Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lesson from the Veepstakes
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lesson from the Veepstakes
We are in a battle for the soul of this nation. But together, it's a battle we can win.@JoeBiden—I'm ready to get to work. pic.twitter.com/3PJcUTYBGU
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And the biggest lesson from the Veepstakes I thought was "don't bet on them"?
Albeit "lay the favourite" might be a good one. You're bound to have several favourites over time and only one of them will win.
Can we republish this in three and a half years' time ?
I did remark a few days ago that consistently laying the second favourite (there were many) would have been a very profitable strategy.
Sadly I realised this a bit late in the day to have benefitted (possibly as I'd got on Harris at decent odds, and used most of my betting money on laying Trump).
Remove the 'see'. Comes from a draft where the sentence was 'as we will see, she was[...]'. Shortened for brevity, but not proofed properly by the author.
It is a market where it is best to lay.
That's my advice for 2024.
With headlines like that, a job at The Sun awaits!
https://twitter.com/Bob_Wachter/status/1294117704517877760
Similar regulatory problem over here, too, I think.
https://twitter.com/Bob_Wachter/status/1294117705864237057
https://twitter.com/DawnHFoster/status/1294205157861990401
Out of curiosity how many British trillionaires are there?
It does seem to me that the lesson is to cover some fairly long odds but vaguely credible bets at the early stages (primary contenders, people with interesting back-stories in the Senate or Governor's mansions) then sell when they are having their 15 minutes of fame and come in to 3-1 or better. This year, it means you'd have profited despite never directly backing the potential winner (who was always well fancied). It's just a very fad-ish market.
Selling Hilary and Michelle would also have been wise this year. So much chatter over things that were never even vaguely plausible.
https://twitter.com/juliedcantor/status/1294025422489804806
The next generation of barristers have complained that they were forced to urinate in bottles and buckets during their professional ethics exam this week.
The students were told they would fail their two hour 45 minute Bar Professional Training Course assessment if they left their desk to go to the loo, or if they did not maintain eye contact with their online invigilator.
And so the nation's future barristers, having drunk copious amounts of water to stay hydrated on one of the hottest days of the year, found themselves weeing in containers while staring at a stranger on their laptop.
Bar student Tian Juin See told RollOnFriday that when he asked to be excused about an hour into the exam, the online proctor refused.
"I tried to hold it, but a little while later I asked again and he said no", said Tian.
"It became rather unbearable and it was having an effect on my concentration", he said. Despite "literally begging" the proctor, Tian was told that "policy doesn't allow the use of toilets during exams. I told him that if I'm not allowed, I'm going to have to pee in the bottle, but he still wouldn't let me use the toilet".
"Finally, I couldn't hold it anymore", said Tian. "so I dumped out the water in my bottle all over my carpet", though he couldn't see where he was pouring it as the proctor said he was not allowed to turn away from the camera, "and attempted to take a piss into my bottle, blindly, while trying not to move around too much or look away from my screen".
"When I was done I raised the now yellow bottle to the webcam as if to say: 'Are you happy now?'"
Others were pushed to similarly humiliating extremes. Sophie Lamb, who is studying at BPP University in Leeds, said she had to maintain eye contact with her webcam while urinating, after she was unable to get booked at a test centre. "I took a bucket in and wore a long maxi dress so that I could squat down with my face still on camera", she said. "The sacrifices we make for our careers".
BPTC student Pete Kennedy said, "shorts and 5L bottle for me. Think I stealthed it."
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/aspiring-barristers-forced-urinate-bottles
In fact this is a general betting technique of mine. Go against the herd when I sense the herd getting overexcited. It works particularly well for golf in play betting. Player on a charge, lay them. Player drops a couple of shots, back them. Then close out for a small profit if things stabilize and a big one if they switch.
The alternative is the parliament being decided by MPs themselves in this scenario...
Perhaps we should call it the bladder rack.
This story of the Obama/Biden relationship is very interesting (and on the money about Obama's faults, I think).
‘The President Was Not Encouraging’: What Obama Really Thought About Biden
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/14/obama-biden-relationship-393570
Or maybe it is that I have totally lost faith in the GOP as currently constituted.
So why the fuck did they use it for exam grades?
Giving a platform to an evident racist lie helps give it traction.
I'd add one additional thing which is that there were some dead certainty bets on this market that were pretty profitable (figures in brackets are prices I got - not the best available).
Hilary Clinton (laid at 35), Michelle Obama (laid at 15), Mitt Romney (laid at 95), Barack Obama (laid at 110)…
This would be a lot less of a problem if we abandoned the myth of meritocracy.
In any case we don't need a thought experiment. We faced this problem in WWII, and what happened was that the general election was delayed. Suggests obvious solution of asking all kids to repeat a year.
Wither "cancel culture" when you need it?
Scaled to 100k Population
It's a country.
Much worse than the original piece was the defence that Newsweek published. Utterly jaw dropping.
The super rich probably are too rich relative to the rest of us. and the gap is only growing.
Things we took for granted even thirty years ago are suddenly starting to become out of our reach again.
The family holiday abroad (COVID!) The petrol car (Climate Change!) A warm gas heated boiler home (Climate change!) Any home (Population growth!). Education for our kids (COVID!). Decent health treatment (COVID!).
Is this by design? Probably not. But this year all that has happened. You might say it'll be back before we know it, and these are short term problems. I hope so.
This Government is so utterly clueless when it comes to anything to do with Scotland, I feel.
Surely this is a spoof?
Good job Mike chickened out and made a small profit. Could have been nasty.
My Betting Post from yesterday. I am tempted to take a £210 profit on the draw but still a potential additional £630 profit to go at.
My rationale yesterday was that we would only get 180 overs in total so couldnt see how a positive result could be achieved. Lost Password reckoned there would be over 350 overs (which would likely make my bet a loser.)
86 overs so far so if no more play today and a poor forecast for tomorrow afternoon and the following 2 days i am tempted to keep the bet going.
What do people think take a £210 profit or leave the bet running?
But that plastic glass / bell bottoms idea is genuinely intriguing.
When will this people understand there's a massive gap between Corbynism and Blairism. You don't have to be one or the other.
How about we figure out what the public want whilst looking at our principles and go there.
For 2015 Labour was seen as Tory-lite and 2019 Labour was seen as old Labour but worse, there is a gap there we're just not exploring.
Just last year they told me to stop wasting money on pointless things like avocado on toast and to save for a deposit instead as anyone can do it.
The point is that Momentum are saying that hammering the super-rich is (a) possible without them leaving the country; and (b) likely to raise enough to solve social problems without ANY contribution from people earning as much as £150k, which is extremely comfortable to put it at its mildest.
That's incredibly disingenuous snake oil salesmanship - a ludicrous false prospectus to the well off, and downright cruel to people bearing the brunt of social problems.
Now personally know NOBODY who regularly reads what is left of Newsweek. Once again, they've published a fraud trying to recoup their readership loses.
Tis a strategy fit for losers.
Guess it depends if they declare overnight or not
It's like an advert for a Saw movie lol
I wonder if this becomes more common place
Scotland as a brand must rank among the top national brands around the world. Perhaps in part because Scottish does NOT have negative connotations that crop up with British and English (also strong brands) for many people in many countries.
Brilliant ad.