinion! I'd average it with shadsy's any day of the week to get closer to the truth.
Am I alone in thinking that the seduction of a typical 15 year old boy by a 28 year old woman may not have been the worst thing that could have happened to him? The 13 year old is a different issue. I agre that the fact that they were their teacher is an abuse of their position.
Am I alone in thinking that the seduction of a typical 15 year old boy by a 28 year old woman may not have been the worst thing that could have happened to him? The 13 year old is a different issue. I agre that the fact that they were their teacher is an abuse of their position.
Reverse the males and females and then say the same is okay. If you can't then it's wrong either way around
I think after that new poll showing him with the highest net favourables amongst the public Burnham is going to win the Labour leadership barring any unexpected events. As for second place, if members vote with their heads it will be Kendall, their hearts it will be Corbyn, a bit of both Cooper
It's not just punters and people who commission polls losing money because the polls were fixed, it's the whole country being misled. People were led to believe that an Ed Miliband/SNP government was the most likely result and many will have changed their vote based on that.
Looks like there's going to be no easy money to be made in Holyrood 2016, would be interesting to know what odds the bookies would have put on the Greens coming second 6 months ago - probably well into double figures if not 3.
The Greens really have a mountain to climb to get 2nd, that said SLAB's self destructive tendency could make a difference. As SLAB are likely to lose most if not all of their 15 constituency seats, the battle for the remaining 20 or so list seats is going to be intense. SLAB have announced that all regional lists will be opened up and SLAB members will decide the rankings, this is going to be a brutal process. Should SLAB's infighting spill over into the public domain their vote heading to the danger zone of 15% could become a reality.
Another market which I spotted this morning was WH SLAB leader - Kezia 1/7 and Ken 4/1.
Hopefully as we get nearer to the main event the bookies will open up seats bandings markets, which may have a bit of value in them.
Its easy to manipulate statistics. Brown did it all the time. Global warmists do it all the time. It was a Canadian statistician that exposed the global warmists. Nate Silver exposed the US pollsters. Mr Hodges conclusion in his article would not be allowed here on PB, but its a conclusion I have some sympathy with.
It's not just punters and people who commission polls losing money because the polls were fixed, it's the whole country being misled. People were led to believe that an Ed Miliband/SNP government was the most likely result and many will have changed their vote based on that.
There was always a possibility of Ed/SNP being a coalition. The Scottish seat swing was so vast that it was an easy prediction. It was the pro tory movement based on this (and the appreciation by the voters that Ed Was Indeed Crap) that the polls did not pick up, not that the polls caused the movement.
OT. Worrying news coming out about the Greek finance deal. I actually thought they might be able to pull something off this time. I should have known better.
Tough times to be the man in the street in Greece.
Dan Hodges’ article is basically a synopsis of PB comments made in the final two weeks before GE2015 IMHO. - Only his final conclusion is different, but that’s only because of the banning rules that applied to PBers who may have thought it, but couldn’t say it.
Hmm Those 2nd pref prices look about right to me, also the Labour price is 3% wrong according to Tissue_Price analysis. So it's a smidgen of value, but too low to invest in.
"Analysis" is a bit strong - it's just my opinion! I'd average it with shadsy's any day of the week to get closer to the truth.
Hi Tissue Price... I don't say any of this in unfriendly terms, just puzzled by your article yesterday
Pricing it to a % over 100 then scaling all the runners down (almost) equally until its 100%.. seems a bit strange. In my experience, it is more likely that one of the prices would be wrong rather than all three equally
Secondly, why did you scale the fav down by 0.914, the second in by 0.92 and the rag by 0.933? By doing this then adding the same 3% overround to each runner, surely you are undercooking the fav? It would be ok if you added more over round to the fav than the others to compensate I guess. At IG when we did Binary Betting the spread around the favs was bigger than it was around the outsiders, (unless it was 1/10 or shorter) as it is in Spread Betting markets (27-30 7-9 0.5-2 etc)
ie if you made something a 1.76% chance would you offer it at 20/1? I would have thought 33/1 would be more likely
The OR on rags has to be smaller or else the true chance of a 100/1 shot winning would be -2%, and all 33/1 shots would have almost lost before the race began!
Most people in the industry that I know would price the favourite up first, as you did, because it is the runner w the most form/that you can be most confident about, then frame the rest around it to 100%... using your approach you are laying 1/2 about something your original instincts made a 70% chance. I don't think that's the right way of doing it
Finally, being pedantic, you scaled your 110% original book (70/25/15) down to 101% not 100% (64/23/14).. surprised no one picked up on that
I realise it was a market making lesson for beginners and maybe I am being too picky or am just plain wrong, but I did find that an odd approach. Then again I haven't worked in a bookmakers for 6 years, and maybe this is a new method that I have missed
Dan Hodges’ article is basically a synopsis of PB comments made in the final two weeks before GE2015 IMHO. - Only his final conclusion is different, but that’s only because of the banning rules that applied to PBers who may have thought it, but couldn’t say it.
His conclusion is iffy as well -- herding (or manipulation if you prefer) explains why the polls converged, not why they were wrong. If they'd not converged, most would likely still have been wrong but by different amounts.
The Greens really have a mountain to climb to get 2nd, that said SLAB's self destructive tendency could make a difference. As SLAB are likely to lose most if not all of their 15 constituency seats, the battle for the remaining 20 or so list seats is going to be intense. SLAB have announced that all regional lists will be opened up and SLAB members will decide the rankings, this is going to be a brutal process. Should SLAB's infighting spill over into the public domain their vote heading to the danger zone of 15% could become a reality.
Rats in a sack are always a good bet for carnage.
Ian Davidson alone could cripple SLAB's hopes. That man is angry.
OT. Worrying news coming out about the Greek finance deal. I actually thought they might be able to pull something off this time. I should have known better.
Tough times to be the man in the street in Greece.
The 'man on the street' voted the Clown Tsipras and fellow amateurs into office.
Epic Labour fail at PMQs - Cameron exposed the Labour claim to be tough on welfare. Turns out they only want cuts when no-one actually loses any money. They really should all go and live in Greece - mind you even there they'd better be quick as it could be about to go belly up there as well. North Korea? Argentina? Ukraine?
OT. Worrying news coming out about the Greek finance deal. I actually thought they might be able to pull something off this time. I should have known better.
Tough times to be the man in the street in Greece.
The 'man on the street' voted the Clown Tsipras and fellow amateurs into office.
The 'man on the street' wasn't responsible for the idiotic decision to take Greece into the Euro in the first place. Nor was he responsible for the fiddling of the books to allow it to happen.
But right now it looks like the IMF have come back with counter proposals which are unacceptable to the Greeks.
I get the impression that the IMF counter proposals are the same as before. They seem to have this interesting view on negotiation, where one party is meant to give all the ground and the other is supposed to yield nothing.
OT. Worrying news coming out about the Greek finance deal. I actually thought they might be able to pull something off this time. I should have known better.
Tough times to be the man in the street in Greece.
The 'man on the street' voted the Clown Tsipras and fellow amateurs into office.
The 'man on the street' wasn't responsible for the idiotic decision to take Greece into the Euro in the first place. Nor was he responsible for the fiddling of the books to allow it to happen.
As Varoufakis said some time ago, "where there is someone who has borrowed too much, there is also someone who has lent too much".
Hi Tissue Price... I don't say any of this in unfriendly terms, just puzzled by your article yesterday
You raise a lot of good questions and you are of course right that I was trying to keep it simple. It isn't really the method I use, apart from in a subconscious sense.
In practice I usually just price what I think each selection should be then check my overround [and other bookies, if available!] and adjust if it's too big or too small.
Pricing it to a % over 100 then scaling all the runners down (almost) equally until its 100%.. seems a bit strange. In my experience, it is more likely that one of the prices would be wrong rather than all three equally
Yes, true, and to be honest I probably overegged the Green estimate - partly for effect, but also partly because that's where I'd expect to see money at this stage - a "trendy" outsider
Secondly, why did you scale the fav down by 0.914, the second in by 0.92 and the rag by 0.933? By doing this then adding the same 3% overround to each runner, surely you are undercooking the fav? It would be ok if you added more over round to the fav than the others to compensate I guess. At IG when we did Binary Betting the spread around the favs was bigger than it was around the outsiders, (unless it was 1/10 or shorter) as it is in Spread Betting markets (27-30 7-9 0.5-2 etc)
ie if you made something a 1.76% chance would you offer it at 20/1? I would have thought 33/1 would be more likely
The OR on rags has to be smaller or else the true chance of a 100/1 shot winning would be -2%, and all 33/1 shots would have almost lost before the race began!
Yes, I wouldn't add 3% to outsiders [as I hinted at in the article]. In practice reducing by two or three ticks tends to work pretty well so for a 1.76% chance (true 50/1ish) 33/1 or maybe 25/1 on a political special would be about right.
Most people in the industry that I know would price the favourite up first, as you did, because it is the runner w the most form/that you can be most confident about, then frame the rest around it to 100%... using your approach you are laying 1/2 about something your original instincts made a 70% chance. I don't think that's the right way of doing it
Sure, though (a) it's a long way out for people to be backing odds-on, and (b) when something seems like the obvious winner you might get a better picture of just how odds-on it should be by analysing the threats.
Mr. Tyndall, I thought it was more or less done and dusted.
So did I. And for all that I am opposed to the EU and the Euro I really was hoping so because the fall out is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.
But right now it looks like the IMF have come back with counter proposals which are unacceptable to the Greeks.
They will have to rapidly become acceptable to the Greeks, whether they like it or not.
Possible election or referendum to come, or will the population just vote again for bread and circuses while continuing to think that tax is optional and retirement should be at 55?
Officials said the IMF was most concerned about the balance of the package, which was too heavily skewed towards tax increases that could further weaken the Greek economy and prove hard to collect, rather than structural reforms.
Also still in dispute were Greek demands for debt relief, which euro zone governments do not want to address at this stage, and IMF-led pressure for more steps to reform Greece's costly pension system.
There's no doubt that the IMF are right on the balance of the package, IMO.
Am I alone in thinking that the seduction of a typical 15 year old boy by a 28 year old woman may not have been the worst thing that could have happened to him? The 13 year old is a different issue. I agre that the fact that they were their teacher is an abuse of their position.
Reverse the males and females and then say the same is okay. If you can't then it's wrong either way around
I have reversed it and view it as wrong the other way around. But my view as 15 year old male was that an older girl/woman was a goal. Having a 17 year old french girl dance the night away was a plus..... An attractive lady a few years older was welcome... yes there are different standards for the sexes and probably right.
But right now it looks like the IMF have come back with counter proposals which are unacceptable to the Greeks.
I get the impression that the IMF counter proposals are the same as before. They seem to have this interesting view on negotiation, where one party is meant to give all the ground and the other is supposed to yield nothing.
How the IMF works: If you need us then, before you play, these are the rules of the game. They will not change.
The IMF supports basket-cases all around the world. They cannot be seen to negotiate meaningfully, or forgive debt, ever. The Greeks know this, and knew this when they took the money. My [limited] sympathy with their situation is evaporating fast.
Officials said the IMF was most concerned about the balance of the package, which was too heavily skewed towards tax increases that could further weaken the Greek economy and prove hard to collect, rather than structural reforms.
Also still in dispute were Greek demands for debt relief, which euro zone governments do not want to address at this stage, and IMF-led pressure for more steps to reform Greece's costly pension system.
There's no doubt that the IMF are right on the balance of the package, IMO.
If you are a conservative. If you are a socialist you might take a different view. That has largely been the problem all along, you have a very socialist government trying to negotiate with several groups of fiscal conservatives, and they are not even speaking the same language in financial terms,.
Dan Hodges’ article is basically a synopsis of PB comments made in the final two weeks before GE2015 IMHO. - Only his final conclusion is different, but that’s only because of the banning rules that applied to PBers who may have thought it, but couldn’t say it.
Hodges is brave enough to nail the herding tendency amongst the pollsters. Utter madness by them. It will take a long while before I start to believe the political polls in this country.
Mr. Tyndall, I thought it was more or less done and dusted.
So did I. And for all that I am opposed to the EU and the Euro I really was hoping so because the fall out is going to hurt a lot of innocent people.
But right now it looks like the IMF have come back with counter proposals which are unacceptable to the Greeks.
They will have to rapidly become acceptable to the Greeks, whether they like it or not.
Possible election or referendum to come, or will the population just vote again for bread and circuses while continuing to think that tax is optional and retirement should be at 55?
Whilst clearly I understand what you are saying and you are probably right, I am not sure how many people in the UK would be able to accept the sorts of cuts in income that those in Greece have suffered over the last few years.
And before people start going on about how great the Greek pension is, it is worth noting that in 2013 Greek spending per pensioner over the age of 65 was 11th out of the 18 Eurozone members at that time and was 2/3rds of the Eurozone average. So they are not exactly the amazingly generous country that is being claimed.
I am all for them rapidly or even immediately increasing the pension age - though given the jobs market you have to ask where all the extra jobs are going to come from to cater for those who cannot retire. But the Greek pension is nothing extraordinary compared to the rest of the Eurozone.
Am I alone in thinking that the seduction of a typical 15 year old boy by a 28 year old woman may not have been the worst thing that could have happened to him? The 13 year old is a different issue. I agre that the fact that they were their teacher is an abuse of their position.
Reverse the males and females and then say the same is okay. If you can't then it's wrong either way around
She got a heavier sentence than Rolf Harris did, who behaved worse, IMHO.
Felix Until a new Labour leader is elected we cannot be certain what Labour's policy is, at the moment Harriet is acting leader so policy will reflect her soft left views accordingly
Understood. Thought I would say something as people might have used that approach to price up the 3.45 at Kempton or something.
I am going to the Matt Forde political party show tonight in SW1. Its half hour of political stand up followed by a 45 minute interview then Q&A w a politician, and this month its... Jim Murphy!
Anyone else going? Its the last Wednesday of each month and for people as interested in politics as PBers it is a must see really if you can get to Victoria easily
It's not just punters and people who commission polls losing money because the polls were fixed, it's the whole country being misled. People were led to believe that an Ed Miliband/SNP government was the most likely result and many will have changed their vote based on that.
There was always a possibility of Ed/SNP being a coalition. The Scottish seat swing was so vast that it was an easy prediction. It was the pro tory movement based on this (and the appreciation by the voters that Ed Was Indeed Crap) that the polls did not pick up, not that the polls caused the movement.
The polls were undeniably wrong, it's also true that most people believed them. It is Dan Hodges' assertion that the pollsters fiddled their results (he says 'lied') rather than the polls not picking up any movement. If that was the case then the pollsters would be responsible for voters basing their decisions on incorrect information.
OT. Worrying news coming out about the Greek finance deal. I actually thought they might be able to pull something off this time. I should have known better.
Tough times to be the man in the street in Greece.
The 'man on the street' voted the Clown Tsipras and fellow amateurs into office.
The ins and outs, rights and wrongs and laying of accurate historical blame for Greece's predicament are, surely, beyond most of us to pronounce on with any great accuracy.
The only sure thing is that kicking the can further down the road AGAIN will not solve anything at all.
The situation needs an endgame, not more fudge than a Devon seaside resort
Officials said the IMF was most concerned about the balance of the package, which was too heavily skewed towards tax increases that could further weaken the Greek economy and prove hard to collect, rather than structural reforms.
Also still in dispute were Greek demands for debt relief, which euro zone governments do not want to address at this stage, and IMF-led pressure for more steps to reform Greece's costly pension system.
There's no doubt that the IMF are right on the balance of the package, IMO.
If you are a conservative. If you are a socialist you might take a different view. That has largely been the problem all along, you have a very socialist government trying to negotiate with several groups of fiscal conservatives, and they are not even speaking the same language in financial terms,.
It would be interesting to know of any research as to whether IMF prescriptions are commonly helpful.
We've known for nearly a year now just how many children are thought to have been abused in Rotherham - now we have an accurate assessment of the number of men responsible.
Three hundred adults could eventually end up being arrested and tried in the courts.
Am I alone in thinking that the seduction of a typical 15 year old boy by a 28 year old woman may not have been the worst thing that could have happened to him? The 13 year old is a different issue. I agre that the fact that they were their teacher is an abuse of their position.
Reverse the males and females and then say the same is okay. If you can't then it's wrong either way around
She got a heavier sentence than Rolf Harris did, who behaved worse, IMHO.
I agree. The impact and scale of Harris's crimes warranted a much longer sentence than for the lady.
Officials said the IMF was most concerned about the balance of the package, which was too heavily skewed towards tax increases that could further weaken the Greek economy and prove hard to collect, rather than structural reforms.
Also still in dispute were Greek demands for debt relief, which euro zone governments do not want to address at this stage, and IMF-led pressure for more steps to reform Greece's costly pension system.
There's no doubt that the IMF are right on the balance of the package, IMO.
If you are a conservative. If you are a socialist you might take a different view. That has largely been the problem all along, you have a very socialist government trying to negotiate with several groups of fiscal conservatives, and they are not even speaking the same language in financial terms,.
It would be interesting to know of any research as to whether IMF prescriptions are commonly helpful.
I know that a lot of NGOs hold that IMF involvement in poor third world countries can be disastrous for the population given that one of the standard 'cures' they prescribe is the need to restructure economies so that export production takes priority over domestic production of things like food. The 'Cash Crop' model is held to be one of the great blights on African states post WW2.
@Tissue_Price (sorry I left out the underscore before)
Understood. Thought I would say something as people might have used that approach to price up the 3.45 at Kempton or something.
I am going to the Matt Forde political party show tonight in SW1. Its half hour of political stand up followed by a 45 minute interview then Q&A w a politician, and this month its... Jim Murphy!
Anyone else going? Its the last Wednesday of each month and for people as interested in politics as PBers it is a must see really if you can get to Victoria easily
To me three weeks before (at least) it was a certainty (in my own mind) that the polls had to be wrong. Ed was unelectable, and when you put him up against Dave the choice was stark. I was however, terribly worried by the polling that was coming out but mightily relieved at the exit poll. The Nation for once had the collective sense it ought to have . my thoughts might have been a straw in the wind , but they were infinitely better than paying any of the polling companies to tell me a load of old cock.
And this is the final reason it matters. Polls aren’t just used to predict election results, they’re also used to try to influence election results. A few days before polling day the BBC produced an all-singing, all-dancing full page online interactive graphic detailing the “Close constituency battles” it said were “being fought with less than a week to go before the general election”. At the bottom, it carried this small disclaimer. “Most of the polling shown was commissioned from independent polling companies by former Conservative party deputy chairman and donor Lord Ashcroft. Seven were conducted by Survation on behalf of UKIP donor Alan Bown or trade union Unite. One was carried out by ICM for former Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshott."
It's not just punters and people who commission polls losing money because the polls were fixed, it's the whole country being misled. People were led to believe that an Ed Miliband/SNP government was the most likely result and many will have changed their vote based on that.
There was always a possibility of Ed/SNP being a coalition. The Scottish seat swing was so vast that it was an easy prediction. It was the pro tory movement based on this (and the appreciation by the voters that Ed Was Indeed Crap) that the polls did not pick up, not that the polls caused the movement.
The polls were undeniably wrong, it's also true that most people believed them. It is Dan Hodges' assertion that the pollsters fiddled their results (he says 'lied') rather than the polls not picking up any movement. If that was the case then the pollsters would be responsible for voters basing their decisions on incorrect information.
They entered into a loan on terms that they usually wouldn't do (rescuing the EU as they did so). They loaned money to a country without control of its currency for the first time. And are now surprised that the consequences of their standard plans don't work (hint they work the rest of the time because its possible for the country's currency to depreciate and find its natural rate) while internal inflation does the rest. That isn't possible when the country doesn't have control of its currency...
The best way to imagine Greece is to pretend its Detroit or some other old dying part of the USA. And imagine what the consequences of what people are trying to do to that...
But right now it looks like the IMF have come back with counter proposals which are unacceptable to the Greeks.
I get the impression that the IMF counter proposals are the same as before. They seem to have this interesting view on negotiation, where one party is meant to give all the ground and the other is supposed to yield nothing.
How the IMF works: If you need us then, before you play, these are the rules of the game. They will not change.
The IMF supports basket-cases all around the world. They cannot be seen to negotiate meaningfully, or forgive debt, ever. The Greeks know this, and knew this when they took the money. My [limited] sympathy with their situation is evaporating fast.
The IMF exists to save countries, not protect currency unions and banks. It had no business under its own rules lending to Greece when it did, the IMF rules proscribe it from lending to insolvent countries. However DSK was in charge at the IMF at the time, and large French and German banks were in trouble, and an "accomodation" was made. The IMF has behaved disgracefully.
Lots of "proper" poor countries, some of them IMF contributors are bemused as to why they are paying to prop up banks and currency unions in wealth currency blocks that have easily enough money to solve the problem themselves.
There's some value in the 4/6 on Labour winning without the SNP. It covers every case where Labour start to get their act together even slightly and a lot of cases where they're still doing appallingly but where no other party puts together a run. Labour probably should be a a fair bit shorter than 4/6 and maybe should be as short as 1/4.
However, I'm not betting on this. I really don't fancy betting on an odds-on favourite that is so completely shambolic. The self-loathing I'd feel if the bet lost would be indescribable.
They entered into a loan on terms that they usually wouldn't do (rescuing the EU as they did so). They loaned money to a country without control of its currency for the first time. And are now surprised that the consequences of their standard plans don't work (hint they work the rest of the time because its possible for the country's currency to depreciate and find its natural rate) while internal inflation does the rest. That isn't possible when the country doesn't have control of its currency...
Yes, the role of the IMF should be to help out countries, not to help prop up failing currencies.
Saying that you wouldn't start from here is easy with hindsight, but more than a few people at the time said that the IMF shouldn't have got involved in any of the EZ countries, rather should have insisted that the ECB sorted out the mess themselves.
The Greek problem could still be solved overnight if the other EZ countries agree to either a bailout from central ECB funds or a money-printing exercise, but the political will among the other EZ countries is not there for that approach.
Greece are about to go down the worst path possible, that of an unstructured Euro exit, and it'll be pretty horrible for them. They took money from the world's lender of last resort though, now they need to pay it back.
On the GE polls - I just could not see how they were right. It seemed utterly ridiculous to me that given what was happening in Scotland and given how crap EdM was that anyone could believe that Labour would get close to winning even most seats. I expected them to go backwards. But not by as much as they did. And the Tory overall majority caught ne by surprise, even though I never ruled it out completely beforehand. I said from the outset that the only issue was whether they would get a de facto majority or not. A de jure one did not seem possible.
rule changes in the green jersey could favour the sprinters, so potentially cavendish et al could be good value, sagan could be too short odds.
DYOR as they say, that article is quite nice and detailed
Cavendish really isn't a fraction the sprinter he was. I think the Olympics really did destroy a lot of his focus, no matter how brave a face he puts on things. He just no longer appears competitive with Kittel and Greipel. The fact that Kristoff can beat him consistently indicates that his days of multiple stage wins in Grand Tours are over.
I hope i'm wrong. But it is pretty unlikely I am. If he gets a stage this year, he will be doing well.
As for Green, no rule change will stop Sagan. He is a remarkable rider given his ability to stick with the climbs to win flat finishes on Medium Mountain and win puncheur ramped finish stages while still sprinting against pure flat men effectively.
On the GE polls - I just could not see how they were right. It seemed utterly ridiculous to me that given what was happening in Scotland and given how crap EdM was that anyone could believe that Labour would get close to winning even most seats. I expected them to go backwards. But not by as much as they did. And the Tory overall majority caught ne by surprise, even though I never ruled it out completely beforehand. I said from the outset that the only issue was whether they would get a de facto majority or not. A de jure one did not seem possible.
I've sometimes wondered whether the fact that most of the pollsters are based in London where Labour is strongest has led to an unintentional and subconscious skew in favour of the party.
rule changes in the green jersey could favour the sprinters, so potentially cavendish et al could be good value, sagan could be too short odds.
DYOR as they say, that article is quite nice and detailed
Cavendish really isn't a fraction the sprinter he was. I think the Olympics really did destroy a lot of his focus, no matter how brave a face he puts on things. He just no longer appears competitive with Kittel and Greipel. The fact that Kristoff can beat him consistently indicates that his days of multiple stage wins in Grand Tours are over.
I hope i'm wrong. But it is pretty unlikely I am. If he gets a stage this year, he will be doing well.
As for Green, no rule change will stop Sagan. He is a remarkable rider given his ability to stick with the climbs to win flat finishes on Medium Mountain and win puncheur ramped finish stages while still sprinting against pure flat men effectively.
remarkable riders all. I suspect you are too swift to write Cavendish off. green would be a surprise, but not impossible I think. we shall see
On the GE polls - I just could not see how they were right. It seemed utterly ridiculous to me that given what was happening in Scotland and given how crap EdM was that anyone could believe that Labour would get close to winning even most seats. I expected them to go backwards. But not by as much as they did. And the Tory overall majority caught ne by surprise, even though I never ruled it out completely beforehand. I said from the outset that the only issue was whether they would get a de facto majority or not. A de jure one did not seem possible.
Something went wrong with the polls in the last week or so.
With a fortnight or so to go, we had ICM, Ashcroft, ComRes and Ipsos Mori all with Tory leads of 4% to 6%.
Dan Hodges is talking nonsense, granted I'm slightly biased in having to got to know quite a few pollsters, as I know, they all worked hard trying to get the right result.
Thanks to Tissue_Price for an interesting header and also isam for his comments on it. Definitely good to see a discussion between two people who know whereof they speak. The internet could always do with more of that.
On the GE polls - I just could not see how they were right. It seemed utterly ridiculous to me that given what was happening in Scotland and given how crap EdM was that anyone could believe that Labour would get close to winning even most seats. I expected them to go backwards. But not by as much as they did. And the Tory overall majority caught ne by surprise, even though I never ruled it out completely beforehand. I said from the outset that the only issue was whether they would get a de facto majority or not. A de jure one did not seem possible.
Something went wrong with the polls in the last week or so.
With a fortnight or so to go, we had ICM, Ashcroft, ComRes and Ipsos Mori all with Tory leads of 4% to 6%.
Dan Hodges is talking nonsense, granted I'm slightly biased in having to got to know quite a few pollsters, as I know, they all worked hard trying to get the right result.
Remember the ICM poll that even ICM said was too Tory in sampling.. WTF was that all about. It was because it was OUT OF LINE with other pollsters. Seems fairly likely that as voting day neared, herding took place.
Remember the ICM poll that even ICM said was too Tory in sampling.. WTF was that all about. It was because it was OUT OF LINE with other pollsters. Seems fairly likely that as voting day neared, herding took place.
Or the Survation poll that "proves they were right" despite them not publishing it because they didn't think it was right at all
On the GE polls - I just could not see how they were right. It seemed utterly ridiculous to me that given what was happening in Scotland and given how crap EdM was that anyone could believe that Labour would get close to winning even most seats. I expected them to go backwards. But not by as much as they did. And the Tory overall majority caught ne by surprise, even though I never ruled it out completely beforehand. I said from the outset that the only issue was whether they would get a de facto majority or not. A de jure one did not seem possible.
Something went wrong with the polls in the last week or so.
With a fortnight or so to go, we had ICM, Ashcroft, ComRes and Ipsos Mori all with Tory leads of 4% to 6%.
Dan Hodges is talking nonsense, granted I'm slightly biased in having to got to know quite a few pollsters, as I know, they all worked hard trying to get the right result.
Remember the ICM poll that even ICM said was too Tory in sampling.. WTF was that all about. It was because it was OUT OF LINE with other pollsters. Seems fairly likely that as voting day neared, herding took place.
ICM's point was it contained too many people who said they voted Tory in 2010 than actually did.
ICM (like other pollsters) do not herd, there have been other times, where they could have herded, but didn't do.
There's some value in the 4/6 on Labour winning without the SNP. It covers every case where Labour start to get their act together even slightly and a lot of cases where they're still doing appallingly but where no other party puts together a run. Labour probably should be a a fair bit shorter than 4/6 and maybe should be as short as 1/4.
However, I'm not betting on this. I really don't fancy betting on an odds-on favourite that is so completely shambolic. The self-loathing I'd feel if the bet lost would be indescribable.
Labour seems a no brainer and I think they will take a comfortable second but it's all to real a prospect that each day closer to the election you'd see yet another mistake (TM) from them and and another fraction point of support bleed away and then due to a freak local factor and calculations to 2 decimal places on the list vote the Tories pip them by a seat.
But right now it looks like the IMF have come back with counter proposals which are unacceptable to the Greeks.
I get the impression that the IMF counter proposals are the same as before. They seem to have this interesting view on negotiation, where one party is meant to give all the ground and the other is supposed to yield nothing.
How the IMF works: If you need us then, before you play, these are the rules of the game. They will not change.
The IMF supports basket-cases all around the world. They cannot be seen to negotiate meaningfully, or forgive debt, ever. The Greeks know this, and knew this when they took the money. My [limited] sympathy with their situation is evaporating fast.
The IMF exists to save countries, not protect currency unions and banks. It had no business under its own rules lending to Greece when it did, the IMF rules proscribe it from lending to insolvent countries. However DSK was in charge at the IMF at the time, and large French and German banks were in trouble, and an "accomodation" was made. The IMF has behaved disgracefully.
Lots of "proper" poor countries, some of them IMF contributors are bemused as to why they are paying to prop up banks and currency unions in wealth currency blocks that have easily enough money to solve the problem themselves.
I think most of that is right*. To my mind that means they have even less wriggle room to negotiate or compromise, as it would deepen the reputational quagmire they find themselves in.
* Although I think part of their raison d'etre is to maintain global stability for the rich countries that fund the IMF. They do not exist for purely altruistic reasons.
Epic Labour fail at PMQs - Cameron exposed the Labour claim to be tough on welfare. Turns out they only want cuts when no-one actually loses any money. They really should all go and live in Greece - mind you even there they'd better be quick as it could be about to go belly up there as well. North Korea? Argentina? Ukraine?
Really? What I saw was HH just probing at the intellectual underbelly of this round of welfare cuts. Which Cameron answered by implying that more and better paid jobs would solve everything! While it may solve quite a large amount for a lot of people, I have never seen any concession at all by David Cameron that there remains a minimum standard for those for whom the extra better paid jobs remain out of reach, and yes, even for that subset of 'undeserving poor' who will continue to habitually make bad decisions no matter how stark their choices get. Despite invitation, he pointedly refused to even engage with that side of the argument.
And as a decent earner who lives in a metropolitan area, cheek by jowl with a significant proportion of people who earn quite a lot less, his inability to speak up for the basic concept of having a welfare system at all worries me. No, I do not wish to live in North Korea / Greece but, to provide equal exaggeration for effect, neither do I want to live in a barbed-wire protected compound in Lagos or Mogadishu. Poverty did not start being a problem when the welfare state started, the effects of poverty for 'decent hard-working' people like 'us' was far worse in Victorian times than it is now.
Now, I honestly don't think anyone from any party wants to go back to Victorian welfare standards, I'm not of that 'evil tories' school, but the lack of anyone on any side being willing to stand up and restate the basics of why a welfare system should exist at all, makes me fear that we might sleepwalk a lot closer those standards than we envisage, simply because the problem will remain under the surface until it is very bad.
IDS does seem to have at least some intellectual underpinnings in this respect, but the demand for quick austerity rather than slower structural reform seems to undermine any long-term plan he might be working to.
On the GE polls - I just could not see how they were right. It seemed utterly ridiculous to me that given what was happening in Scotland and given how crap EdM was that anyone could believe that Labour would get close to winning even most seats. I expected them to go backwards. But not by as much as they did. And the Tory overall majority caught ne by surprise, even though I never ruled it out completely beforehand. I said from the outset that the only issue was whether they would get a de facto majority or not. A de jure one did not seem possible.
Something went wrong with the polls in the last week or so.
With a fortnight or so to go, we had ICM, Ashcroft, ComRes and Ipsos Mori all with Tory leads of 4% to 6%.
Dan Hodges is talking nonsense, granted I'm slightly biased in having to got to know quite a few pollsters, as I know, they all worked hard trying to get the right result.
Remember the ICM poll that even ICM said was too Tory in sampling.. WTF was that all about. It was because it was OUT OF LINE with other pollsters. Seems fairly likely that as voting day neared, herding took place.
ICM's point was it contained too many people who said they voted Tory in 2010 than actually did.
ICM (like other pollsters) do not herd, there have been other times, where they could have herded, but didn't do.
The only way we could find out would be to look at every poll and see what they did., which is difficult because methodology is a closely guarded secret. There were firms who changed their methodology in the run up to the GE, ostensibly to reduce variation.
I don't like what the polling companies were doing and I am deeply mistrustful of them. Not that I lost any money, I made £40 on Broxtowe for my chosen charity.
Am I alone in thinking that the seduction of a typical 15 year old boy by a 28 year old woman may not have been the worst thing that could have happened to him? The 13 year old is a different issue. I agre that the fact that they were their teacher is an abuse of their position.
Reverse the males and females and then say the same is okay. If you can't then it's wrong either way around
She got a heavier sentence than Rolf Harris did, who behaved worse, IMHO.
I know nothing about the details of this case, other than what I've read. But I know a lot about teenage boys, as I was one.
Firstly, from the ages of 15-18 girls and women and losing virginity was virtually all they think about. Secondly, that a degree of interest from the male is necessary for full sex to occur with a female, for obvious reasons.
Yes, she exploited them emotionally and sexually. But I also wouldn't quite put this in the Rolf Harris, let alone Jimmy Saville, league.
There's some value in the 4/6 on Labour winning without the SNP. It covers every case where Labour start to get their act together even slightly and a lot of cases where they're still doing appallingly but where no other party puts together a run. Labour probably should be a a fair bit shorter than 4/6 and maybe should be as short as 1/4.
However, I'm not betting on this. I really don't fancy betting on an odds-on favourite that is so completely shambolic. The self-loathing I'd feel if the bet lost would be indescribable.
Labour seems a no brainer and I think they will take a comfortable second but it's all to real a prospect that each day closer to the election you'd see yet another mistake (TM) from them and and another fraction point of support bleed away and then due to a freak local factor and calculations to 2 decimal places on the list vote the Tories pip them by a seat.
You would feel like a total berk.
You get my line of thought exactly. Which is why the bookies should do well out of this market. Everyone who bets will bet at rubbish odds on a party that stands only a remote chance of winning.
Officials said the IMF was most concerned about the balance of the package, which was too heavily skewed towards tax increases that could further weaken the Greek economy and prove hard to collect, rather than structural reforms.
Also still in dispute were Greek demands for debt relief, which euro zone governments do not want to address at this stage, and IMF-led pressure for more steps to reform Greece's costly pension system.
There's no doubt that the IMF are right on the balance of the package, IMO.
If you are a conservative. If you are a socialist you might take a different view. That has largely been the problem all along, you have a very socialist government trying to negotiate with several groups of fiscal conservatives, and they are not even speaking the same language in financial terms,.
It would be interesting to know of any research as to whether IMF prescriptions are commonly helpful.
I know that a lot of NGOs hold that IMF involvement in poor third world countries can be disastrous for the population given that one of the standard 'cures' they prescribe is the need to restructure economies so that export production takes priority over domestic production of things like food. The 'Cash Crop' model is held to be one of the great blights on African states post WW2.
Of course, I imagine a lot of NGOs are filled with left-wing people that have a very simplistic understanding of economics, and are aghast at anyone ever cutting government services to balance the budget.
Am I alone in thinking that the seduction of a typical 15 year old boy by a 28 year old woman may not have been the worst thing that could have happened to him? The 13 year old is a different issue. I agre that the fact that they were their teacher is an abuse of their position.
Reverse the males and females and then say the same is okay. If you can't then it's wrong either way around
She got a heavier sentence than Rolf Harris did, who behaved worse, IMHO.
I know nothing about the details of this case, other than what I've read. But I know a lot about teenage boys, as I was one.
It's not just punters and people who commission polls losing money because the polls were fixed, it's the whole country being misled. People were led to believe that an Ed Miliband/SNP government was the most likely result and many will have changed their vote based on that.
There was always a possibility of Ed/SNP being a coalition. The Scottish seat swing was so vast that it was an easy prediction. It was the pro tory movement based on this (and the appreciation by the voters that Ed Was Indeed Crap) that the polls did not pick up, not that the polls caused the movement.
The polls were undeniably wrong, it's also true that most people believed them. It is Dan Hodges' assertion that the pollsters fiddled their results (he says 'lied') rather than the polls not picking up any movement. If that was the case then the pollsters would be responsible for voters basing their decisions on incorrect information.
few pay attention to polls.
Enough to make a difference. Did you not see the comments on here and elsewhere from canvassers saying that real voters that they met on the doorstep were (unprompted) raising the issue of the SNP holding Labour to ransom as a price for backing them in government. Where did they get that idea from? The polls feed through to what commentators on the TV, radio and newspapers say and that does affect how people perceive the election. It is bound to have made a difference, we can disagree on how much.
It's not just punters and people who commission polls losing money because the polls were fixed, it's the whole country being misled. People were led to believe that an Ed Miliband/SNP government was the most likely result and many will have changed their vote based on that.
There was always a possibility of Ed/SNP being a coalition. The Scottish seat swing was so vast that it was an easy prediction. It was the pro tory movement based on this (and the appreciation by the voters that Ed Was Indeed Crap) that the polls did not pick up, not that the polls caused the movement.
The polls were undeniably wrong, it's also true that most people believed them. It is Dan Hodges' assertion that the pollsters fiddled their results (he says 'lied') rather than the polls not picking up any movement. If that was the case then the pollsters would be responsible for voters basing their decisions on incorrect information.
few pay attention to polls.
Enough to make a difference. Did you not see the comments on here and elsewhere from canvassers saying that real voters that they met on the doorstep were (unprompted) raising the issue of the SNP holding Labour to ransom as a price for backing them in government. Where did they get that idea from? The polls feed through to what commentators on the TV, radio and newspapers say and that does affect how people perceive the election. It is bound to have made a difference, we can disagree on how much.
On the GE polls - I just could not see how they were right. It seemed utterly ridiculous to me that given what was happening in Scotland and given how crap EdM was that anyone could believe that Labour would get close to winning even most seats. I expected them to go backwards. But not by as much as they did. And the Tory overall majority caught ne by surprise, even though I never ruled it out completely beforehand. I said from the outset that the only issue was whether they would get a de facto majority or not. A de jure one did not seem possible.
Something went wrong with the polls in the last week or so.
With a fortnight or so to go, we had ICM, Ashcroft, ComRes and Ipsos Mori all with Tory leads of 4% to 6%.
Dan Hodges is talking nonsense, granted I'm slightly biased in having to got to know quite a few pollsters, as I know, they all worked hard trying to get the right result.
Remember the ICM poll that even ICM said was too Tory in sampling.. WTF was that all about. It was because it was OUT OF LINE with other pollsters. Seems fairly likely that as voting day neared, herding took place.
ICM's point was it contained too many people who said they voted Tory in 2010 than actually did.
ICM (like other pollsters) do not herd, there have been other times, where they could have herded, but didn't do.
And it's exactly that which panicked me on the day. Had ICM remained at a 3%-6% Tory lead, rather than drawn level, I would have stuck with it and not thrown money away backing Labour seats and EICIPM on polling day.
Am I alone in thinking that the seduction of a typical 15 year old boy by a 28 year old woman may not have been the worst thing that could have happened to him? The 13 year old is a different issue. I agre that the fact that they were their teacher is an abuse of their position.
Reverse the males and females and then say the same is okay. If you can't then it's wrong either way around
She got a heavier sentence than Rolf Harris did, who behaved worse, IMHO.
I know nothing about the details of this case, other than what I've read. But I know a lot about teenage boys, as I was one.
Small sample size? ;-)
Well, I had no luck till I was twenty. So maybe ;-)
I was keeping a track of polling movements in the home straight (You may remember SPUD?!) and from the Monday just over two weeks before the GE, until the Tuesday before the big day, the findings were
Con -2 Lab -13 UKIP +4 LD+1 Green +1
This was from a opening position of the Tories 39% with ICM and UKIP 7% w ICM so the Tories were starting from a high position and UKIP from a low
Looking at that I think the pollsters got the momentum pretty right, and if I had more faith in what was a pretty off the cuff experiment, the pointers for a Con Maj were there.
People that championed ICM could have profited if they had paid attention to SPUD and kept faith with ICM
On the GE polls - I just could not see how they were right. It seemed utterly ridiculous to me that given what was happening in Scotland and given how crap EdM was that anyone could believe that Labour would get close to winning even most seats. I expected them to go backwards. But not by as much as they did. And the Tory overall majority caught ne by surprise, even though I never ruled it out completely beforehand. I said from the outset that the only issue was whether they would get a de facto majority or not. A de jure one did not seem possible.
Something went wrong with the polls in the last week or so.
With a fortnight or so to go, we had ICM, Ashcroft, ComRes and Ipsos Mori all with Tory leads of 4% to 6%.
Dan Hodges is talking nonsense, granted I'm slightly biased in having to got to know quite a few pollsters, as I know, they all worked hard trying to get the right result.
Remember the ICM poll that even ICM said was too Tory in sampling.. WTF was that all about. It was because it was OUT OF LINE with other pollsters. Seems fairly likely that as voting day neared, herding took place.
ICM's point was it contained too many people who said they voted Tory in 2010 than actually did.
ICM (like other pollsters) do not herd, there have been other times, where they could have herded, but didn't do.
Dan Hodges, Jack W and very few others said with conviction the Tories would win the GE, others called most seats a "coin toss"
On the GE polls - I just could not see how they were right. It seemed utterly ridiculous to me that given what was happening in Scotland and given how crap EdM was that anyone could believe that Labour would get close to winning even most seats. I expected them to go backwards. But not by as much as they did. And the Tory overall majority caught ne by surprise, even though I never ruled it out completely beforehand. I said from the outset that the only issue was whether they would get a de facto majority or not. A de jure one did not seem possible.
Something went wrong with the polls in the last week or so.
With a fortnight or so to go, we had ICM, Ashcroft, ComRes and Ipsos Mori all with Tory leads of 4% to 6%.
Dan Hodges is talking nonsense, granted I'm slightly biased in having to got to know quite a few pollsters, as I know, they all worked hard trying to get the right result.
Poll after poll was coming in with raw data that showed the Tory 2015 VI was the same as the 2010 one - yet something was being done to the numbers at the end to lop a few percent off the Tory vote.
Most of the internet pollsters had derisory track records, and that was regularly questioned in the run up to polling day. Some Labour leaners dismissed the criticism, thinking it was borne of political bias, rather than the woeful, observed outcomes at by elections, the Euros etc.
It was the faith in Yougov and the fog of it's daily polling that did the damage more than anything.
Internet polling should be dead. All it's flaws were regularly debated - too much self selection, multiple accounts, false identifiers, susceptibility to activists.
Secondly, that a degree of interest from the male is necessary for full sex to occur with a female, for obvious reasons.
While I'm sure it doesn't apply in this case, this is a myth. The human body can have physical reactions to things even if the person is unwilling. If you read some stories of male victims of rape, you may get more understanding. Female victims of rape can also have physical reactions during the rape, which doesn't help with the shame they feel afterwards.
Also, children are too young to properly give consent. I once had a friend who admitted that he had sex with an adult babysitter when he was just 13. He was willing at the time, but it really messed up his trust levels in sexual relationships, and he became angrier and angrier about how he was abused as time went on. He also said one of the worst parts of it was how he can't ever admit it to most people, because male victims of rape are ridiculed and "must have enjoyed it".
Epic Labour fail at PMQs - Cameron exposed the Labour claim to be tough on welfare. Turns out they only want cuts when no-one actually loses any money. They really should all go and live in Greece - mind you even there they'd better be quick as it could be about to go belly up there as well. North Korea? Argentina? Ukraine?
Now, I honestly don't think anyone from any party wants to go back to Victorian welfare standards, I'm not of that 'evil tories' school, but the lack of anyone on any side being willing to stand up and restate the basics of why a welfare system should exist at all, makes me fear that we might sleepwalk a lot closer those standards than we envisage, simply because the problem will remain under the surface until it is very bad.
I cannot remember during my lifetime an honest open debate about what the size of the state should be. What morally, should the welfare state be providing?
The cuts to child tax credits being mooted may end up taking us back to a level of generosity that was INTRODUCED by the last labour government - i.e. before that the situation was even less generous than what we will soon have. The whole system seems have become creepingly more generous over the years without any debate.
I remember receiving tax credits when both my wife and I had decent jobs. To my mind this is absurd, and not how I would design a "welfare state" from scratch. We absolutely did not need the money. Much of the extra money in the pockets of people like us ultimately just drove up house prices, or was spent on (often imported) goods far beyond the scope of everyday necessities which to my mind benefits should help people with the cost of.
Of course, saying "I wouldn't start from here" doesn't help to reform the current situation, but we ended up here without the vast majority of the public being aware of - and therefore without being able to express support or otherwise for - the degree of the state's largesse.
1 down 189,999 to go. In case you're wondering a macaroni pie looks like a Scotch pie but is filled with macaroni. I'll acknowledge that we Scots eat some very odd things:
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11695816/Why-did-the-polls-get-it-wrong-at-the-general-election-Because-they-lied.html
Did we ever find out who was the guy who took Shadsy for six figures walking into a shop the week before with a briefcase of cash on the Con majority result?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11593973/Pensioner-who-placed-30000-bet-on-Tory-majority-is-single-biggest-election-winner.html
FWIW I have some sympathy with Dan's excoriation of the pollsters but it can't be the full story, because even the phone pollsters' outliers fell short of the result. Shy Tories imo.
Am I alone in thinking that the seduction of a typical 15 year old boy by a 28 year old woman may not have been the worst thing that could have happened to him? The 13 year old is a different issue. I agre that the fact that they were their teacher is an abuse of their position.
The Greens really have a mountain to climb to get 2nd, that said SLAB's self destructive tendency could make a difference. As SLAB are likely to lose most if not all of their 15 constituency seats, the battle for the remaining 20 or so list seats is going to be intense. SLAB have announced that all regional lists will be opened up and SLAB members will decide the rankings, this is going to be a brutal process. Should SLAB's infighting spill over into the public domain their vote heading to the danger zone of 15% could become a reality.
Another market which I spotted this morning was WH SLAB leader - Kezia 1/7 and Ken 4/1.
Hopefully as we get nearer to the main event the bookies will open up seats bandings markets, which may have a bit of value in them.
The latter is good; Browtowe chose well.
Mr Hodges conclusion in his article would not be allowed here on PB, but its a conclusion I have some sympathy with.
Tough times to be the man in the street in Greece.
And goodness how we laugh.
But as other elections occur, and in the cold light of day, can someone explain the value or use of polls.
Or has there been a collective mea culpa/judge-led enquiry into what went wrong such as it won't happen again...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-33252378
Pricing it to a % over 100 then scaling all the runners down (almost) equally until its 100%.. seems a bit strange. In my experience, it is more likely that one of the prices would be wrong rather than all three equally
Secondly, why did you scale the fav down by 0.914, the second in by 0.92 and the rag by 0.933? By doing this then adding the same 3% overround to each runner, surely you are undercooking the fav? It would be ok if you added more over round to the fav than the others to compensate I guess. At IG when we did Binary Betting the spread around the favs was bigger than it was around the outsiders, (unless it was 1/10 or shorter) as it is in Spread Betting markets (27-30 7-9 0.5-2 etc)
ie if you made something a 1.76% chance would you offer it at 20/1? I would have thought 33/1 would be more likely
The OR on rags has to be smaller or else the true chance of a 100/1 shot winning would be -2%, and all 33/1 shots would have almost lost before the race began!
Most people in the industry that I know would price the favourite up first, as you did, because it is the runner w the most form/that you can be most confident about, then frame the rest around it to 100%... using your approach you are laying 1/2 about something your original instincts made a 70% chance. I don't think that's the right way of doing it
Finally, being pedantic, you scaled your 110% original book (70/25/15) down to 101% not 100% (64/23/14).. surprised no one picked up on that
I realise it was a market making lesson for beginners and maybe I am being too picky or am just plain wrong, but I did find that an odd approach. Then again I haven't worked in a bookmakers for 6 years, and maybe this is a new method that I have missed
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/596435872121278464
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/596437942576553987
Ian Davidson alone could cripple SLAB's hopes. That man is angry.
But right now it looks like the IMF have come back with counter proposals which are unacceptable to the Greeks.
The PB Tories always learn"
(or was it the other way round??)
In practice I usually just price what I think each selection should be then check my overround [and other bookies, if available!] and adjust if it's too big or too small. Yes, true, and to be honest I probably overegged the Green estimate - partly for effect, but also partly because that's where I'd expect to see money at this stage - a "trendy" outsider Yes, I wouldn't add 3% to outsiders [as I hinted at in the article]. In practice reducing by two or three ticks tends to work pretty well so for a 1.76% chance (true 50/1ish) 33/1 or maybe 25/1 on a political special would be about right. Sure, though (a) it's a long way out for people to be backing odds-on, and (b) when something seems like the obvious winner you might get a better picture of just how odds-on it should be by analysing the threats. That was just rounding!
Possible election or referendum to come, or will the population just vote again for bread and circuses while continuing to think that tax is optional and retirement should be at 55?
Officials said the IMF was most concerned about the balance of the package, which was too heavily skewed towards tax increases that could further weaken the Greek economy and prove hard to collect, rather than structural reforms.
Also still in dispute were Greek demands for debt relief, which euro zone governments do not want to address at this stage, and IMF-led pressure for more steps to reform Greece's costly pension system.
There's no doubt that the IMF are right on the balance of the package, IMO.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/24/uk-eurozone-greece-idUKKBN0P40FR20150624
The IMF supports basket-cases all around the world. They cannot be seen to negotiate meaningfully, or forgive debt, ever. The Greeks know this, and knew this when they took the money. My [limited] sympathy with their situation is evaporating fast.
And before people start going on about how great the Greek pension is, it is worth noting that in 2013 Greek spending per pensioner over the age of 65 was 11th out of the 18 Eurozone members at that time and was 2/3rds of the Eurozone average. So they are not exactly the amazingly generous country that is being claimed.
I am all for them rapidly or even immediately increasing the pension age - though given the jobs market you have to ask where all the extra jobs are going to come from to cater for those who cannot retire. But the Greek pension is nothing extraordinary compared to the rest of the Eurozone.
Understood. Thought I would say something as people might have used that approach to price up the 3.45 at Kempton or something.
I am going to the Matt Forde political party show tonight in SW1. Its half hour of political stand up followed by a 45 minute interview then Q&A w a politician, and this month its... Jim Murphy!
Anyone else going? Its the last Wednesday of each month and for people as interested in politics as PBers it is a must see really if you can get to Victoria easily
IMF = Xerxes
The only sure thing is that kicking the can further down the road AGAIN will not solve anything at all.
The situation needs an endgame, not more fudge than a Devon seaside resort
Understood. Thought I would say something as people might have used that approach to price up the 3.45 at Kempton or something.
I am going to the Matt Forde political party show tonight in SW1. Its half hour of political stand up followed by a 45 minute interview then Q&A w a politician, and this month its... Jim Murphy!
Anyone else going? Its the last Wednesday of each month and for people as interested in politics as PBers it is a must see really if you can get to Victoria easily
I was however, terribly worried by the polling that was coming out but mightily relieved at the exit poll. The Nation for once had the collective sense it ought to have .
my thoughts might have been a straw in the wind , but they were infinitely better than paying any of the polling companies to tell me a load of old cock.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-changing-face-of-the-tour-de-frances-green-jersey
rule changes in the green jersey could favour the sprinters, so potentially cavendish et al could be good value, sagan could be too short odds.
DYOR as they say, that article is quite nice and detailed
They entered into a loan on terms that they usually wouldn't do (rescuing the EU as they did so).
They loaned money to a country without control of its currency for the first time. And are now surprised that the consequences of their standard plans don't work (hint they work the rest of the time because its possible for the country's currency to depreciate and find its natural rate) while internal inflation does the rest. That isn't possible when the country doesn't have control of its currency...
The best way to imagine Greece is to pretend its Detroit or some other old dying part of the USA. And imagine what the consequences of what people are trying to do to that...
Lots of "proper" poor countries, some of them IMF contributors are bemused as to why they are paying to prop up banks and currency unions in wealth currency blocks that have easily enough money to solve the problem themselves.
However, I'm not betting on this. I really don't fancy betting on an odds-on favourite that is so completely shambolic. The self-loathing I'd feel if the bet lost would be indescribable.
Saying that you wouldn't start from here is easy with hindsight, but more than a few people at the time said that the IMF shouldn't have got involved in any of the EZ countries, rather should have insisted that the ECB sorted out the mess themselves.
The Greek problem could still be solved overnight if the other EZ countries agree to either a bailout from central ECB funds or a money-printing exercise, but the political will among the other EZ countries is not there for that approach.
Greece are about to go down the worst path possible, that of an unstructured Euro exit, and it'll be pretty horrible for them. They took money from the world's lender of last resort though, now they need to pay it back.
I hope i'm wrong. But it is pretty unlikely I am. If he gets a stage this year, he will be doing well.
As for Green, no rule change will stop Sagan. He is a remarkable rider given his ability to stick with the climbs to win flat finishes on Medium Mountain and win puncheur ramped finish stages while still sprinting against pure flat men effectively.
With a fortnight or so to go, we had ICM, Ashcroft, ComRes and Ipsos Mori all with Tory leads of 4% to 6%.
Dan Hodges is talking nonsense, granted I'm slightly biased in having to got to know quite a few pollsters, as I know, they all worked hard trying to get the right result.
ICM (like other pollsters) do not herd, there have been other times, where they could have herded, but didn't do.
https://twitter.com/GroomB/status/613701706673713152
A London Tesco store has come under fire after it placed bacon-flavoured Pringles in a Ramadan promotional stand.
Many Muslims do not eat or drink in daylight hours during the festival and feast after sunset.
http://bit.ly/1LmcKZZ
You would feel like a total berk.
* Although I think part of their raison d'etre is to maintain global stability for the rich countries that fund the IMF. They do not exist for purely altruistic reasons.
And as a decent earner who lives in a metropolitan area, cheek by jowl with a significant proportion of people who earn quite a lot less, his inability to speak up for the basic concept of having a welfare system at all worries me. No, I do not wish to live in North Korea / Greece but, to provide equal exaggeration for effect, neither do I want to live in a barbed-wire protected compound in Lagos or Mogadishu. Poverty did not start being a problem when the welfare state started, the effects of poverty for 'decent hard-working' people like 'us' was far worse in Victorian times than it is now.
Now, I honestly don't think anyone from any party wants to go back to Victorian welfare standards, I'm not of that 'evil tories' school, but the lack of anyone on any side being willing to stand up and restate the basics of why a welfare system should exist at all, makes me fear that we might sleepwalk a lot closer those standards than we envisage, simply because the problem will remain under the surface until it is very bad.
IDS does seem to have at least some intellectual underpinnings in this respect, but the demand for quick austerity rather than slower structural reform seems to undermine any long-term plan he might be working to.
I don't like what the polling companies were doing and I am deeply mistrustful of them. Not that I lost any money, I made £40 on Broxtowe for my chosen charity.
Firstly, from the ages of 15-18 girls and women and losing virginity was virtually all they think about. Secondly, that a degree of interest from the male is necessary for full sex to occur with a female, for obvious reasons.
Yes, she exploited them emotionally and sexually. But I also wouldn't quite put this in the Rolf Harris, let alone Jimmy Saville, league.
Did you not see the comments on here and elsewhere from canvassers saying that real voters that they met on the doorstep were (unprompted) raising the issue of the SNP holding Labour to ransom as a price for backing them in government. Where did they get that idea from? The polls feed through to what commentators on the TV, radio and newspapers say and that does affect how people perceive the election. It is bound to have made a difference, we can disagree on how much.
I was keeping a track of polling movements in the home straight (You may remember SPUD?!) and from the Monday just over two weeks before the GE, until the Tuesday before the big day, the findings were
Con -2
Lab -13
UKIP +4
LD+1
Green +1
This was from a opening position of the Tories 39% with ICM and UKIP 7% w ICM so the Tories were starting from a high position and UKIP from a low
Looking at that I think the pollsters got the momentum pretty right, and if I had more faith in what was a pretty off the cuff experiment, the pointers for a Con Maj were there.
People that championed ICM could have profited if they had paid attention to SPUD and kept faith with ICM
One set of them was right - the other MILES out.
Most of the internet pollsters had derisory track records, and that was regularly questioned in the run up to polling day. Some Labour leaners dismissed the criticism, thinking it was borne of political bias, rather than the woeful, observed outcomes at by elections, the Euros etc.
It was the faith in Yougov and the fog of it's daily polling that did the damage more than anything.
Internet polling should be dead. All it's flaws were regularly debated - too much self selection, multiple accounts, false identifiers, susceptibility to activists.
Also, children are too young to properly give consent. I once had a friend who admitted that he had sex with an adult babysitter when he was just 13. He was willing at the time, but it really messed up his trust levels in sexual relationships, and he became angrier and angrier about how he was abused as time went on. He also said one of the worst parts of it was how he can't ever admit it to most people, because male victims of rape are ridiculed and "must have enjoyed it".
The cuts to child tax credits being mooted may end up taking us back to a level of generosity that was INTRODUCED by the last labour government - i.e. before that the situation was even less generous than what we will soon have. The whole system seems have become creepingly more generous over the years without any debate.
I remember receiving tax credits when both my wife and I had decent jobs. To my mind this is absurd, and not how I would design a "welfare state" from scratch. We absolutely did not need the money. Much of the extra money in the pockets of people like us ultimately just drove up house prices, or was spent on (often imported) goods far beyond the scope of everyday necessities which to my mind benefits should help people with the cost of.
Of course, saying "I wouldn't start from here" doesn't help to reform the current situation, but we ended up here without the vast majority of the public being aware of - and therefore without being able to express support or otherwise for - the degree of the state's largesse.
https://twitter.com/kdugdalemsp/status/613713668484792320