Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looking at the Welsh constituency betting
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looking at the Welsh constituency betting
This looks like being a volatile election in many areas, but nowhere is that truer than in Wales. Five different parties are currently polling in double digits and none is yet polling above 30%. Current polls suggest that the current distribution of constituencies could be upended. Polling, of course, could still change dramatically before the election actually arrives.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Con 40.1% (+1.5%)
Lab 28.7 (+0.6)
LD 15.3 (-1.1)
BXP 7.5 (-0.9)
So Lab share of 28.7% ie -12.3% of 2017, or 70% of 2017
Arithmetic swing (UNS)
Con = 22,639 - .034x54,096 = 20,800
Lab = 27,400 -.123x54,096= 20,746
Multiplicative swing (favours "lumpiness" ie. bigger effect on larger shares)
Con = 92% of 22,639 = 20,074
Lab = 70% of 27,400 = 19,180
If you assume 80% additive and 20% multiplicative
Con = 20,655
Lab = 20,432
So Tory Gain. Based on Lab 28.7% and Tory 40.1% you said you were using from last night's polls.
I expect both to be Con Gain on current polling.
Russia may have had an impact on the result of the Brexit referendum
could not rule out that Kremlin-sanctioned disinformation campaigns influenced the landmark vote in 2016
the impact of propaganda disseminated by Russian media outlets including RT & Sputnik in the run-up to the Brexit referendum was “unquantifiable”.
https://twitter.com/TomJHarper/status/1195824057272487944?s=20
I guess pretty much the same could be said of Obama's intervention for Remain; You could not rule out that it may have had an impact on the campaign, but it is unquantifiable.
I wonder if that is covered in the report?
Could we see a few Tory gains or unlikely holds with a split opposition between Lab and LD - 40/30/30 results?
I dont think anyone disputes the issue is labour territory, but for christ's sake the implication the tories want to get rid of the NHS and just havent gotten to it yet is among the laziest ideas in politics. Pretty sure we can find a lot of things both main parties used to oppose which they are not secretly now still trying to abolish.
I know the NHS is a religion in this country, and its fair enough to think the tories run the NHS badly, but 'they voted against creating it' as an argument for today? Come on.
That's done with a much simpler tax code, with fewer exemptions and lower rates, incentives for research and development, and more tax raising powers devolved locally to allow councils and cities to compete for business.
Edit: Oh, and above all, a stable regulatory environment - which means having someone like Tony Blair as an alternative PM, not Jeremy Corbyn.
And "billionaires do so much good" is a pretty baffling argument too. If I stole everything you own from you, or won it off you in a bet, I could do you a lot of good by giving you 10% of it back. I still wouldn't be a net positive in your life.
Jennifer Arcuri: ‘I’ve kept Johnson’s secrets – now he’s cast me aside like a one-night stand’
That would get you to almost 30 million quid in the UK. Seems a bit low but still a reasonable baseline for "more than anyone needs" or "more than is healthy for anyone to have"
This story is still my one big concern about the campaign though - Johnson could still be undone by it, and it's the sort of story that journalists love to talk about. If Arcuri admits a sexual relationship and has good evidence to prove the story, then it could turn the election overnight.
"right wing" generally believing that people are mostly responsible for their own situation and rich are rich and poor are poor because they deserve it, and it's wrong of government to interfere in this.
"left wing" generally believing people mostly don't deserve to be rich or poor and government should intervene to try to make life fairer.
Now we have an extreme version of the first philosophy which says that the only way to value anything is by how much short term profit it can make for somebody. And that as being rich is a sign of being deserving, it's government's moral duty to make sure the richest can become even richer.
Maybe Bridgend
We all know he can't keep his, erm, Johnson, in his pants, yes that's priced in - but if he's been doling out public money to his mistress (as opposed to a friend) then he's in big trouble and could well be forced to resign.
His speech to the Fedarlist society is a nakedly political advertisement for what he would do if selected for the Supreme Court whilst simultaneously demonstrating why he is a partisan hack totally unsuitable for the Supreme Court.
His speech makes me vomit just reading it.
Does anybody think it's genuinely possible to make a living as a "professional" gambler? I recently encountered a voluble chancer on a car forum who claimed his main source of income was betting on EPL football. He's got a TVR so he obviously knows fuck all about cars but could he know enough about football to beat the bookies?
There's Tony Bloom, the owner of Brighton Football Club. Then there is Matthew Benham, who owns Brentwood FC. Finally there's Zeljko Ranogajec in Tasmania, although I'm slightly sceptical of whether he is as good (or as successful) as he is likes to make out.
I know a few tens of people below this mega level who make enough to live on.
But it really shouldn't be happening. Tories and Labour between them got 48,800 of the 53,700 votes cast in 2017. This time no UKIP (or Brexit of course), no LibDem, no Plaid, no Women's Equality and no Pirates. Just the Greens and a Gwlad candidate.
It SHOULD be Tory by 5k. But...Alun Cairns.
I suspect it won't swing many votes but it may well alienate enough people to make them stay at home, or not help with the election
I too know some pople who make a living out of gambling.
Even the Guardian agree with me:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/13/britain-tax-code-17000-pages-long-dog-whistle-very-rich
I am going to upgrade my model to make the Green tactical vote specific to each constituency (rather than have a crude uplift to the national Labour share.
I'm also going to follow a suggestion of @Richard_Tyndall that I explicitly model BXP tactical votes by constituency.
Later.
However, if it comes out he is some sort of hentai grade perv or has been witlessly cruel to her then it could have an adverse effect.
I suspect nothing will come of this "scandal" because the money bit is already known and the rest of it is meh..
He’s got the Leavers who will vote for him regardless , he could do anything and get away with it .
And if only women were morally autonomous, so that we could describe this as them using abortion as a means of birth control. Just haven't the brains, sadly.
All you need to be a professional gambler is a consistent source of knowledge that bookies don't have. Whether that knowledge is concrete information consistent inside line on team selection on 3rd division Scottish football or statistical analysis that bookies haven't cottoned onto, like the realisation that there isn't any home advantage in 3rd division Scottish football.
On another gambling forum if frequent I saw someone have a system for predicting the under/over line on total corners in a football match that was so profitable ovre so long a period of time he stopped posting his tips to the forum and started just monetising it full time.
There's loads of angles to hit, even in the age of professional firms statistically analysing the shit out of sport to bet on. For example even in the year of our lord twenty nineteen bookies do not take into account the weather when setting the handicap for Rugby Union matches.
Unfortunately as Corbyn and McCluskey are guilty of precisely the same offence on multiple occasions they will not dare go with it, and without them pushing it the story will die off.
I would say however that you are in error over Ynys Môn. True, they vote for individuals not parties. However, Albert Owen is retiring so that doesn’t apply. Usually under such circumstances (by which I mean, on every occasion since 1929) they also go for a new MP from a different party. Therefore I would expect a Plaid gain.
That said, a Tory gain isn’t out of the question if the cards fall right, disastrous though Brexit would be for the island. There might be value there. But instinct says they will come second, with Labour third.
It was only 1 day of course and there is much still to happen, the debate this week, the manifestos and no doubt a scandal or two but right now Labour may prove to be less resilient than Alastair implies. Seats like Alyn & Deeside and Bridgend may well be offering real value for those who can bring themselves to bet on the Tories.
*Not you personally, obviously!
Perhaps due diligence wasn't so good after all. The publicity might not be to the Labour candidate's advantage.
You can see this in the 2016 Welsh Assembly elections where Labour lost 7.6 pp of vote share, but only lost one constituency seat.
Johnson is accused of a crime.
Slogan becomes, ‘Vote for the crook, not the fascist.‘
Johnson wins thumping majority.
Johnson is locked up and sanity returns to both parties.
I could live with this...although I’d still prefer Labour to lose 200 seats and have a solitary gain in Uxbridge.
I am astounded at the suggestion of price controls. Did Corbyn learn nothing from watching Heath?
He is already in trouble - but Plaid decision to stand down will see their votes move to Labour - even if they dont really mean it...they will hold their noses and vote against the cocky midget.
A small professional gambler should be on the lookout to take advantage of these differences.
Exactly like Labour and the Tories.
Well, I can hope.
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist
This sums up Corbyn's problem this time around as well as anything.
2017 makes cowards of us all but the results are way out line with the current spreads.
The best example is probably when England national teams play at football or rugby, when the value bet is almost always laying them (cricket fans tend to be somewhat better informed and methodical in their betting strategies).
If I could find a Dutch bookie I'd be laying Max Verstappen to win today's Grand Prix, they probably have him 1/10.
I will look at Newport East this morning.
I haven't done any betting for while now, and I think those angles are more difficult to exploit these days, but for sure if you know what you're doing you can beat the bookies. The real problem is getting accounts closed down/limited to peanuts.
To get round this, I guess you either have to find opportunities on the exchanges, or find other people to put your bets on. Or use cash at shops - although they also get to know you and often limit you, and this must have got worse since I was doing it. I was once accused of being part of a "cartel" when trying to put 500 quid on the result of a football match on the printed coupon.
Harboring crud
Me terribly horny
To be a bandit / obtain a debt
Rare angry bird
Hifi farting
Wart bundle
Enlarge a yarn
I bet on football, but not profitably (though if Leicester City win the PL again...). Politics is something that I feel that I have an edge on though and makes me £1000 or so per year. Not enough to live on though.
My Spreadex looks good, the spreads do seem to be lagging the polls. I reckon Con 355 should be the midpoint. The gearing keeps me from upping stakes too much.
Take out the objective gamblers, who are prepared to bet against their political wishes, there are a few on this site.
What is left is a hugh market consisting of people who bet "with the heart" or at least allow their heart to colour their betting strategy. The betting market is then going to be influenced 10 to 1 by those who put a 100 quid stake down compared to those who put 10 quid down. Now ask yourself what is the "average" political charateristics of these two groups.
To put it crudely, aren't the conservatives going to be shorter odds than the true price.
Bold.
I would however be surprised if it fell on this occasion.
I have an eight foot horn to go and pull out. Have a good morning.
In other words, it's just like running your own business.