The elephant in the Political Betting room, is the fact that on the two major political events of 2016 (Brexit and POTUS), the bulk of PB contributors and article writers, got both of them COMPLETELY WRONG! (OH YES THEY DID)
For a political betting website, the question should be asked is why there is such a herd mentality on here that misjudges such matters?
Of course we mainly read on this website about how clever the punters are that spent months saying that REMAIN/Clinton will happen and when LEAVE/Trump actually does happen .......then miraculously then carry on as if they never lost their shirts on being so wrong.
There's a big difference between thinking something likely to happen and betting on it. That's where the price comes in. Certainly on Brexit there were a lot of people calling it a decent value bet, especially in the final week. Trump, not so much (though again that was a function of price: if he'd been 8/1 I expect more people would have backed him).
The miraculous bit where everybody wins is because on election nights Betfair fills up with clueless punters who are just betting on what they see on the telly, and understandably PB takes them to the cleaners.
I seem to remember saying very clearly that I was strongly in favour of both Brexit and Trump. I'm not feeling part of a herd. The Patrick Party manifesto remains unaltered.
Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen. 98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
True. Our UK reporting of America seems to be of one mindset that Trump keeps making mistakes ha ha ha.
And his cheerleaders on here think he does no wrong. Time will tell which is most correct.
JJ so who are all his cheerleaders? Let us have your list please. Personally I have only written a few times about him that he seemed to be as unattractive as Clinton as POTUS. I do not recall any/many eulogies of praise about how wonderful Trump is?
I would mention the chief cheerleader, but she's repeatedly said she doesn't read my posts.
Calling her a cheerleader is frankly over the top. Plato has presented counter posts to the mountain of pro Clinton/Anti Trump items that have appeared on here. Hardly cheerleading. Look, you may think Trump is a scum bag. I may agree with that. But key was not what we personally thought of him but whether or not he was going to become POTUS. Contrary views and insights are useful. They have helped challenge the herd like mentality that has dominated political betting over the voting for Brexit and POTUS.
Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen. 98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
True. Our UK reporting of America seems to be of one mindset that Trump keeps making mistakes ha ha ha.
I thought his Healing Hillary tweet was so clever. My analysis was sneered at. Well, those PBers can carry on ignoring how smart Trump is here and keep getting it wrong
The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.
So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
The inforgraphic I posted earlier showed Clinton campaigning in CA (For fundraising or w/e) and Trump avoiding the state as it is obviously a foregone conclusion that the DEMs will win there. If Californian votes mattered, Trump would have campaigned there.
Clinton's campaign was so spectacularly amateurish for something that cost so much!
Many here and pundits kept asserting it wasn't like Brexit - I fundamentally disagree - it was Brexit with knobs on. I also find it increasingly entertaining how my observations are still dismissed - not many here called it correctly. I did.
The elephant in the Political Betting room, is the fact that on the two major political events of 2016 (Brexit and POTUS), the bulk of PB contributors and article writers, got both of them COMPLETELY WRONG! (OH YES THEY DID)
For a political betting website, the question should be asked is why there is such a herd mentality on here that misjudges such matters?
Of course we mainly read on this website about how clever the punters are that spent months saying that REMAIN/Clinton will happen and when LEAVE/Trump actually does happen .......then miraculously then carry on as if they never lost their shirts on being so wrong.
Nobody knows what will happen, we all have to base predictions on the nearest we have to facts - opinion polls and news reports. I suppose it's human nature to read and post reports and polls which match closest with the outcome you want. That happens on both sides of each argument. It's a failure of polling that is to blame here and SHOUTING at PB article writers doesn't alter that.
Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen. 98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
True. Our UK reporting of America seems to be of one mindset that Trump keeps making mistakes ha ha ha.
And his cheerleaders on here think he does no wrong. Time will tell which is most correct.
JJ so who are all his cheerleaders? Let us have your list please. Personally I have only written a few times about him that he seemed to be as unattractive as Clinton as POTUS. I do not recall any/many eulogies of praise about how wonderful Trump is?
I would mention the chief cheerleader, but she's repeatedly said she doesn't read my posts.
Calling her a cheerleader is frankly over the top. Plato has presented counter posts to the mountain of pro Clinton/Anti Trump items that have appeared on here. Hardly cheerleading. Look, you may think Trump is a scum bag. I may agree with that. But key was not what we personally thought of him but whether or not he was going to become POTUS. Contrary views and insights are useful. They have helped challenge the herd like mentality that has dominated political betting over the voting for Brexit and POTUS.
I disagree. I might suggest you go back and re-read her posts, and tell us where the 'insight' was.
The elephant in the Political Betting room, is the fact that on the two major political events of 2016 (Brexit and POTUS), the bulk of PB contributors and article writers, got both of them COMPLETELY WRONG! (OH YES THEY DID)
For a political betting website, the question should be asked is why there is such a herd mentality on here that misjudges such matters?
Of course we mainly read on this website about how clever the punters are that spent months saying that REMAIN/Clinton will happen and when LEAVE/Trump actually does happen .......then miraculously then carry on as if they never lost their shirts on being so wrong.
There's a big difference between thinking something likely to happen and betting on it. That's where the price comes in. Certainly on Brexit there were a lot of people calling it a decent value bet, especially in the final week. Trump, not so much (though again that was a function of price: if he'd been 8/1 I expect more people would have backed him).
The miraculous bit where everybody wins is because on election nights Betfair fills up with clueless punters who are just betting on what they see on the telly, and understandably PB takes them to the cleaners.
I seem to remember saying very clearly that I was strongly in favour of both Brexit and Trump. I'm not feeling part of a herd. The Patrick Party manifesto remains unaltered.
Someone here called it very early for Hillary and was totally wrong on the night. I think 2016 has proven in spades that listening to a wider range of voices is a wiser approach.
I remain astonished that anyone fell for such daftness post Brexit
When something motivates you to speak up there are options for what you say: 1. Just say what you want to say, get it off your chest. Emote. 2. Think a bit about your audience, tailor your emoting a bit to them. 3. Think what actual outcomes or actions you wish to induce from your audience and tailor your words logically and precisely to optimise the chances that that is what you'll get. No emoting at all. But it may SEEM that way.
Lefties and Hillary C are always in box 1. You're a racist, Trump's douchebag, nobody decent can vote Trump, etc, etc. It feels awesome to emote. It's also electorally utterly counterproductive. The Deplorables simply hear 'you hate me too'. Hers was a 100% box 1 campaign.
Trump gives me every impression of living entirely in box 3. He's a zen master of trolling and chain-yanking. I think his 'gaffes' and tweets are very carefully thought through. The bien-pensant crowd misunderstimate him at their peril (to quote another one they misunderestimated!). Trump's was a 100% box 3 campaign.
Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen. 98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
True. Our UK reporting of America seems to be of one mindset that Trump keeps making mistakes ha ha ha.
And his cheerleaders on here think he does no wrong. Time will tell which is most correct.
JJ so who are all his cheerleaders? Let us have your list please. Personally I have only written a few times about him that he seemed to be as unattractive as Clinton as POTUS. I do not recall any/many eulogies of praise about how wonderful Trump is?
I would mention the chief cheerleader, but she's repeatedly said she doesn't read my posts.
Calling her a cheerleader is frankly over the top. Plato has presented counter posts to the mountain of pro Clinton/Anti Trump items that have appeared on here. Hardly cheerleading. Look, you may think Trump is a scum bag. I may agree with that. But key was not what we personally thought of him but whether or not he was going to become POTUS. Contrary views and insights are useful. They have helped challenge the herd like mentality that has dominated political betting over the voting for Brexit and POTUS.
I was dead right about the misleading polling weeks in advance...
I would strongly suggest that anyone who reads the analysis here and loses money isn't reading very clearly. I supported the losing side in both those big events but won several times my total stake money. Remember that the odds were very long against both events so you could still think the losing side more likely to win and think the value bet is on the other side. That's how gambling works. I would think the PB community is well up on the year from political bets.
Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen. 98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
True. Our UK reporting of America seems to be of one mindset that Trump keeps making mistakes ha ha ha.
And his cheerleaders on here think he does no wrong. Time will tell which is most correct.
JJ so who are all his cheerleaders? Let us have your list please. Personally I have only written a few times about him that he seemed to be as unattractive as Clinton as POTUS. I do not recall any/many eulogies of praise about how wonderful Trump is?
I would mention the chief cheerleader, but she's repeatedly said she doesn't read my posts.
Calling her a cheerleader is frankly over the top. Plato has presented counter posts to the mountain of pro Clinton/Anti Trump items that have appeared on here. Hardly cheerleading. Look, you may think Trump is a scum bag. I may agree with that. But key was not what we personally thought of him but whether or not he was going to become POTUS. Contrary views and insights are useful. They have helped challenge the herd like mentality that has dominated political betting over the voting for Brexit and POTUS.
I was dead right about the misleading polling weeks in advance...
Comments
No skin off my nose.
I suppose it's human nature to read and post reports and polls which match closest with the outcome you want. That happens on both sides of each argument.
It's a failure of polling that is to blame here and SHOUTING at PB article writers doesn't alter that.
I remain astonished that anyone fell for such daftness post Brexit
1. Just say what you want to say, get it off your chest. Emote.
2. Think a bit about your audience, tailor your emoting a bit to them.
3. Think what actual outcomes or actions you wish to induce from your audience and tailor your words logically and precisely to optimise the chances that that is what you'll get. No emoting at all. But it may SEEM that way.
Lefties and Hillary C are always in box 1. You're a racist, Trump's douchebag, nobody decent can vote Trump, etc, etc. It feels awesome to emote. It's also electorally utterly counterproductive. The Deplorables simply hear 'you hate me too'. Hers was a 100% box 1 campaign.
Trump gives me every impression of living entirely in box 3. He's a zen master of trolling and chain-yanking. I think his 'gaffes' and tweets are very carefully thought through. The bien-pensant crowd misunderstimate him at their peril (to quote another one they misunderestimated!). Trump's was a 100% box 3 campaign.
Hell, I'm even up on the gee gees