Nietzsche's 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' maxim hadn't met long Covid. Mind you it didn't really survive contact with his tertiary syphilis.
"Following the latest media updates, the Betfair Exchange has taken the decision to suspend betting on the US election until further notice. We will continue to monitor any material developments and update the market as appropriate."
Yesterday Betfair emailed mean hour and a half after the market had reopened to tell me they had closed it and now reopened it
They're absolute melts. I just got off the phone to discuss what would happen with the SPIN supremacy market I'm in in the event of a candidate pullout/death (It'd be voided - this is specifically stated in the rules prior to be fair) but it was an honest conversation so I know exactly where I stand. Betdaq similiarly has a section on candidate death in the rules.
I might go to IBAS now and say given that the Betfair rules cover death then the repeated suspension of the market is causing an unfair market distortion for those of us who have factored in a candidate incapacity/death in our betting strategy from the very start.
After a short period of trading, and following updates from the US, we again took the decision to suspend the Exchange as we do not feel it is right to provide a market given circumstances.
"Following the latest media updates, the Betfair Exchange has taken the decision to suspend betting on the US election until further notice. We will continue to monitor any material developments and update the market as appropriate."
Yesterday Betfair emailed mean hour and a half after the market had reopened to tell me they had closed it and now reopened it
They're absolute melts. I just got off the phone to discuss what would happen with the SPIN supremacy market I'm in in the event of a candidate pullout/death (It'd be voided - this is specifically stated in the rules prior to be fair) but it was an honest conversation so I know exactly where I stand. Betdaq similiarly has a section on candidate death in the rules.
I might go to IBAS now and say given that the Betfair rules cover death then the repeated suspension of the market is causing an unfair market distortion for those of us who have factored in a candidate incapacity/death in our betting strategy from the very start.
It’s the “date of the next election” market in 2011 all over again, or the “Theresa May exit date” market - but with £100m at stake.
Can IBAS elicit a straight answer from Betfair as to whether they’d settle on Trump or on Pence, if Trump withdraws before the results are certified and the Republican ticket wins the elction?
"Following the latest media updates, the Betfair Exchange has taken the decision to suspend betting on the US election until further notice. We will continue to monitor any material developments and update the market as appropriate."
Yesterday Betfair emailed mean hour and a half after the market had reopened to tell me they had closed it and now reopened it
They're absolute melts. I just got off the phone to discuss what would happen with the SPIN supremacy market I'm in in the event of a candidate pullout/death (It'd be voided - this is specifically stated in the rules prior to be fair) but it was an honest conversation so I know exactly where I stand. Betdaq similiarly has a section on candidate death in the rules.
I might go to IBAS now and say given that the Betfair rules cover death then the repeated suspension of the market is causing an unfair market distortion for those of us who have factored in a candidate incapacity/death in our betting strategy from the very start.
It's not on to suspend the winning party market for example.
What's the point of winning party if not to avoid actuarial risk?
"Following the latest media updates, the Betfair Exchange has taken the decision to suspend betting on the US election until further notice. We will continue to monitor any material developments and update the market as appropriate."
Yesterday Betfair emailed mean hour and a half after the market had reopened to tell me they had closed it and now reopened it
They're absolute melts. I just got off the phone to discuss what would happen with the SPIN supremacy market I'm in in the event of a candidate pullout/death (It'd be voided - this is specifically stated in the rules prior to be fair) but it was an honest conversation so I know exactly where I stand. Betdaq similiarly has a section on candidate death in the rules.
I might go to IBAS now and say given that the Betfair rules cover death then the repeated suspension of the market is causing an unfair market distortion for those of us who have factored in a candidate incapacity/death in our betting strategy from the very start.
It's not on to suspend the winning party market for example.
What's the point of winning party if not to avoid actuarial risk?
Nietzsche's 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' maxim hadn't met long Covid. Mind you it didn't really survive contact with his tertiary syphilis.
"Following the latest media updates, the Betfair Exchange has taken the decision to suspend betting on the US election until further notice. We will continue to monitor any material developments and update the market as appropriate."
Yesterday Betfair emailed mean hour and a half after the market had reopened to tell me they had closed it and now reopened it
They're absolute melts. I just got off the phone to discuss what would happen with the SPIN supremacy market I'm in in the event of a candidate pullout/death (It'd be voided - this is specifically stated in the rules prior to be fair) but it was an honest conversation so I know exactly where I stand. Betdaq similiarly has a section on candidate death in the rules.
I might go to IBAS now and say given that the Betfair rules cover death then the repeated suspension of the market is causing an unfair market distortion for those of us who have factored in a candidate incapacity/death in our betting strategy from the very start.
It’s the “date of the next election” market in 2011 all over again, or the “Theresa May exit date” market - but with £100m at stake.
Can IBAS elicit a straight answer from Betfair as to whether they’d settle on Trump or on Pence, if Trump withdraws before the results are certified and the Republican ticket wins the elction?
That's what I'm wondering.
Almost get a pre-emptive ruling on a variety of scenarios.
Surely Boris should have been prepared for this. Just say, 'I'm not going to relate the regional advice as it's a fluid situation, but would urge everyone to confirm what restrictions apply to them in their particular area by visiting the website blah blah blah.' Why let the journos suck him into a pub quiz?
I would finish that by saying, the idea of all these measures is to suppress the transition and to protect the old / vulnerable. Every member of the public should consider which actions in their lives they absolutely need to take and which could be placing themselves or a loved one at risk, and try to minimize those.
Yes he would get the "TOOOOOO CONFUSING"....what about if I am in a party of 6, but I stop to talk to another friend at 1.99m away type questions....but in reality the above is the truth and should be the public health message and I would do a New Labour type PR messaging approach which just reiterates this regardless of the question.
That would be fine, if they kept the laws simple, so people can easily avoid breaking the law, and left the harder to define aspects as advice. They havent done so. I think it is completely unreasonable for a government to create laws that they cannot even explain or remember regardless of their good intentions.
I am long been an advocate for simple rules in place for a long period of time, not this multi-level stuff with chopping and changing. But then you get the "not fair, not fair" brigade, we only have 2 cases / 100k, we demand something different, or our region ha a special demographic we demand different rules e.g. the idiot from Middlesbrough.
My opinion too. Simple, clear guidelines in place for England for the next 6 months. Leave unchanged unless cases rocket.
Nietzsche's 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' maxim hadn't met long Covid. Mind you it didn't really survive contact with his tertiary syphilis.
After a short period of trading, and following updates from the US, we again took the decision to suspend the Exchange as we do not feel it is right to provide a market given circumstances.
Absolutely farcical statement from Betfair.
I feel if a horse falls at a hurdle the market should be voided. Its just not what punters were betting on.
Betfair suddenly being surprised by the global pandemic that has consumed 2020?
Back in March, Pulpstar, myself, and other PBers discussed what we should do because having two septuagenarian candidates for President was an actuarial risk even before Covid-19, so if we could foresee this, why couldn't Betfair?
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
How about taxing China instead?
How? We can tax UK consumers who buy Chinese goods (not a bad idea, of course) or Chinese companies that operate in the UK. We can't exactly send HMRC to Beijing and demand money.
Export taxes?
Tariffs are payable by the importer.
Import tariffs are. I wasn't being serious. But theoretically a Govt could impose taxes on goods leaving the country.
You’re expecting goods to be able to leave the country?
Surely Boris should have been prepared for this. Just say, 'I'm not going to relate the regional advice as it's a fluid situation, but would urge everyone to confirm what restrictions apply to them in their particular area by visiting the website blah blah blah.' Why let the journos suck him into a pub quiz?
I would finish that by saying, the idea of all these measures is to suppress the transition and to protect the old / vulnerable. Every member of the public should consider which actions in their lives they absolutely need to take and which could be placing themselves or a loved one at risk, and try to minimize those.
Yes he would get the "TOOOOOO CONFUSING"....what about if I am in a party of 6, but I stop to talk to another friend at 1.99m away type questions....but in reality the above is the truth and should be the public health message and I would do a New Labour type PR messaging approach which just reiterates this regardless of the question.
That would be fine, if they kept the laws simple, so people can easily avoid breaking the law, and left the harder to define aspects as advice. They havent done so. I think it is completely unreasonable for a government to create laws that they cannot even explain or remember regardless of their good intentions.
I am long been an advocate for simple rules in place for a long period of time, not this multi-level stuff with chopping and changing. But then you get the "not fair, not fair" brigade, we only have 2 cases / 100k, we demand something different, or our region ha a special demographic we demand different rules e.g. the idiot from Middlesbrough.
Lets be honest with ourselves. The laws on illegal singing etc are not going to be enforced anyway. We are just making some of us who are ill informed or stubborn criminals. The new laws are pointless, all they do is confuse, annoy and weaken the value of more important laws. The issues they seek to address can very adequately be covered with advice.
From the latest round, the only law that was needed was the rule of six, all the rest should be advice.
It wont be a popular opinion but any regulars on this board complaining about the betfair suspensions dont really have a leg to stand on. The precedent was set when they suspended the UK markets when Johnson was in hospital, you have had months to sort out your positions since then.
Yes it would be an easy time to make money for the informed at the moment, but Betfair are entirely within their rights to not offer betting in the current situation.
Well, it is the logical conclusion of Ulsterization.
They really ought to go the whole way and reconstitute the Unionist Party as a separate organisation. We'd hardly be the first country in which two separate parties operating in different regions or states, but occupying broadly similar positions along the left/right axis, worked together. It would be not wholly unlike the CDU/CSU arrangement.
Betfair suddenly being surprised by the global pandemic that has consumed 2020?
Back in March, Pulpstar, myself, and other PBers discussed what we should do because having two septuagenarian candidates for President was an actuarial risk even before Covid-19, so if we could foresee this, why couldn't Betfair?
They have done, you just dont agree with their decision on how to manage it.
It wont be a popular opinion but any regulars on this board complaining about the betfair suspensions dont really have a leg to stand on. The precedent was set when they suspended the UK markets when Johnson was in hospital, you have had months to sort out your positions since then.
Yes it would be an easy time to make money for the informed at the moment, but Betfair are entirely within their rights to not offer betting in the current situation.
Rubbish on so many levels, for starters Betfair had this proviso in the rules for this market.
If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules (Updated - 20/06/2020)
Surely Boris should have been prepared for this. Just say, 'I'm not going to relate the regional advice as it's a fluid situation, but would urge everyone to confirm what restrictions apply to them in their particular area by visiting the website blah blah blah.' Why let the journos suck him into a pub quiz?
I would finish that by saying, the idea of all these measures is to suppress the transition and to protect the old / vulnerable. Every member of the public should consider which actions in their lives they absolutely need to take and which could be placing themselves or a loved one at risk, and try to minimize those.
Yes he would get the "TOOOOOO CONFUSING"....what about if I am in a party of 6, but I stop to talk to another friend at 1.99m away type questions....but in reality the above is the truth and should be the public health message and I would do a New Labour type PR messaging approach which just reiterates this regardless of the question.
That would be fine, if they kept the laws simple, so people can easily avoid breaking the law, and left the harder to define aspects as advice. They havent done so. I think it is completely unreasonable for a government to create laws that they cannot even explain or remember regardless of their good intentions.
I am long been an advocate for simple rules in place for a long period of time, not this multi-level stuff with chopping and changing. But then you get the "not fair, not fair" brigade, we only have 2 cases / 100k, we demand something different, or our region ha a special demographic we demand different rules e.g. the idiot from Middlesbrough.
Lets be honest with ourselves. The laws on illegal singing etc are not going to be enforced anyway. We are just making some of us who are ill informed or stubborn criminals. The new laws are pointless, all they do is confuse, annoy and weaken the value of more important laws. The issues they seek to address can very adequately be covered with advice.
From the latest round, the only law that was needed was the rule of six, all the rest should be advice.
Simplicity, consistency and repetition should have been the key. I don’t believe anyone really has a handle on what the detailed rules are right now, and leading politicians’ inability to answer questions on the detail bears this out.
The other issue is communication. Having driven 1000 miles back to the UK last week, I drove under numerous Italian, Swiss and German motorway gantries carrying messages about Covid precautions. Yet, along the M20, M26, M25 and A3, not one.
It wont be a popular opinion but any regulars on this board complaining about the betfair suspensions dont really have a leg to stand on. The precedent was set when they suspended the UK markets when Johnson was in hospital, you have had months to sort out your positions since then.
Yes it would be an easy time to make money for the informed at the moment, but Betfair are entirely within their rights to not offer betting in the current situation.
Rubbish on so many levels, for starters Betfair had this proviso in the rules for this market.
If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules (Updated - 20/06/2020)
All bets are standing are they not? You just cant place new ones?
Betfair suddenly being surprised by the global pandemic that has consumed 2020?
Back in March, Pulpstar, myself, and other PBers discussed what we should do because having two septuagenarian candidates for President was an actuarial risk even before Covid-19, so if we could foresee this, why couldn't Betfair?
They have done, you just dont agree with their decision on how to manage it.
Betfair suddenly being surprised by the global pandemic that has consumed 2020?
Back in March, Pulpstar, myself, and other PBers discussed what we should do because having two septuagenarian candidates for President was an actuarial risk even before Covid-19, so if we could foresee this, why couldn't Betfair?
They have done, you just dont agree with their decision on how to manage it.
Well, it is the logical conclusion of Ulsterization.
They really ought to go the whole way and reconstitute the Unionist Party as a separate organisation. We'd hardly be the first country in which two separate parties operating in different regions or states, but occupying broadly similar positions along the left/right axis, worked together. It would be not wholly unlike the CDU/CSU arrangement.
While I can picture DRoss in a bowler hat, I'm not sure that it is Ruthie's style.
It wont be a popular opinion but any regulars on this board complaining about the betfair suspensions dont really have a leg to stand on. The precedent was set when they suspended the UK markets when Johnson was in hospital, you have had months to sort out your positions since then.
Yes it would be an easy time to make money for the informed at the moment, but Betfair are entirely within their rights to not offer betting in the current situation.
Rubbish on so many levels, for starters Betfair had this proviso in the rules for this market.
If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules (Updated - 20/06/2020)
All bets are standing are they not? You just cant place new ones?
Yesterday they voided all unmatched bets, so wrong again.
Some of us laid Nancy Pelosi because as per the rules she can't win this market.
How does “you cannot be a conservative and not be a unionist” stack up against the degrees to which Tory politicians have gone to undermine the union and all the polls that showed Tory voters not giving a toss about the union so long as they got their precious Brexit?
Thinking about the various scenarios, how about if Trump does an Ariel Sharon and Trump still wins the Presidency?
If he's permanently incapacitated but doesn't actually die then I don't think a mechanism exists to remove him, so presumably Pence would be Acting President for the entire term?
Under those circumstances Pence would, I assume, effectively occupy both the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency simultaneously, so would retain the casting vote in the Senate if ever it was needed. The first in line of succession would then be the House Speaker. Or is there something that I'm missing?
The reply from any politician should be for them to check the government or LA website. That might just put a stop to the endless attempts at gotcha moment like these.
Can't you say that for ANY question a Government minister is asked? If they are on to speak about housing policy and are asked why they are proposing to relax various planning rules, they could in theory say "if you want to know that, it's all in the consultation document". But then what's the point of having them there?
The PM and his ministers should - particularly at a time like this - be on a mission to inform the public. Saying "look at the website" isn't informing anyone and is a total waste of everyone's time.
And these aren't "gotcha" moments in the sense of being mean tricks. If the people responsible for setting the rules don't know them and can't explain them, then how in holy hell are the rest of us meant to? It's like going into an exam, and then saying the fact it contains some questions is a "gotcha" moment - no, it's just checking you've done your prep.
I'm of the view that asking the question is a waste of everyone's time, since the interviewer already knows the answer. The whole point of asking it is to try and trip up the interviewee, so they can get a story about how an incompetent minister doesn't know anything. It doesn't exactly help further the public health message, does it?
In an ideal world the minister responsible would be able to answer every single question on the spot about their specific area, but unfortunately ministers have a finite amount of time to read and be briefed on everything. Do you really expect that ministers should be able to recite from memory every single restriction and piece of advice to all different groups of people? I'd rather they focus on sorting out the bigger problems than spending hours in exam prep in case they get asked one of these questions.
It reminds me of the 1983 GE campaign when I was the late Lord Wyn Roberts driver and when discussing various issues, including the Falklands conflict, that he really only had knowledge of his brief and on some occasions asked me to answer some constituents questions.
On a personal note he was the most wonderful and generous politician and to see the constituents in council estates display his poster in most of of their homes and come out to great him was amazing
He only narrowly defeated Ednyffed Hudson Davies in 1970 to regain the seat for the Tories by 900 votes.Had he stood in 1997, he would have been defeated by Betty Williams.
It wont be a popular opinion but any regulars on this board complaining about the betfair suspensions dont really have a leg to stand on. The precedent was set when they suspended the UK markets when Johnson was in hospital, you have had months to sort out your positions since then.
Yes it would be an easy time to make money for the informed at the moment, but Betfair are entirely within their rights to not offer betting in the current situation.
Rubbish on so many levels, for starters Betfair had this proviso in the rules for this market.
If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules (Updated - 20/06/2020)
All bets are standing are they not? You just cant place new ones?
Yesterday they voided all unmatched bets, so wrong again.
Some of us laid Nancy Pelosi because as per the rules she can't win this market.
An unmatched bet cannot be voided as there is no bet!
They are cancelled. Your lays of Nancy Pelosi still stand.
This is just whinging because you cant fleece the mugs in what would be a profitable time. There is no guarantee of being able to trade any future market on a betting exchange - it is likely but they dont guarantee 24hr access to the markets regardless of circumstances.
It is nothing like the May exit dates or the GE date markets where Betfair got it wrong.
It wont be a popular opinion but any regulars on this board complaining about the betfair suspensions dont really have a leg to stand on. The precedent was set when they suspended the UK markets when Johnson was in hospital, you have had months to sort out your positions since then.
Yes it would be an easy time to make money for the informed at the moment, but Betfair are entirely within their rights to not offer betting in the current situation.
Rubbish on so many levels, for starters Betfair had this proviso in the rules for this market.
If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules (Updated - 20/06/2020)
All bets are standing are they not? You just cant place new ones?
Yesterday they voided all unmatched bets, so wrong again.
Some of us laid Nancy Pelosi because as per the rules she can't win this market.
I said yesterday I hope Trump gets better quickly so he can be defeated at the ballot box and not a martyr but I just had a scary thought.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
They'll applaud his genius in faking his own death.
They'll be singing "There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Donald" for decades to come.
I mentioned Peron earlier. There is *still* a cult devoted that idiot. And Chavism in Venezuela is just Peronism IV - the sequel where all the main cast have left and CGI budget is a fiver.
Completely agree with you. Trump will be a huge and destructive factor in politics whether he leaves the White House in January 2021, or in January 2025, or in a pine box. In a sense, that's MOST true if it's the last of those, which is a reason (as well as simply not wishing death on anyone) to hope he recovers quickly and fully.
Being deliberately provocative about it, the religious problems we have now don't stem primarily from Jesus or Mohammed themselves, but from subsequent battles among supporters to claim and cement their legacies. That's obviously far bigger in scale than this stuff, but similar pattern.
The optimal outcome would be for him to survive, lose the election convincingly, live until the end of his term allowing anyone with a bet on that to collect, then proceed swiftly to the pine box, sparing the next administration the choice of either letting him walk away unprosecuted for his various crimes or risking revenge prosecutions from the next administration.
How does “you cannot be a conservative and not be a unionist” stack up against the degrees to which Tory politicians have gone to undermine the union and all the polls that showed Tory voters not giving a toss about the union so long as they got their precious Brexit?
He is talking bullshit. Of course you can be a Conservative and not a Unionist. It is currently the Conservative and Unionist party which implies the two are separate things. He may not want them to be separate and it may well be that the party rules have something to say about it (I am not a member so don't know) but the idea that the two are inextricably linked and can never be separated is rubbish.
It wont be a popular opinion but any regulars on this board complaining about the betfair suspensions dont really have a leg to stand on. The precedent was set when they suspended the UK markets when Johnson was in hospital, you have had months to sort out your positions since then.
Yes it would be an easy time to make money for the informed at the moment, but Betfair are entirely within their rights to not offer betting in the current situation.
Rubbish on so many levels, for starters Betfair had this proviso in the rules for this market.
If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules (Updated - 20/06/2020)
All bets are standing are they not? You just cant place new ones?
Yesterday they voided all unmatched bets, so wrong again.
Some of us laid Nancy Pelosi because as per the rules she can't win this market.
An unmatched bet cannot be voided as there is no bet!
They are cancelled. Your lays of Nancy Pelosi still stand.
This is just whinging because you cant fleece the mugs in what would be a profitable time. There is no guarantee of being able to trade any future market on a betting exchange - it is likely but they dont guarantee 24hr access to the markets regardless of circumstances.
It is nothing like the May exit dates or the GE date markets where Betfair got it wrong.
Thinking about the various scenarios, how about if Trump does an Ariel Sharon and Trump still wins the Presidency?
If he's permanently incapacitated but doesn't actually die then I don't think a mechanism exists to remove him, so presumably Pence would be Acting President for the entire term?
Under those circumstances Pence would, I assume, effectively occupy both the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency simultaneously, so would retain the casting vote in the Senate if ever it was needed. The first in line of succession would then be the House Speaker. Or is there something that I'm missing?
Well my understanding is Trump would be considered the winner in this market, Trump would be acting President until January 2025 assuming Trump or Pence didn't die or Pence wasn't impeached.
As you'd say there'd be no vacancy for the Vice-Presidency, so Nancy Pelosi's next in line.
Tomorrow's end to the RU season in doubt due to the pox at Sale. Sport is proving to be a spreader even without fans.
You mean that with groups of people huddled together it's possible for respiratory infections to spread? Colour me shocked.
Of course the point of sport minus fans is to manage risk not eliminate it.
Rugby Union, in particular, seems to create the perfect causes and conditions for transmission.
The big girl's blouse fifth tackle rule of Rugby League reduces the chance of Covid-19 spread, proper Rugby without the fifth tackle rule increases the chances of Covid-19 spread.
But Rugby Union players are as tough as nails and will endure, soft Rugby League players will struggle.
It wont be a popular opinion but any regulars on this board complaining about the betfair suspensions dont really have a leg to stand on. The precedent was set when they suspended the UK markets when Johnson was in hospital, you have had months to sort out your positions since then.
Yes it would be an easy time to make money for the informed at the moment, but Betfair are entirely within their rights to not offer betting in the current situation.
Rubbish on so many levels, for starters Betfair had this proviso in the rules for this market.
If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules (Updated - 20/06/2020)
All bets are standing are they not? You just cant place new ones?
Yesterday they voided all unmatched bets, so wrong again.
Some of us laid Nancy Pelosi because as per the rules she can't win this market.
But an unmatched bet isn’t a bet?
But the prices have changed, in some instances, a lot.
I thought Hopkins would be the first UK media loonball to go full QAnon, but we have a hot new favourite.
And if these mums get an early inheritance as a result of their kids infecting granny, then all the better.
It is loopy. OTOH, Granny will be at the front of the queue for the vaccine, should (pray God) an effective one be found, and kids will be at the back. So if some parents are going to dig their heels in anyway then there is an argument for just leaving them alone.
How does “you cannot be a conservative and not be a unionist” stack up against the degrees to which Tory politicians have gone to undermine the union and all the polls that showed Tory voters not giving a toss about the union so long as they got their precious Brexit?
He runs the risk of being told by by his English colleagues that yeah, they don't give a fck about the Union, whatchagonnadoo about it?
It wont be a popular opinion but any regulars on this board complaining about the betfair suspensions dont really have a leg to stand on. The precedent was set when they suspended the UK markets when Johnson was in hospital, you have had months to sort out your positions since then.
Yes it would be an easy time to make money for the informed at the moment, but Betfair are entirely within their rights to not offer betting in the current situation.
Rubbish on so many levels, for starters Betfair had this proviso in the rules for this market.
If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules (Updated - 20/06/2020)
All bets are standing are they not? You just cant place new ones?
Yesterday they voided all unmatched bets, so wrong again.
Some of us laid Nancy Pelosi because as per the rules she can't win this market.
An unmatched bet cannot be voided as there is no bet!
They are cancelled. Your lays of Nancy Pelosi still stand.
This is just whinging because you cant fleece the mugs in what would be a profitable time. There is no guarantee of being able to trade any future market on a betting exchange - it is likely but they dont guarantee 24hr access to the markets regardless of circumstances.
It is nothing like the May exit dates or the GE date markets where Betfair got it wrong.
Err how exactly could "the mugs be fleeced" ?
Well given the objections to unmatched orders being cancelled it is fairly obvious that picking off out of date orders is one method. Lack of understanding of the nuances of a ridiculously complex US electoral system is another as demonstrated by the boasts around Pelosi.
How exactly does our government expect its citizens to get the message about the rules they are supposed to be following to prevent spread of the virus when, compared to all of the other countries I have visited recently, they are making so little effort to communicate them?
I thought Hopkins would be the first UK media loonball to go full QAnon, but we have a hot new favourite.
And if these mums get an early inheritance as a result of their kids infecting granny, then all the better.
It is loopy. OTOH, Granny will be at the front of the queue for the vaccine, should (pray God) an effective one be found, and kids will be at the back. So if some parents are going to dig their heels in anyway then there is an argument for just leaving them alone.
The vector between Mumsnet and anti-vax QAnon sentiment is intriguing.
I thought Hopkins would be the first UK media loonball to go full QAnon, but we have a hot new favourite.
And if these mums get an early inheritance as a result of their kids infecting granny, then all the better.
It is loopy. OTOH, Granny will be at the front of the queue for the vaccine, should (pray God) an effective one be found, and kids will be at the back. So if some parents are going to dig their heels in anyway then there is an argument for just leaving them alone.
There’s almost no chance that schools won’t insist on children being vaccinated. Parents pushing against vaccinations are obviously fans of home schooling their kids.
How exactly does our government expect its citizens to get the message about the rules they are supposed to be following to prevent spread of the virus when, compared to all of the other countries I have visited recently, they are making so little effort to communicate them?
I guess the other countries are enforcing them, hence have to communicate them.
We just make new laws on an almost daily basis, but quite often still wont send the police out if someone nicks your car or beats you up. If they do, then we have an underfunded courts system that cant cope with the cases they already have.
Who do they think is going to have time to enforce and try no signing laws?
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Because it filters through 17 different levels of bureaucracy and your extra £1000 in tax gives a direct benefit of just £500 worth of spending in the economy. Benefits are the classic case study for this.
But money can’t be destroyed someone ends up with it and it eventually gets spent but maybe not in the UK, as demonstrated by so many of the super rich
I actually had someone tell e the other day that that the simplification in benefits that would result from a true UBI was a problem - because of a massive reduction in the people who spend all their time reducing and increasing various benefits for victims of the system.
Yet another example of the lump of work fallacy.
Yes, that’s like accountants and lawyers not being in favour of simplifying taxes, because it gives them less work. These services are parasitic (genuine economic term) because they are pretty much compulsory and, while generating economic activity, remove the freedom of people to spend their own money as they see fit.
Back when the Republicans were non-insane, they proposed flattening the US income tax system to the back-of-a-postcard-size - a tax free allowance and a couple of rates.
Bill Clinton actually blurted out "but that would throw a hundred thousand lawyers out of work"
"Following the latest media updates, the Betfair Exchange has taken the decision to suspend betting on the US election until further notice. We will continue to monitor any material developments and update the market as appropriate."
Yesterday Betfair emailed mean hour and a half after the market had reopened to tell me they had closed it and now reopened it
They're absolute melts. I just got off the phone to discuss what would happen with the SPIN supremacy market I'm in in the event of a candidate pullout/death (It'd be voided - this is specifically stated in the rules prior to be fair) but it was an honest conversation so I know exactly where I stand. Betdaq similiarly has a section on candidate death in the rules.
I might go to IBAS now and say given that the Betfair rules cover death then the repeated suspension of the market is causing an unfair market distortion for those of us who have factored in a candidate incapacity/death in our betting strategy from the very start.
It’s the “date of the next election” market in 2011 all over again, or the “Theresa May exit date” market - but with £100m at stake.
Can IBAS elicit a straight answer from Betfair as to whether they’d settle on Trump or on Pence, if Trump withdraws before the results are certified and the Republican ticket wins the elction?
That's what I'm wondering.
Almost get a pre-emptive ruling on a variety of scenarios.
Yes, they need to remove the ambiguity, because otherwise you’re not betting on the fact of the election result, you’re betting on which way a Betfair trading team will interpret something
Betfair might also find this in their own interest, because with so much money at stake someone is going to sue their arse.
It wont be a popular opinion but any regulars on this board complaining about the betfair suspensions dont really have a leg to stand on. The precedent was set when they suspended the UK markets when Johnson was in hospital, you have had months to sort out your positions since then.
Yes it would be an easy time to make money for the informed at the moment, but Betfair are entirely within their rights to not offer betting in the current situation.
Rubbish on so many levels, for starters Betfair had this proviso in the rules for this market.
If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules (Updated - 20/06/2020)
All bets are standing are they not? You just cant place new ones?
Yesterday they voided all unmatched bets, so wrong again.
Some of us laid Nancy Pelosi because as per the rules she can't win this market.
An unmatched bet cannot be voided as there is no bet!
They are cancelled. Your lays of Nancy Pelosi still stand.
This is just whinging because you cant fleece the mugs in what would be a profitable time. There is no guarantee of being able to trade any future market on a betting exchange - it is likely but they dont guarantee 24hr access to the markets regardless of circumstances.
It is nothing like the May exit dates or the GE date markets where Betfair got it wrong.
Err how exactly could "the mugs be fleeced" ?
Well given the objections to unmatched orders being cancelled it is fairly obvious that picking off out of date orders is one method. Lack of understanding of the nuances of a ridiculously complex US electoral system is another as demonstrated by the boasts around Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi was 500 to back and 940 on market suspension, people are being "fleeced" for ~ £2 by someone taking on a liability of a couple of grand . Not a serious issue.
How exactly does our government expect its citizens to get the message about the rules they are supposed to be following to prevent spread of the virus when, compared to all of the other countries I have visited recently, they are making so little effort to communicate them?
I guess the other countries are enforcing them, hence have to communicate them.
We just make new laws on an almost daily basis, but quite often still wont send the police out if someone nicks your car or beats you up. If they do, then we have an underfunded courts system that cant cope with the cases they already have.
Who do they think is going to have time to enforce and try no signing laws?
On returning home, my initial impressions are that people are taking the virus somewhat more seriously than they were during the summer. More masks about, people keeping their distance, delivery couriers being more wary than during the summer.
But we don’t appear yet to have anything like the joined-up communications that I saw in Italy and Germany.
"Following the latest media updates, the Betfair Exchange has taken the decision to suspend betting on the US election until further notice. We will continue to monitor any material developments and update the market as appropriate."
Yesterday Betfair emailed mean hour and a half after the market had reopened to tell me they had closed it and now reopened it
They're absolute melts. I just got off the phone to discuss what would happen with the SPIN supremacy market I'm in in the event of a candidate pullout/death (It'd be voided - this is specifically stated in the rules prior to be fair) but it was an honest conversation so I know exactly where I stand. Betdaq similiarly has a section on candidate death in the rules.
I might go to IBAS now and say given that the Betfair rules cover death then the repeated suspension of the market is causing an unfair market distortion for those of us who have factored in a candidate incapacity/death in our betting strategy from the very start.
It’s the “date of the next election” market in 2011 all over again, or the “Theresa May exit date” market - but with £100m at stake.
Can IBAS elicit a straight answer from Betfair as to whether they’d settle on Trump or on Pence, if Trump withdraws before the results are certified and the Republican ticket wins the elction?
That's what I'm wondering.
Almost get a pre-emptive ruling on a variety of scenarios.
Yes, they need to remove the ambiguity, because otherwise you’re not betting on the fact of the election result, you’re betting on which way a Betfair trading team will interpret something
Betfair might also find this in their own interest, because with so much money at stake someone is going to sue their arse.
If I have to go to IBAS to get my Biden cash out of them I will avoid the premium charge so there's that I suppose.
Does the Senate have a remote voting system? If not then will the Republicans be able to force through a nomination if they are 3 Senators down, self isolating?
Does the Senate have a remote voting system? If not then will the Republicans be able to force through a nomination if they are 3 Senators down, self isolating?
Irony mounts on irony. The Republicans insisted on only in person voting. At around the height of the "open up this virus is a hoax" time.
If ministers had to appear at the dispatch box in the House of Commons to explain and justify every decision that they made and back it up with evidence, we would have a better quality of decision-making.
Of course. So why didn't Labour or the SNP vote for that? Upto 80 Tory MPs had indicated via Brady they'd be prepared to vote for that; many right leaning people on here including from memory Max and myself were backing the Brady rebels, but Labour and the SNP flaked out.
If the opposition don't want the government to come to the dispatch box there's not much that can be done about it. It is a preposterous position we are in.
How exactly does our government expect its citizens to get the message about the rules they are supposed to be following to prevent spread of the virus when, compared to all of the other countries I have visited recently, they are making so little effort to communicate them?
I guess the other countries are enforcing them, hence have to communicate them.
We just make new laws on an almost daily basis, but quite often still wont send the police out if someone nicks your car or beats you up. If they do, then we have an underfunded courts system that cant cope with the cases they already have.
Who do they think is going to have time to enforce and try no signing laws?
I was in Kilmarnock Sheriff Court the week before last. The Sheriff Clerk told me that the number of outstanding summary trials would already take more than a year to do if things returned to anything like normal. With the social distancing rules the volume of business actually processed by the court is derisory and does not stop the backlog accumulating.
The smarter crims have already worked out that if you plead not guilty now or dispute a fixed penalty, including social distancing fixed penalties, the prospects of your case ever being judicially determined are falling every day. The only exception is trials where someone is actually in custody pending trial and even there the delays are shocking.
Does the Senate have a remote voting system? If not then will the Republicans be able to force through a nomination if they are 3 Senators down, self isolating?
Irony mounts on irony. The Republicans insisted on only in person voting. At around the height of the "open up this virus is a hoax" time.
That was my recollection but I wasn't sure. Of course all 3 senators might recover well enough to resume their duties within the next 3 weeks but they might not. The window for confirmation is narrowing.
Getting a supermarket delivery slot is now much easier. Booked one for a fortnight tomorrow and only one hour was unavailable. Plenty of slots earlier in the week too.
If ministers had to appear at the dispatch box in the House of Commons to explain and justify every decision that they made and back it up with evidence, we would have a better quality of decision-making.
Of course. So why didn't Labour or the SNP vote for that? Upto 80 Tory MPs had indicated via Brady they'd be prepared to vote for that; many right leaning people on here including from memory Max and myself were backing the Brady rebels, but Labour and the SNP flaked out.
If the opposition don't want the government to come to the dispatch box there's not much that can be done about it. It is a preposterous position we are in.
One of my pals sent me a txt last night suggesting that we should perhaps cut Margaret Ferrier some slack. Whilst ignorance of the law is not an excuse it can be powerful mitigation. Perhaps the honourable member for Rutherford and Hamilton West had assumed that if there was to be a change in the law and new criminal offences in the current Parliament this might only happen after she had an opportunity to vote on them?
Does the Senate have a remote voting system? If not then will the Republicans be able to force through a nomination if they are 3 Senators down, self isolating?
Irony mounts on irony. The Republicans insisted on only in person voting. At around the height of the "open up this virus is a hoax" time.
That was my recollection but I wasn't sure. Of course all 3 senators might recover well enough to resume their duties within the next 3 weeks but they might not. The window for confirmation is narrowing.
Does the Senate have a remote voting system? If not then will the Republicans be able to force through a nomination if they are 3 Senators down, self isolating?
Irony mounts on irony. The Republicans insisted on only in person voting. At around the height of the "open up this virus is a hoax" time.
That was my recollection but I wasn't sure. Of course all 3 senators might recover well enough to resume their duties within the next 3 weeks but they might not. The window for confirmation is narrowing.
Yup, they scolded the House for allowing it and said legislation passed that way may be unconstitutional. However they do allow proxy voting for committees, albeit the quorum requirements apparently have to be satisfied in meatspace.
BTW I quite like the proposal by the Scottish Tories to impose a 6 month limit on the claiming of expenses if an MSP is not actually attending Parliament. MacKay is apparently still claiming the costs of his Edinburgh flat. The clever bit is calling it MacKay's law. Perhaps we should have a Ferrier law, allowing recall in such cases too. We need more reminders of the sort of people the SNP think should be setting laws for the rest of us.
Does the Senate have a remote voting system? If not then will the Republicans be able to force through a nomination if they are 3 Senators down, self isolating?
Irony mounts on irony. The Republicans insisted on only in person voting. At around the height of the "open up this virus is a hoax" time.
That was my recollection but I wasn't sure. Of course all 3 senators might recover well enough to resume their duties within the next 3 weeks but they might not. The window for confirmation is narrowing.
They'll just do it after the election, regardless of the result. 🤷♂️
Does the Senate have a remote voting system? If not then will the Republicans be able to force through a nomination if they are 3 Senators down, self isolating?
Irony mounts on irony. The Republicans insisted on only in person voting. At around the height of the "open up this virus is a hoax" time.
That was my recollection but I wasn't sure. Of course all 3 senators might recover well enough to resume their duties within the next 3 weeks but they might not. The window for confirmation is narrowing.
They'll just do it after the election, regardless of the result. 🤷♂️
It may be complicated. The Senate isn't supposed to sit after the election except for unforeseen emergencies. No doubt they'll call needing to vote on this one but it's harder to justify especially of they have lost.
Makes it easier to justify or threaten retaliatory court packing too if they do it after the election. That can't be threatened right now but after the ballots are cast is different and may see some Republicans do the right thing.
Comments
Absolutely farcical statement from Betfair.
Can IBAS elicit a straight answer from Betfair as to whether they’d settle on Trump or on Pence, if Trump withdraws before the results are certified and the Republican ticket wins the elction?
What's the point of winning party if not to avoid actuarial risk?
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1312361206536179713
US market open
Almost get a pre-emptive ruling on a variety of scenarios.
https://twitter.com/Douglas4Moray/status/1312365508495372289?s=20
https://news.yahoo.com/op-ed-trumps-covid-19-205023175.html
From the latest round, the only law that was needed was the rule of six, all the rest should be advice.
Yet I thought the key risk with Covid was the immune system over-reacting?
Yes it would be an easy time to make money for the informed at the moment, but Betfair are entirely within their rights to not offer betting in the current situation.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2836309/#Comment_2836309
Betfair have set the precedent that if either fall ill then the market will be suspended and potentially voided.
That is another reason why I am betting on the winning party market not next president.
How could I be so far sighted and not see Betfair would be just so gah.
They really ought to go the whole way and reconstitute the Unionist Party as a separate organisation. We'd hardly be the first country in which two separate parties operating in different regions or states, but occupying broadly similar positions along the left/right axis, worked together. It would be not wholly unlike the CDU/CSU arrangement.
If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules (Updated - 20/06/2020)
The other issue is communication. Having driven 1000 miles back to the UK last week, I drove under numerous Italian, Swiss and German motorway gantries carrying messages about Covid precautions. Yet, along the M20, M26, M25 and A3, not one.
Some of us laid Nancy Pelosi because as per the rules she can't win this market.
Under those circumstances Pence would, I assume, effectively occupy both the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency simultaneously, so would retain the casting vote in the Senate if ever it was needed. The first in line of succession would then be the House Speaker. Or is there something that I'm missing?
They are cancelled. Your lays of Nancy Pelosi still stand.
This is just whinging because you cant fleece the mugs in what would be a profitable time. There is no guarantee of being able to trade any future market on a betting exchange - it is likely but they dont guarantee 24hr access to the markets regardless of circumstances.
It is nothing like the May exit dates or the GE date markets where Betfair got it wrong.
You'd better hope he doesn't encourage a Corbynite SLab candidate to frighten those tactically voting inclined SCon horses in Rutherglen.
As you'd say there'd be no vacancy for the Vice-Presidency, so Nancy Pelosi's next in line.
We just make new laws on an almost daily basis, but quite often still wont send the police out if someone nicks your car or beats you up. If they do, then we have an underfunded courts system that cant cope with the cases they already have.
Who do they think is going to have time to enforce and try no signing laws?
Bill Clinton actually blurted out "but that would throw a hundred thousand lawyers out of work"
https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1311902028864479233?s=20
https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1311903362141491201?s=20
https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1311903730330005505?s=20
https://twitter.com/6502_ftw/status/1312360404925001730?s=20
Betfair might also find this in their own interest, because with so much money at stake someone is going to sue their arse.
But we don’t appear yet to have anything like the joined-up communications that I saw in Italy and Germany.
https://twitter.com/jumoffit/status/1312376997646143489?s=19
If the opposition don't want the government to come to the dispatch box there's not much that can be done about it. It is a preposterous position we are in.
The smarter crims have already worked out that if you plead not guilty now or dispute a fixed penalty, including social distancing fixed penalties, the prospects of your case ever being judicially determined are falling every day. The only exception is trials where someone is actually in custody pending trial and even there the delays are shocking.
But then HYUFD would say I'm a libertarian not a conservative.
Combined with other suppliers, no problem.
Stay dry. Stay safe.
https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1312045603938074624
Hey standard Unionist felines fighting in a sack, let me introduce you to Top Cat.
Makes it easier to justify or threaten retaliatory court packing too if they do it after the election. That can't be threatened right now but after the ballots are cast is different and may see some Republicans do the right thing.
https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/1312388609941671937