Regarding the bets: I understand why Paddy Power is not paying out on (for example) the aliens one.
The problem I have is that - while aliens have not been found - neither you nor Paddy Power has won. And if aliens are discovered immediately after your death, well, Paddies will just say "couldn't find customer, I'll keep it". It seems there is an asymmetry that I'm not really happy with.
Your relatives could collect it, if it's placed in a betting shop and it would go towards your funeral.
Do antepost bets lapse on death? There was some sort of kerfuffle on this a few years ago but I cannot remember the details.
If it's down in store, anyone can collect it.
Surely if it's online then the estate/beneficiaries can inherit the bet as an asset in any case? Maybe there's been a case on this, but I don't see why a bet couldn't transfer when a futures contract on oil could (or any other financial asset).
Yeah young people more likely to move to Manchester these days in my experience.
London's an amazing city. But almost everybody has a budget. And you can live in the best suburb of pretty much any other British city for the same price as living in some dreary grimpot on the outer edges of London. Why live in Feltham when you could live in Didsbury or Gosforth or Hunters Bar or Mossley Hill?
As often remarked, London has a vastly superior climate to Manchester, Newcastle etc. And it's a far better city, with more to do, more to see and better domestic and global transport links. .
The higher salaries make up for the higher cost of living as I have posted repeatedly on here, to deaf ears.
The weatger is pleasant, I'll grant you - though sometimes unpleasantly hot and humid in the summer. Equally, though, Manchester, Newcastle etc have the best of England's scenery on their doorsteo. It just comes down to what you value.
And London offers far more opportunity to achieve astronomical salaries. But for most of us, even if we're pretty comfortable, that's not going to be achievable wherever we live. The 10-15% more we earn for our middling jobs wont give us a conparable lifestyle to what we can achieve in Manchester etc.
This really isn't a criticism of Lindon or those who make the choice to live there! It's a fantastic city, even just to look at, and I can see why people make the choices they do. But nor am I surprised when people choose Mamchester, Newcastle etc.
As someone who finds British summers too hot I actually prefer the slightly cooler weather up north since I moved.
If you bet on something to happen, it has to happen for you to win the bet. That's it.
I think the wording of these bets tempers that a bit. The bet wasn't 'Alien Existence will happen in 2020 or later', it was 'When will Alien Existence happen?' > '2020 or later'. The *market* already presumed the event occurring, in a sense.
Yes, it's like a street hustler mesmerising someone into betting on a coin being under a cup that it is obviously under, but isn't. They are stupid bets to have, and people should know better than to have them.
I must admit, I find the argument that PP are right not to pay out *because* they tricked me to be one I find very difficult. If they have acted to try and trick customers then they should be prevented from doing so. We don't accept fiddling with the small print and misleading claims in general transactions, or at least we (and regulators) shouldn't.
I wouldn't say voiding the bets was an unfair outcome, but paying them out as winners would be ridiculous
I'm struggling to see the gripe here. 'Not happening before 2020' and 'Happening after 2020' are in no way logically equivalent. I haven't climbed Mount Everest before 2020. Does that imply that I will climb Mount Everest at some point in the future?
But there is no Never Happen option offered in the bet. Thus the total population of possible outcomes is limited to when it happens. That's the market they put up.
I am confident that @Quincel wins this at the Bailey and I am happy to be his Rumpole.
What do you regard as the negation of X happens after Y?
1) X happens before Y.
or
2) X happens before Y or X never happens.
It has to be 2) because if X never happens then 'X happens after Y' is false.
If Paddy and IBAS get out of the right side of the bed they might get voided, but they can't, and I am pretty certain they wont, pay out a bet as a winner that relies on something happening which hasn't happened.
"When will Dagenham & Redbridge win the Premier League?"
Before the end of the 2025/26 season 100/1
After the end of the 2025/26 season 1/100
Have £100 on the latter, and you don't win a pound until they win the Premier League
That bet would be borderline fraud. I get your point about "mugs" - and in a sense all hail them since there is no industry otherwise - but there are limits to this. And for me, the alien, the sindy2, and this new one here you've thrown in, are over the line if they don't settle as a win following the end or hinge date and instead keep hold of the stake money potentially ad infinitum.
Regarding the bets: I understand why Paddy Power is not paying out on (for example) the aliens one.
The problem I have is that - while aliens have not been found - neither you nor Paddy Power has won. And if aliens are discovered immediately after your death, well, Paddies will just say "couldn't find customer, I'll keep it". It seems there is an asymmetry that I'm not really happy with.
Your relatives could collect it, if it's placed in a betting shop and it would go towards your funeral.
Do antepost bets lapse on death? There was some sort of kerfuffle on this a few years ago but I cannot remember the details.
If it's down in store, anyone can collect it.
Surely if it's online then the estate/beneficiaries can inherit the bet as an asset in any case? Maybe there's been a case on this, but I don't see why a bet couldn't transfer when a futures contract on oil could (or any other financial asset).
If Paddy and IBAS get out of the right side of the bed they might get voided, but they can't, and I am pretty certain they wont, pay out a bet as a winner that relies on something happening which hasn't happened.
"When will Dagenham & Redbridge win the Premier League?"
Before the end of the 2025/26 season 100/1
After the end of the 2025/26 season 1/100
Have £100 on the latter, and you don't win a pound until they win the Premier League
That bet would be borderline fraud. I get your point about "mugs" - and in a sense all hail them since there is no industry otherwise - but there are limits to this. And for me, the alien, the sindy2, and this new one here you've thrown in, are over the line if they don't settle as a win and instead keep hold of the stake money potentially ad infinitum.
Yes it is an absolute pisstake by Paddy Power to even offer such markets, but bookies try to take the piss all the time in many different ways and it's up to punters to be savvy enough not to encourage it.
If Paddy and IBAS get out of the right side of the bed they might get voided, but they can't, and I am pretty certain they wont, pay out a bet as a winner that relies on something happening which hasn't happened.
"When will Dagenham & Redbridge win the Premier League?"
Before the end of the 2025/26 season 100/1
After the end of the 2025/26 season 1/100
Have £100 on the latter, and you don't win a pound until they win the Premier League
That bet would be borderline fraud. I get your point about "mugs" - and in a sense all hail them since there is no industry otherwise - but there are limits to this. And for me, the alien, the sindy2, and this new one here you've thrown in, are over the line if they don't settle as a win and instead keep hold of the stake money potentially ad infinitum.
Yes it is an absolute pisstake by Paddy Power to even offer such markets, but bookies try to take the piss all the time in many different ways and it's up to punters to be savvy enough not to encourage it.
Why isn't it up to regulators to stop them? Is that not what IBAS etc are for?
I'm genuinely a bit confused by your strength of feeling on this, not just that I am wrong on the interpretation of these bets but that bookies *should* profit from laying traps for customers and IBAS/etc *should* leave them to do so.
Mr. Dawning, if he's looking at it purely in those terms (which fits with the PM's self-absorbed personality) he may cancel HS2 and spend (tens of) billions on northern infrastructure.
Mr. Machine, I did consider Norris/Vettel but I suspect the German's on his way out and the Briton's odds are a bit too short against the experienced Sainz.
I heard Lisa Nandy on the Today program this morning. I confess I was somewhat underwhelmed. She was determined to get over her admiration for Corbyn despite resigning from his shadow cabinet and leading a campaign to replace him. It was awkward.
Her "big ideas" on welfare reform didn't seem to amount to much more than lets look at the whole system again. She made good points about UC being undermined by cuts and ancillary support and I liked her observations about empowerment but she seemed to have very little to offer in the form of specifics.
From the chat on here I honestly expected her to be better.
If, on head to head polling, Nandy beats Starmer, then if the Momentum crowd don't want Starmer to win they should urge RLB to stand aside, rather than come a poor second to Sir Keir.
If Paddy and IBAS get out of the right side of the bed they might get voided, but they can't, and I am pretty certain they wont, pay out a bet as a winner that relies on something happening which hasn't happened.
"When will Dagenham & Redbridge win the Premier League?"
Before the end of the 2025/26 season 100/1
After the end of the 2025/26 season 1/100
Have £100 on the latter, and you don't win a pound until they win the Premier League
That bet would be borderline fraud. I get your point about "mugs" - and in a sense all hail them since there is no industry otherwise - but there are limits to this. And for me, the alien, the sindy2, and this new one here you've thrown in, are over the line if they don't settle as a win and instead keep hold of the stake money potentially ad infinitum.
Yes it is an absolute pisstake by Paddy Power to even offer such markets, but bookies try to take the piss all the time in many different ways and it's up to punters to be savvy enough not to encourage it.
Why isn't it up to regulators to stop them? Is that not what IBAS etc are for?
I'm genuinely a bit confused by your strength of feeling on this, not just that I am wrong on the interpretation of these bets but that bookies *should* profit from laying traps for customers and IBAS/etc *should* leave them to do so.
Maybe the bets should be voided as the two options presented dont add up to the whole market, but why should a bet that relies on something happening, namely there being an Indy Ref, be paid out as a winner when there hasnt been one?
Bookies do it with "Which team will X player play for next season?", they list ten or fifteen clubs without an option of "any other team" and people bet on it. It is basically just a huge invisible over round for the bookies. It is a piss take and I hate it, but people should wise up.
What do you regard as the negation of X happens after Y?
1) X happens before Y.
or
2) X happens before Y or X never happens.
It has to be 2) because if X never happens then 'X happens after Y' is false.
That is correct.
But for "X never happens" to be a real world proposition - triggering either a settlement or a void of the bet - there has to be a non-negligible chance of it happening.
I.E. "X never happens" must be realistically capable of happening.
I see Grant Shapps is now dithering over HS2 on Boris's behalf. In fairness, this is a tricky one for Boris. The Tory Right/Daily Mail/Kippers despise it mainly because it was associated with the Cameron and Osborne era. Yet the now fashionable north seem to regard it as symbolic of Boris's love. What to do?
If Johnson is to pull the plug on HS2, he will reap more electoral benefits in the "north" (defined as starting at Watford Gap) if he simultaneously announces a very large programme of infrastructure and other capital investment in the north, on things that really will make a difference to the lives of a large number of people. That programme will need to have some detail being it in order to be credible. It will take time to put together and would need to be integrated with the Budget planning process.
In addition, Johnson would find it useful to have the NAO report on HS2, due at the end of this month, to act as a counterweight to Oakervee's recommendation.
So we can interpret his thinking from the timing: a. There is no obvious reason for delay if Johnson wants to proceed with HS2, as per the recommendations of the "independent" report of its former chairman. b. There is every reason for delaying an announcement if he has already decided to scrap the scheme. c. The only other reason for delay is that he is yet to make up his mind.
On the Ferrari bet: I considered that, but Leclerc's long term contract makes it perhaps less likely. Depends on what happens with Mercedes. It's perhaps value but I'm unsure about it.
@MikeSmithson What were the prices for both sides of the bets your mate had? If they added up to less than 100% he doesn't have a leg to stand on. If they came to more than that he might get them voided
I'm struggling to see the gripe here. 'Not happening before 2020' and 'Happening after 2020' are in no way logically equivalent. I haven't climbed Mount Everest before 2020. Does that imply that I will climb Mount Everest at some point in the future?
But there is no Never Happen option offered in the bet. Thus the total population of possible outcomes is limited to when it happens. That's the market they put up.
I am confident that @Quincel wins this at the Bailey and I am happy to be his Rumpole.
There is no requirement to offer a 'never happens' option, just as there is no requirement for a bookie to offer a full range of options in any market.
If a bookie offers odds on outcomes A, B, C and D - four football teams to win the league, or four politicians to win an election, say - that does not mean that that just because A, B and C have not happened and cannot happen then D must automatically be a winner.
A bookie limiting options in that way is not necessarily twisting the market in their favour (though they may be). Doing so certainly gives the punter fewer chances to win but it also gives them fewer chances on which to lose.
On the Ferrari bet: I considered that, but Leclerc's long term contract makes it perhaps less likely. Depends on what happens with Mercedes. It's perhaps value but I'm unsure about it.
I think Hamilton's already announced that he wants to beat the record while at Ferrari, F1 is a multi billion dollar industry, someone could just buy LeClerc or Vettel could perhaps retire.
@MikeSmithson What were the prices for both sides of the bets your mate had? If they added up to less than 100% he doesn't have a leg to stand on. If they came to more than that he might get them voided
That is indeed key.
And assuming the latter I am still going for the WIN with the VOID as a possible compromise if it's a nasty judge.
If you bet on something to happen, it has to happen for you to win the bet. That's it.
I think the wording of these bets tempers that a bit. The bet wasn't 'Alien Existence will happen in 2020 or later', it was 'When will Alien Existence happen?' > '2020 or later'. The *market* already presumed the event occurring, in a sense.
Yes, it's like a street hustler mesmerising someone into betting on a coin being under a cup that it is obviously under, but isn't. They are stupid bets to have, and people should know better than to have them.
I must admit, I find the argument that PP are right not to pay out *because* they tricked me to be one I find very difficult. If they have acted to try and trick customers then they should be prevented from doing so. We don't accept fiddling with the small print and misleading claims in general transactions, or at least we (and regulators) shouldn't.
That's my view too. It is literally impossible for Donald Trump to be POTUS forever, so they should pay out on "2020 or later".
When (as I recall() BA defended a claim that their fast planes reduced jet lag by saying that jet lag didn't actually scientifically exist, so it was harmless to say that they reduced it, the derision that they attracted did them far more damage than any ASA ruling.
If you bet on something to happen, it has to happen for you to win the bet. That's it.
I think the wording of these bets tempers that a bit. The bet wasn't 'Alien Existence will happen in 2020 or later', it was 'When will Alien Existence happen?' > '2020 or later'. The *market* already presumed the event occurring, in a sense.
Yes, it's like a street hustler mesmerising someone into betting on a coin being under a cup that it is obviously under, but isn't. They are stupid bets to have, and people should know better than to have them.
I must admit, I find the argument that PP are right not to pay out *because* they tricked me to be one I find very difficult. If they have acted to try and trick customers then they should be prevented from doing so. We don't accept fiddling with the small print and misleading claims in general transactions, or at least we (and regulators) shouldn't.
That's my view too. It is literally impossible for Donald Trump to be POTUS forever, so they should pay out on "2020 or later".
When (as I recall() BA defended a claim that their fast planes reduced jet lag by saying that jet lag didn't actually scientifically exist, so it was harmless to say that they reduced it, the derision that they attracted did them far more damage than any ASA ruling.
Dear god, that argument falls down on every level. Even if you buy it superficially it is still an admission of lying in their advert!
@MikeSmithson What were the prices for both sides of the bets your mate had? If they added up to less than 100% he doesn't have a leg to stand on. If they came to more than that he might get them voided
There is no requirement to offer a 'never happens' option, just as there is no requirement for a bookie to offer a full range of options in any market.
If a bookie offers odds on outcomes A, B, C and D - four football teams to win the league, or four politicians to win an election, say - that does not mean that that just because A, B and C have not happened and cannot happen then D must automatically be a winner.
A bookie limiting options in that way is not necessarily twisting the market in their favour (though they may be). Doing so certainly gives the punter fewer chances to win but it also gives them fewer chances on which to lose.
Agreed. You need to look at each case based on its particular characteristics.
Mr. Machine, I'm on the other side of the win bet, just because I've got about 9 or so on Hamilton beating Schumacher's total win record (there's a tiny window in which both could come off this year).
The model Britain should be looking at, from this perspective, is not Norway’s or Switzerland’s or Canada’s trading relationship with the EU, but Canada itself: a medium-size economy flourishing next to a trading superpower; an open, multicultural democracy bound by trade agreements but not supranational institutions and law; and a country that has navigated the position in which it finds itself in the world—geographically in the New World but with ties to the old, spread out and linguistically divided, multicultural and multiethnic.
One cabinet minister, who asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations, told me that Ireland was a small country, which meant that the quality of its ministers could not match that of those in the U.K.. And yet this attitude proved part of London’s undoing in the negotiations, which saw Ireland win more of its objectives than Britain did.
Any ideas who this arrogant twit could have been?
It wasn't just the government - it was the civil service too and our "Rolls Royce" (sic) Foreign Office - Ireland ran rings around us in Brussels.
Mr. Machine, I'm on the other side of the win bet, just because I've got about 9 or so on Hamilton beating Schumacher's total win record (there's a tiny window in which both could come off this year).
THERE ARE real tribal differences between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil that date back hundreds of years before the foundation of the State, according to two political scientists. An analysis of the names of all of the TDs who have served in the Dáil shows that Fine Gael TDs are more likely to come from Norman/Old English families while Fianna Fáilers tend to come from Gaelic backgrounds.
Lisa Nandy evidently looked at that poll of Labour members and their views of Labour leaders.
Nandy clearly pitching to overtake Long Bailey as a milder Corbynite alternative to Starmer still with the Northern links and greater acceptance of Brexit
SKS has accepted that the issue of Brexit is settled for the time being. What more do you want?
He still wants both single market and customs union alignment with the EU, Nandy backed customs union but not single market membership and ending free movement
And?
Nandy is the more Eurosceptic of the 2
And? That has nothing to do with the “acceptance of Brexit”. Remember that like Keir, Nandy is also a Remainer.
In 9 days time Brexit will have been done. Neither SKS or Nandy is proposing to reverse it.
The type of Brexit will be anything but done, Starmer wants us to ultimately return to the single market and a customs union and Nandy wants us to be members of a customs union but not the full single market
Well for one I doubt that’s correct. I don’t think either have fully laid out their position. I believe the plan is to wait and see what happens.
Regardless you are arguing a different point. Supporting membership of the single market is not “not accepting Brexit”.
These don’t say what you think they say. They are both reflections and ideas not firm policy positions. Keir’s especially just talks of “leaving open the option of Single Market membership”.
I think if Hamilton gets 8-9 both come off this year.
If he gets under that then the race wins bet will likely come off next year. If he gets over I lose the season bet but that's more than matched by the race wins bet.
Edited extra bit: anyway, I must be off for a bit.
Kim Il-sung is still the president of NK despite being dead for 25 years. With a "when will event x happen" there is often the opportunity that x will never happen, with that option missing from the selection.
Comments
1) X happens before Y.
or
2) X happens before Y or X never happens.
It has to be 2) because if X never happens then 'X happens after Y' is false.
I'm genuinely a bit confused by your strength of feeling on this, not just that I am wrong on the interpretation of these bets but that bookies *should* profit from laying traps for customers and IBAS/etc *should* leave them to do so.
Presumably the weirdos and misfits think the strategy below is the way to do it.
https://twitter.com/LustraSkye/status/1219234451655397377?s=20
Her "big ideas" on welfare reform didn't seem to amount to much more than lets look at the whole system again. She made good points about UC being undermined by cuts and ancillary support and I liked her observations about empowerment but she seemed to have very little to offer in the form of specifics.
From the chat on here I honestly expected her to be better.
I'm on LeClerc to beat Vettel.
Vettel is second preference, don't forget.
Bookies do it with "Which team will X player play for next season?", they list ten or fifteen clubs without an option of "any other team" and people bet on it. It is basically just a huge invisible over round for the bookies. It is a piss take and I hate it, but people should wise up.
But for "X never happens" to be a real world proposition - triggering either a settlement or a void of the bet - there has to be a non-negligible chance of it happening.
I.E. "X never happens" must be realistically capable of happening.
My contention is that this is not the case here.
This is definitely worth a go.
In addition, Johnson would find it useful to have the NAO report on HS2, due at the end of this month, to act as a counterweight to Oakervee's recommendation.
So we can interpret his thinking from the timing:
a. There is no obvious reason for delay if Johnson wants to proceed with HS2, as per the recommendations of the "independent" report of its former chairman.
b. There is every reason for delaying an announcement if he has already decided to scrap the scheme.
c. The only other reason for delay is that he is yet to make up his mind.
It must be b or c at this point.
On the Ferrari bet: I considered that, but Leclerc's long term contract makes it perhaps less likely. Depends on what happens with Mercedes. It's perhaps value but I'm unsure about it.
If a bookie offers odds on outcomes A, B, C and D - four football teams to win the league, or four politicians to win an election, say - that does not mean that that just because A, B and C have not happened and cannot happen then D must automatically be a winner.
A bookie limiting options in that way is not necessarily twisting the market in their favour (though they may be). Doing so certainly gives the punter fewer chances to win but it also gives them fewer chances on which to lose.
And assuming the latter I am still going for the WIN with the VOID as a possible compromise if it's a nasty judge.
When (as I recall() BA defended a claim that their fast planes reduced jet lag by saying that jet lag didn't actually scientifically exist, so it was harmless to say that they reduced it, the derision that they attracted did them far more damage than any ASA ruling.
Lewis over 9.5 race wins looks tempting.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/22/us-elections-2020-iowa-sanders-warren-biden
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/britain-brexit-canada-model-europe/605224/
Yes. In 2014.....
Didn't Schumacher win 7 titles?
THERE ARE real tribal differences between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil that date back hundreds of years before the foundation of the State, according to two political scientists.
An analysis of the names of all of the TDs who have served in the Dáil shows that Fine Gael TDs are more likely to come from Norman/Old English families while Fianna Fáilers tend to come from Gaelic backgrounds.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ff-and-fg-tribal-split-traced-back-to-12th-century-1.607729
I think if Hamilton gets 8-9 both come off this year.
If he gets under that then the race wins bet will likely come off next year. If he gets over I lose the season bet but that's more than matched by the race wins bet.
Edited extra bit: anyway, I must be off for a bit.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1219964102484905984?s=20