Betfair were right to suspend when the news broke but should now re-open the market. It is clear that Trump is neither dying nor pulling out incapacitated. The interesting question is how this episode will affect the rest of the campaign and the result. Does it make any difference at all? If so, does it help him or hurt him? These are valid bettable issues.
I think he was infected days before he has admitted - probably at the nomination ceremony (which I believe was Saturday 26th). So almost a week before. He was sweating profusely at the debate and showed up late. An American friend of mine says that the lateness was deliberate so as to be too late to get tested before the debate, but I don`t know whether this is true.
The point is that Trump probably already knew he was infected when the debate took place, and possibly days before as well. Then he went on to a rally In Minnesota and a fundraiser. Not to mention potentially infecting White House staff.
So, if the above hypothesis is true - what follows?
Well there will be claims that he criminally infected other people. Will this affect his votes? I`m guessing, yes, but not significantly.
On the other side, my take on the debate is that it was a score draw. Trump repulsive as ever but Biden, I felt, came over as someone who was easily bullied by Trump. Wimpish even. Harsh, I know, but this may have an affect in the other direction - along with the new Trump narrative that "I beat Covid and Biden is a pussy".
At the future debates (I think they will go ahead) Trump will no doubt bully again - and again try to trigger a Biden stuttering episode to build up the new Trump narrative.
So. Yes, I`m worried.
Trump jumping in at every micro-pause had the paradoxical effect of hiding any Biden brain-fades that some say he set out to provoke. Trump operates on instinct rather than careful tactical analysis and we should be careful not to draw targets round the President's arrows.
I am probably giving DT too much credit but there is an argument for saying that the upcoming Town Hall debates pose more of a risk for a Biden brain-fade and that the last one was all about getting over the NYT tax story and provoking Biden (which he did on the former and, to a degree, did on the latter).
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Lord no, what a waste of time that would be. I find golf just beyond tedious. The only good things about it are the walk and the outdoors.
The sandpit things on my local course are excellent for jumping my CRF250.
You go to extraordinary lengths to achieve a certain level of popularity, don't you? Remarkable.
Leave Dura-ace alone - he`s comedy gold.
When I was 18 me and my mate did donuts on a golf course in his dad's W115 220 automatic. It open diffed and blew up the torque convertor on the second loop. His dad was livid and sent him to Sunderland Polytechnic as punishment.
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
Oh come off it. We have universities offering OU courses for Oxbridge prices. I don't blame them - they face a serious cash crisis if they don't. I blame the government.
Many students are paying for what exactly - online teaching in a room they are barred from leaving? £15k for something they could have for a fifth of the price
So the government should make up the shortfall, eh? That would be us, the taxpayers. And who gets the benefit of the continuation of the institutions? The students.
The idea that our government has some bottomless pit of money into which it can dip with no cost every time something is not ideal is just delusional. We really need to get away from it.
The govt used to fund University places.
Then the Unis were seen as a great way to get kids off the dole figures (remember NEETs? Not in Employment, Education, Training). New Labour came up a great scheme, keep 50% in education and make THEM pay for it. Lower jobless figures, less claiming dole and (maybe) better educated population.
In Scotland the government pretend to fund University places. It's not true of course. They limit the number of places available, they rely very heavily on cross-subsidy from English students and foreign students paying approximately 5x and 10x as much for the same course and still Scottish Universities have not been able to match the growth of the English University sector.
I have deep reservations about the current system but government funding has been tried and failed.
EU students are treated the same as Scottish students (no fees).
Betfair were right to suspend when the news broke but should now re-open the market. It is clear that Trump is neither dying nor pulling out incapacitated. The interesting question is how this episode will affect the rest of the campaign and the result. Does it make any difference at all? If so, does it help him or hurt him? These are valid bettable issues.
I think he was infected days before he has admitted - probably at the nomination ceremony (which I believe was Saturday 26th). So almost a week before. He was sweating profusely at the debate and showed up late. An American friend of mine says that the lateness was deliberate so as to be too late to get tested before the debate, but I don`t know whether this is true.
The point is that Trump probably already knew he was infected when the debate took place, and possibly days before as well. Then he went on to a rally In Minnesota and a fundraiser. Not to mention potentially infecting White House staff.
So, if the above hypothesis is true - what follows?
Well there will be claims that he criminally infected other people. Will this affect his votes? I`m guessing, yes, but not significantly.
On the other side, my take on the debate is that it was a score draw. Trump repulsive as ever but Biden, I felt, came over as someone who was easily bullied by Trump. Wimpish even. Harsh, I know, but this may have an affect in the other direction - along with the new Trump narrative that "I beat Covid and Biden is a pussy".
At the future debates (I think they will go ahead) Trump will no doubt bully again - and again try to trigger a Biden stuttering episode to build up the new Trump narrative.
So. Yes, I`m worried.
I'm less so but am not as relaxed as I was before this episode.
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Lord no, what a waste of time that would be. I find golf just beyond tedious. The only good things about it are the walk and the outdoors.
Oh no. Bang goes another national stereotype. Be none left at this rate.
I played the Ryder Cup course at The Belfry the other week. Shot twice my age - which would have been quite impressive if I were a decade younger.
Brabazon course? That destroyed me a few years back.
I like golf for the competitive aspect, the thrill when you nail a shot and the locations that it puts you in - which are often stunning. As for the "clubhouse aspect": the dress, the tedious lower middle class matey golf banter and jumped up snobbiness - I can do without all of that.
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
It doesn't matter. BF will go by the "projection" once votes are counted. If the "projection" is that 300 electors will vote in a way that "many people", or the vast majority of the commentariat, or most lawyers for that matter, call "faithless", that still doesn't matter. That's "subsequent". BF say "subsequent" doesn't matter. What matters is the "projection". Of course if there is no consensus on what to "project", then we have a problem. But if the RNC nominate Pence as their candidate on say 10 October and he accepts their nomination, debates Biden on the TV, and so on, and then the GOP ticket - which may have "Trump/Pence" written on it in some or even in all states - wins enough states, then BF will pay out on Pence.
Well in 2016 they said they wouldn't pay out on Paine in a similar scenario.
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Bit of a personal question!!!
- Well Jack Nicklaus famously squeezed in a few holes on his honeymoon. So ...
Does anyone know if there is a betting market on words and phrases that will be uttered at the VP debate this week? I think a strong favourite is "Californisation" from Pence.
Trump manages to trash any sympathy vote by continuing to look like he’s not taking the virus seriously . His publicity stunt yesterday evening might go down well with his base but will go down badly with everyone else. It also calls into question how ill he really is . After the media going big on the next 48 hours is critical to see him driving around waving at supporters will lead to a growing feeling that the whole thing is a campaign stunt .
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Bit of a personal question!!!
- Well Jack Nicklaus famously squeezed in a few holes on his honeymoon. So ...
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Bit of a personal question!!!
- Well Jack Nicklaus famously squeezed in a few holes on his honeymoon. So ...
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
It doesn't matter. BF will go by the "projection" once votes are counted. If the "projection" is that 300 electors will vote in a way that "many people", or the vast majority of the commentariat, or most lawyers for that matter, call "faithless", that still doesn't matter. That's "subsequent". BF say "subsequent" doesn't matter. What matters is the "projection". Of course if there is no consensus on what to "project", then we have a problem. But if the RNC nominate Pence as their candidate on say 10 October and he accepts their nomination, debates Biden on the TV, and so on, and then the GOP ticket - which may have "Trump/Pence" written on it in some or even in all states - wins enough states, then BF will pay out on Pence.
Well in 2016 they said they wouldn't pay out on Paine in a similar scenario.
Betfair were right to suspend when the news broke but should now re-open the market. It is clear that Trump is neither dying nor pulling out incapacitated. The interesting question is how this episode will affect the rest of the campaign and the result. Does it make any difference at all? If so, does it help him or hurt him? These are valid bettable issues.
I think he was infected days before he has admitted - probably at the nomination ceremony (which I believe was Saturday 26th). So almost a week before. He was sweating profusely at the debate and showed up late. An American friend of mine says that the lateness was deliberate so as to be too late to get tested before the debate, but I don`t know whether this is true.
The point is that Trump probably already knew he was infected when the debate took place, and possibly days before as well. Then he went on to a rally In Minnesota and a fundraiser. Not to mention potentially infecting White House staff.
So, if the above hypothesis is true - what follows?
Well there will be claims that he criminally infected other people. Will this affect his votes? I`m guessing, yes, but not significantly.
On the other side, my take on the debate is that it was a score draw. Trump repulsive as ever but Biden, I felt, came over as someone who was easily bullied by Trump. Wimpish even. Harsh, I know, but this may have an affect in the other direction - along with the new Trump narrative that "I beat Covid and Biden is a pussy".
At the future debates (I think they will go ahead) Trump will no doubt bully again - and again try to trigger a Biden stuttering episode to build up the new Trump narrative.
So. Yes, I`m worried.
I'm less so but am not as relaxed as I was before this episode.
What Trump price would tempt you to cash out?
That`s an excellent question - the very one I`ve been contemplating over the weekend.
My default position is that I don`t "cash out". Each bet is a judgement in itself at the prevailing odds. One`s existing bets are irrelevant in this evaluation. However, my confusion over BF`s rules have unsettled me somewhat I admit.
I won`t cash out (BF`s cash out is a mirage anyway - it just tempts new bets) but I may consider backing Trump when the price is above the probability as I see it. Smarkets, which are open, have Trump at 3.35. I`d want more than that. I`d be very tempted at anything over 4.
This in particular struck me re the response rate:
Does anyone pick up the phone anymore?
Some people do. Just not many. We usually complete interviews with about 1 or 2 percent of the voters we try to reach.:
As @isam is fond of reminding us, the subset of people who respond to opinion polls is not representative of the wider population who vote. They pay much more attention to politics day-to-day. This is a problem for online panels as well as phone polls.
And yet, for all that, they're still the best information we have. All things considered, I'm surprised at how good they are. But yes, we should be wary. They could be very wrong... The Republicans could be headed for such a large shellacking that Trump loses Louisiana, and McConnell loses Kentucky!
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Lord no, what a waste of time that would be. I find golf just beyond tedious. The only good things about it are the walk and the outdoors.
The sandpit things on my local course are excellent for jumping my CRF250.
You go to extraordinary lengths to achieve a certain level of popularity, don't you? Remarkable.
Leave Dura-ace alone - he`s comedy gold.
When I was 18 me and my mate did donuts on a golf course in his dad's W115 220 automatic. It open diffed and blew up the torque convertor on the second loop. His dad was livid and sent him to Sunderland Polytechnic as punishment.
And yours though a spell in the military might reform you ?
Betfair were right to suspend when the news broke but should now re-open the market. It is clear that Trump is neither dying nor pulling out incapacitated. The interesting question is how this episode will affect the rest of the campaign and the result. Does it make any difference at all? If so, does it help him or hurt him? These are valid bettable issues.
I think he was infected days before he has admitted - probably at the nomination ceremony (which I believe was Saturday 26th). So almost a week before. He was sweating profusely at the debate and showed up late. An American friend of mine says that the lateness was deliberate so as to be too late to get tested before the debate, but I don`t know whether this is true.
The point is that Trump probably already knew he was infected when the debate took place, and possibly days before as well. Then he went on to a rally In Minnesota and a fundraiser. Not to mention potentially infecting White House staff.
So, if the above hypothesis is true - what follows?
Well there will be claims that he criminally infected other people. Will this affect his votes? I`m guessing, yes, but not significantly.
On the other side, my take on the debate is that it was a score draw. Trump repulsive as ever but Biden, I felt, came over as someone who was easily bullied by Trump. Wimpish even. Harsh, I know, but this may have an affect in the other direction - along with the new Trump narrative that "I beat Covid and Biden is a pussy".
At the future debates (I think they will go ahead) Trump will no doubt bully again - and again try to trigger a Biden stuttering episode to build up the new Trump narrative.
So. Yes, I`m worried.
I'm less so but am not as relaxed as I was before this episode.
What Trump price would tempt you to cash out?
That`s an excellent question - the very one I`ve been contemplating over the weekend.
My default position is that I don`t "cash out". Each bet is a judgement in itself at the prevailing odds. One`s existing bets are irrelevant in this evaluation. However, my confusion over BF`s rules have unsettled me somewhat I admit.
I won`t cash out (BF`s cash out is a mirage anyway - it just tempts new bets) but I may consider backing Trump when the price is above the probability as I see it. Smarkets, which are open, have Trump at 3.35. I`d want more than that. I`d be very tempted at anything over 4.
I am probably giving DT too much credit but there is an argument for saying that the upcoming Town Hall debates pose more of a risk for a Biden brain-fade and that the last one was all about getting over the NYT tax story and provoking Biden (which he did on the former and, to a degree, did on the latter).
If I were Trump's team, I'd demand that the non-speaker's microphone be muted. That way, Biden will still hear Trump's interjections, and be distracted, but the viewer (and voter) at home will not hear Trump so will just see Biden stumble.
We used to see this phenomenon at PMQs whenever there was a new PM or LotO who would struggle with the noise in the chamber till they learned to just speak normally and rely on the microphones to pick up their voices for broadcast. (Under Boris, even before Covid, this ended as Number 10 told their side to STFU, and barracking had largely been a Conservative tactic).
Better still, Trump's team can wait for Biden's lot to ask that microphones be cut off, and then "concede".
That might be smart politics but I rather suspect that Trump is far too egotistical to agree to his own microphone being cut off.
Does anyone know if there is a betting market on words and phrases that will be uttered at the VP debate this week? I think a strong favourite is "Californisation" from Pence.
If the Silver Haired Turd didn't have a cultural frame of reference that ended at Leave it to Beaver he could say "Californication". Which would be better.
Betfair were right to suspend when the news broke but should now re-open the market. It is clear that Trump is neither dying nor pulling out incapacitated. The interesting question is how this episode will affect the rest of the campaign and the result. Does it make any difference at all? If so, does it help him or hurt him? These are valid bettable issues.
I think he was infected days before he has admitted - probably at the nomination ceremony (which I believe was Saturday 26th). So almost a week before. He was sweating profusely at the debate and showed up late. An American friend of mine says that the lateness was deliberate so as to be too late to get tested before the debate, but I don`t know whether this is true.
The point is that Trump probably already knew he was infected when the debate took place, and possibly days before as well. Then he went on to a rally In Minnesota and a fundraiser. Not to mention potentially infecting White House staff.
So, if the above hypothesis is true - what follows?
Well there will be claims that he criminally infected other people. Will this affect his votes? I`m guessing, yes, but not significantly.
On the other side, my take on the debate is that it was a score draw. Trump repulsive as ever but Biden, I felt, came over as someone who was easily bullied by Trump. Wimpish even. Harsh, I know, but this may have an affect in the other direction - along with the new Trump narrative that "I beat Covid and Biden is a pussy".
At the future debates (I think they will go ahead) Trump will no doubt bully again - and again try to trigger a Biden stuttering episode to build up the new Trump narrative.
So. Yes, I`m worried.
I'm less so but am not as relaxed as I was before this episode.
What Trump price would tempt you to cash out?
That`s an excellent question - the very one I`ve been contemplating over the weekend.
My default position is that I don`t "cash out". Each bet is a judgement in itself at the prevailing odds. One`s existing bets are irrelevant in this evaluation. However, my confusion over BF`s rules have unsettled me somewhat I admit.
I won`t cash out (BF`s cash out is a mirage anyway - it just tempts new bets) but I may consider backing Trump when the price is above the probability as I see it. Smarkets, which are open, have Trump at 3.35. I`d want more than that. I`d be very tempted at anything over 4.
Yes I meant a back back not using the "cashout" button. And of course you are strictly speaking right. There is no cash out. There is only doing a new bet or not. But your existing position is a bit relevant because of cash flow and risk appetite etc. I agree with over 4. Well over 4 in fact. My supremacy at 28, if that gets close to 100 I will be snaffling it. In the 60s when he threw his sickie.
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Bit of a personal question!!!
- Well Jack Nicklaus famously squeezed in a few holes on his honeymoon. So ...
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
It doesn't matter. BF will go by the "projection" once votes are counted. If the "projection" is that 300 electors will vote in a way that "many people", or the vast majority of the commentariat, or most lawyers for that matter, call "faithless", that still doesn't matter. That's "subsequent". BF say "subsequent" doesn't matter. What matters is the "projection". Of course if there is no consensus on what to "project", then we have a problem. But if the RNC nominate Pence as their candidate on say 10 October and he accepts their nomination, debates Biden on the TV, and so on, and then the GOP ticket - which may have "Trump/Pence" written on it in some or even in all states - wins enough states, then BF will pay out on Pence.
Well in 2016 they said they wouldn't pay out on Paine in a similar scenario.
Were their rules the same in 2016, though ?
Largely but this they are even more explicit so in the event of withdrawal/death so that Paine principle is confirmed.
Betfair were right to suspend when the news broke but should now re-open the market. It is clear that Trump is neither dying nor pulling out incapacitated. The interesting question is how this episode will affect the rest of the campaign and the result. Does it make any difference at all? If so, does it help him or hurt him? These are valid bettable issues.
I think he was infected days before he has admitted - probably at the nomination ceremony (which I believe was Saturday 26th). So almost a week before. He was sweating profusely at the debate and showed up late. An American friend of mine says that the lateness was deliberate so as to be too late to get tested before the debate, but I don`t know whether this is true.
The point is that Trump probably already knew he was infected when the debate took place, and possibly days before as well. Then he went on to a rally In Minnesota and a fundraiser. Not to mention potentially infecting White House staff.
So, if the above hypothesis is true - what follows?
Well there will be claims that he criminally infected other people. Will this affect his votes? I`m guessing, yes, but not significantly.
On the other side, my take on the debate is that it was a score draw. Trump repulsive as ever but Biden, I felt, came over as someone who was easily bullied by Trump. Wimpish even. Harsh, I know, but this may have an affect in the other direction - along with the new Trump narrative that "I beat Covid and Biden is a pussy".
At the future debates (I think they will go ahead) Trump will no doubt bully again - and again try to trigger a Biden stuttering episode to build up the new Trump narrative.
So. Yes, I`m worried.
I'm less so but am not as relaxed as I was before this episode.
What Trump price would tempt you to cash out?
That`s an excellent question - the very one I`ve been contemplating over the weekend.
My default position is that I don`t "cash out". Each bet is a judgement in itself at the prevailing odds. One`s existing bets are irrelevant in this evaluation. However, my confusion over BF`s rules have unsettled me somewhat I admit.
I won`t cash out (BF`s cash out is a mirage anyway - it just tempts new bets) but I may consider backing Trump when the price is above the probability as I see it. Smarkets, which are open, have Trump at 3.35. I`d want more than that. I`d be very tempted at anything over 4.
Yes I meant a back back not using the "cashout" button. And of course you are strictly speaking right. There is no cash out. There is only doing a new bet or not. But your existing position is a bit relevant because of cash flow and risk appetite etc. I agree with over 4. Well over 4 in fact. My supremacy at 28, if that gets close to 100 I will be snaffling it. In the 60s when he threw his sickie.
If you bring cash flow and risk appetite into it, the betting returns are very likely to be sub-optimal. It should solely be about probability.
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
It doesn't matter. BF will go by the "projection" once votes are counted. If the "projection" is that 300 electors will vote in a way that "many people", or the vast majority of the commentariat, or most lawyers for that matter, call "faithless", that still doesn't matter. That's "subsequent". BF say "subsequent" doesn't matter. What matters is the "projection". Of course if there is no consensus on what to "project", then we have a problem. But if the RNC nominate Pence as their candidate on say 10 October and he accepts their nomination, debates Biden on the TV, and so on, and then the GOP ticket - which may have "Trump/Pence" written on it in some or even in all states - wins enough states, then BF will pay out on Pence.
Well in 2016 they said they wouldn't pay out on Paine in a similar scenario.
Were their rules the same in 2016, though ?
Largely but this they are even more explicit so in the event of withdrawal/death so that Paine principle is confirmed.
What is the Paine principle? What is the story? Any link?
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Bit of a personal question!!!
- Well Jack Nicklaus famously squeezed in a few holes on his honeymoon. So ...
I think most men try to during their honeymoon.
I think Christians call it the holey trinity. Though I might be misquoting them.
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
Oh come off it. We have universities offering OU courses for Oxbridge prices. I don't blame them - they face a serious cash crisis if they don't. I blame the government.
Many students are paying for what exactly - online teaching in a room they are barred from leaving? £15k for something they could have for a fifth of the price
So the government should make up the shortfall, eh? That would be us, the taxpayers. And who gets the benefit of the continuation of the institutions? The students.
The idea that our government has some bottomless pit of money into which it can dip with no cost every time something is not ideal is just delusional. We really need to get away from it.
The govt used to fund University places.
Then the Unis were seen as a great way to get kids off the dole figures (remember NEETs? Not in Employment, Education, Training). New Labour came up a great scheme, keep 50% in education and make THEM pay for it. Lower jobless figures, less claiming dole and (maybe) better educated population.
In Scotland the government pretend to fund University places. It's not true of course. They limit the number of places available, they rely very heavily on cross-subsidy from English students and foreign students paying approximately 5x and 10x as much for the same course and still Scottish Universities have not been able to match the growth of the English University sector.
I have deep reservations about the current system but government funding has been tried and failed.
Are you saying that all those educated in Universities prior to 2000(ish) were failures? The system seemed to work well enough. The big issue was that it was fundable for 10% of the population but not for New Labour's desired 50%.
So whilst the argument is that many more people get to go to Uni than (say) 20 years ago, all it has done is introduce more and more courses, not all of which will benefit the student, and introduce a hell of a lot of debt into the system which will never be paid off.
So the funding of students who will never pay back the debt is just another fantasy that somehow the govt will not have to deal with it because it can sell the student debt. Somebody, somewhere is going to be left holding the can on this because that debt is exactly that - a time-limited debt with a write-off date.
In the meantime we have many students with degrees of marginal or no use, starting their lives with a large debt burden.
If you think that is a working system, then your idea of "working" is wildly different from mine.
Betfair were right to suspend when the news broke but should now re-open the market. It is clear that Trump is neither dying nor pulling out incapacitated. The interesting question is how this episode will affect the rest of the campaign and the result. Does it make any difference at all? If so, does it help him or hurt him? These are valid bettable issues.
I think he was infected days before he has admitted - probably at the nomination ceremony (which I believe was Saturday 26th). So almost a week before. He was sweating profusely at the debate and showed up late. An American friend of mine says that the lateness was deliberate so as to be too late to get tested before the debate, but I don`t know whether this is true.
The point is that Trump probably already knew he was infected when the debate took place, and possibly days before as well. Then he went on to a rally In Minnesota and a fundraiser. Not to mention potentially infecting White House staff.
So, if the above hypothesis is true - what follows?
Well there will be claims that he criminally infected other people. Will this affect his votes? I`m guessing, yes, but not significantly.
On the other side, my take on the debate is that it was a score draw. Trump repulsive as ever but Biden, I felt, came over as someone who was easily bullied by Trump. Wimpish even. Harsh, I know, but this may have an affect in the other direction - along with the new Trump narrative that "I beat Covid and Biden is a pussy".
At the future debates (I think they will go ahead) Trump will no doubt bully again - and again try to trigger a Biden stuttering episode to build up the new Trump narrative.
So. Yes, I`m worried.
I'm less so but am not as relaxed as I was before this episode.
What Trump price would tempt you to cash out?
That`s an excellent question - the very one I`ve been contemplating over the weekend.
My default position is that I don`t "cash out". Each bet is a judgement in itself at the prevailing odds. One`s existing bets are irrelevant in this evaluation. However, my confusion over BF`s rules have unsettled me somewhat I admit.
I won`t cash out (BF`s cash out is a mirage anyway - it just tempts new bets) but I may consider backing Trump when the price is above the probability as I see it. Smarkets, which are open, have Trump at 3.35. I`d want more than that. I`d be very tempted at anything over 4.
Anything over 8 for me.
The Economist agrees with you. Probability of Trump win has been adjusted down to 11%.
Betfair were right to suspend when the news broke but should now re-open the market. It is clear that Trump is neither dying nor pulling out incapacitated. The interesting question is how this episode will affect the rest of the campaign and the result. Does it make any difference at all? If so, does it help him or hurt him? These are valid bettable issues.
I think he was infected days before he has admitted - probably at the nomination ceremony (which I believe was Saturday 26th). So almost a week before. He was sweating profusely at the debate and showed up late. An American friend of mine says that the lateness was deliberate so as to be too late to get tested before the debate, but I don`t know whether this is true.
The point is that Trump probably already knew he was infected when the debate took place, and possibly days before as well. Then he went on to a rally In Minnesota and a fundraiser. Not to mention potentially infecting White House staff.
So, if the above hypothesis is true - what follows?
Well there will be claims that he criminally infected other people. Will this affect his votes? I`m guessing, yes, but not significantly.
On the other side, my take on the debate is that it was a score draw. Trump repulsive as ever but Biden, I felt, came over as someone who was easily bullied by Trump. Wimpish even. Harsh, I know, but this may have an affect in the other direction - along with the new Trump narrative that "I beat Covid and Biden is a pussy".
At the future debates (I think they will go ahead) Trump will no doubt bully again - and again try to trigger a Biden stuttering episode to build up the new Trump narrative.
So. Yes, I`m worried.
I'm less so but am not as relaxed as I was before this episode.
What Trump price would tempt you to cash out?
That`s an excellent question - the very one I`ve been contemplating over the weekend.
My default position is that I don`t "cash out". Each bet is a judgement in itself at the prevailing odds. One`s existing bets are irrelevant in this evaluation. However, my confusion over BF`s rules have unsettled me somewhat I admit.
I won`t cash out (BF`s cash out is a mirage anyway - it just tempts new bets) but I may consider backing Trump when the price is above the probability as I see it. Smarkets, which are open, have Trump at 3.35. I`d want more than that. I`d be very tempted at anything over 4.
Yes I meant a back back not using the "cashout" button. And of course you are strictly speaking right. There is no cash out. There is only doing a new bet or not. But your existing position is a bit relevant because of cash flow and risk appetite etc. I agree with over 4. Well over 4 in fact. My supremacy at 28, if that gets close to 100 I will be snaffling it. In the 60s when he threw his sickie.
If you bring cash flow and risk appetite into it, the betting returns are very likely to be sub-optimal. It should solely be about probability.
If you have total assets of say £1 million and you are offered 10/1 on a 6 coming up on a fair 6 sided dice, would you put the million on it?
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
It doesn't matter. BF will go by the "projection" once votes are counted. If the "projection" is that 300 electors will vote in a way that "many people", or the vast majority of the commentariat, or most lawyers for that matter, call "faithless", that still doesn't matter. That's "subsequent". BF say "subsequent" doesn't matter. What matters is the "projection". Of course if there is no consensus on what to "project", then we have a problem. But if the RNC nominate Pence as their candidate on say 10 October and he accepts their nomination, debates Biden on the TV, and so on, and then the GOP ticket - which may have "Trump/Pence" written on it in some or even in all states - wins enough states, then BF will pay out on Pence.
Well in 2016 they said they wouldn't pay out on Paine in a similar scenario.
Were their rules the same in 2016, though ?
Largely but this they are even more explicit so in the event of withdrawal/death so that Paine principle is confirmed.
What is the Paine principle? What is the story? Any link?
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
It doesn't matter. BF will go by the "projection" once votes are counted. If the "projection" is that 300 electors will vote in a way that "many people", or the vast majority of the commentariat, or most lawyers for that matter, call "faithless", that still doesn't matter. That's "subsequent". BF say "subsequent" doesn't matter. What matters is the "projection". Of course if there is no consensus on what to "project", then we have a problem. But if the RNC nominate Pence as their candidate on say 10 October and he accepts their nomination, debates Biden on the TV, and so on, and then the GOP ticket - which may have "Trump/Pence" written on it in some or even in all states - wins enough states, then BF will pay out on Pence.
Well in 2016 they said they wouldn't pay out on Paine in a similar scenario.
Were their rules the same in 2016, though ?
Largely but this they are even more explicit so in the event of withdrawal/death so that Paine principle is confirmed.
What is the Paine principle? What is the story? Any link?
Back in 2016 when Hillary had her health scares and some were ramping that she might not make it to election day I asked Betfair what would happen if she died/withdrew from the race and the DNC made Paine (or A N Other) their candidate would they pay out on that candidate being the next President.
Betfair informed me that no they wouldn't because the ballot papers had been printed and in some places already sent in so the electoral college would have to legally vote for HRC in over 30 states even if she was dead, they would pay out on Hillary being the winning candidate.
If in the scenario I was talking about I should back the Dems in the winning party market.
I'll try and find the chat logs/screen shots.
This argument is reinforced by their current T&Cs
'If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.'
Does anyone know if there is a betting market on words and phrases that will be uttered at the VP debate this week? I think a strong favourite is "Californisation" from Pence.
Californization, surely. ? The yanks can’t seem to cope with the concept of the passive S.
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Lord no, what a waste of time that would be. I find golf just beyond tedious. The only good things about it are the walk and the outdoors.
Oh no. Bang goes another national stereotype. Be none left at this rate.
I played the Ryder Cup course at The Belfry the other week. Shot twice my age - which would have been quite impressive if I were a decade younger.
Brabazon course? That destroyed me a few years back.
I like golf for the competitive aspect, the thrill when you nail a shot and the locations that it puts you in - which are often stunning. As for the "clubhouse aspect": the dress, the tedious lower middle class matey golf banter and jumped up snobbiness - I can do without all of that.
Yep, the Brabazon. In a stiff one. Which I needed by the end.
I'm a bit the same as you. More so in fact. I hate everything about golf except the game, which I love.
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
It doesn't matter. BF will go by the "projection" once votes are counted. If the "projection" is that 300 electors will vote in a way that "many people", or the vast majority of the commentariat, or most lawyers for that matter, call "faithless", that still doesn't matter. That's "subsequent". BF say "subsequent" doesn't matter. What matters is the "projection". Of course if there is no consensus on what to "project", then we have a problem. But if the RNC nominate Pence as their candidate on say 10 October and he accepts their nomination, debates Biden on the TV, and so on, and then the GOP ticket - which may have "Trump/Pence" written on it in some or even in all states - wins enough states, then BF will pay out on Pence.
Well in 2016 they said they wouldn't pay out on Paine in a similar scenario.
Were their rules the same in 2016, though ?
Largely but this they are even more explicit so in the event of withdrawal/death so that Paine principle is confirmed.
What is the Paine principle? What is the story? Any link?
Back in 2016 when Hillary had her health scares and some were ramping that she might not make it to election day I asked Betfair what would happen if she died/withdrew from the race and the DNC made Paine (or A N Other) their candidate would they pay out on that candidate being the next President.
Betfair informed me that no they wouldn't because the ballot papers had been printed and in some places already sent in so the electoral college would have to legally vote for HRC in over 30 states even if she was dead, they would pay out on Hillary being the winning candidate.
If in the scenario I was talking about I should back the Dems in the winning party market.
I'll try and find the chat logs/screen shots.
This argument is reinforced by their current T&Cs
'If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.'
Thanks. So it hinges on the assertion that "the electoral college would have to legally vote for HRC in over 30 states even if she was dead." I wonder what law that is? I wonder if the BF spokesperson is still in place? It does muddy the water. You would think that BF would ensure there was no doubt in the rules - though I think the defined rules are clear and unambiguous.
Sky still comparing our trajectory of cases to Spain and France's without any mention of the changing rates of positivity.
By the end of September over 10% of tests were coming back positive in Spain and France so the actual rate of cases will be much more than they're showing.
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
Oh come off it. We have universities offering OU courses for Oxbridge prices. I don't blame them - they face a serious cash crisis if they don't. I blame the government.
Many students are paying for what exactly - online teaching in a room they are barred from leaving? £15k for something they could have for a fifth of the price
So the government should make up the shortfall, eh? That would be us, the taxpayers. And who gets the benefit of the continuation of the institutions? The students.
The idea that our government has some bottomless pit of money into which it can dip with no cost every time something is not ideal is just delusional. We really need to get away from it.
The govt used to fund University places.
Then the Unis were seen as a great way to get kids off the dole figures (remember NEETs? Not in Employment, Education, Training). New Labour came up a great scheme, keep 50% in education and make THEM pay for it. Lower jobless figures, less claiming dole and (maybe) better educated population.
In Scotland the government pretend to fund University places. It's not true of course. They limit the number of places available, they rely very heavily on cross-subsidy from English students and foreign students paying approximately 5x and 10x as much for the same course and still Scottish Universities have not been able to match the growth of the English University sector.
I have deep reservations about the current system but government funding has been tried and failed.
Are you saying that all those educated in Universities prior to 2000(ish) were failures? The system seemed to work well enough. The big issue was that it was fundable for 10% of the population but not for New Labour's desired 50%.
So whilst the argument is that many more people get to go to Uni than (say) 20 years ago, all it has done is introduce more and more courses, not all of which will benefit the student, and introduce a hell of a lot of debt into the system which will never be paid off.
So the funding of students who will never pay back the debt is just another fantasy that somehow the govt will not have to deal with it because it can sell the student debt. Somebody, somewhere is going to be left holding the can on this because that debt is exactly that - a time-limited debt with a write-off date.
In the meantime we have many students with degrees of marginal or no use, starting their lives with a large debt burden.
If you think that is a working system, then your idea of "working" is wildly different from mine.
But we seem to be in agreement that what worked for 10% of the population wouldn't work for 50%. We are also in agreement that far too many students are being (mis)sold courses with little or any benefit to their potential career earnings. I am not seeking to defend the current set up, I am simply pointing out that it has created far, far more resources for the tertiary sector than they have ever had before. On the premise that is a good thing any replacement is going to have to produce similar levels of funds.
So the spreadsheet they were using for the results reached its maximum size and simply excluded all the results that followed.
Epic fail.
WTAF? Who works with large datasets and doesn't know that Excel has a maximum file size? I despair.
The email size limit being the issue seems more believable; the maximum excel size/length is surely enormous?
Edit: Ah, if the entire list of cases is being stored in Excel I could see that being an issue! Weird that they were still able to add some cases but not all on the affected days though.
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
It doesn't matter. BF will go by the "projection" once votes are counted. If the "projection" is that 300 electors will vote in a way that "many people", or the vast majority of the commentariat, or most lawyers for that matter, call "faithless", that still doesn't matter. That's "subsequent". BF say "subsequent" doesn't matter. What matters is the "projection". Of course if there is no consensus on what to "project", then we have a problem. But if the RNC nominate Pence as their candidate on say 10 October and he accepts their nomination, debates Biden on the TV, and so on, and then the GOP ticket - which may have "Trump/Pence" written on it in some or even in all states - wins enough states, then BF will pay out on Pence.
Well in 2016 they said they wouldn't pay out on Paine in a similar scenario.
Were their rules the same in 2016, though ?
Largely but this they are even more explicit so in the event of withdrawal/death so that Paine principle is confirmed.
What is the Paine principle? What is the story? Any link?
Back in 2016 when Hillary had her health scares and some were ramping that she might not make it to election day I asked Betfair what would happen if she died/withdrew from the race and the DNC made Paine (or A N Other) their candidate would they pay out on that candidate being the next President.
Betfair informed me that no they wouldn't because the ballot papers had been printed and in some places already sent in so the electoral college would have to legally vote for HRC in over 30 states even if she was dead, they would pay out on Hillary being the winning candidate.
If in the scenario I was talking about I should back the Dems in the winning party market.
I'll try and find the chat logs/screen shots.
This argument is reinforced by their current T&Cs
'If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.'
Thanks. So it hinges on the assertion that "the electoral college would have to legally vote for HRC in over 30 states even if she was dead." I wonder what law that is? I wonder if the BF spokesperson is still in place? It does muddy the water. You would think that BF would ensure there was no doubt in the rules - though I think the defined rules are clear and unambiguous.
It's going to turn in a bloody mess, another reason for Trump to survive Covid-19.
It is possible that some cunning Dems who make up the electoral college split the GOP vote if Trump dies, so it could see Trump on say 150 electoral college votes, and Pence say on 118 electoral college votes.
Betfair are also quite clear the winner of this market has to become President via the 12th amendment not the 25th amendment, something the Pelosi backers seem not to be aware of.
Betfair were right to suspend when the news broke but should now re-open the market. It is clear that Trump is neither dying nor pulling out incapacitated. The interesting question is how this episode will affect the rest of the campaign and the result. Does it make any difference at all? If so, does it help him or hurt him? These are valid bettable issues.
I think he was infected days before he has admitted - probably at the nomination ceremony (which I believe was Saturday 26th). So almost a week before. He was sweating profusely at the debate and showed up late. An American friend of mine says that the lateness was deliberate so as to be too late to get tested before the debate, but I don`t know whether this is true.
The point is that Trump probably already knew he was infected when the debate took place, and possibly days before as well. Then he went on to a rally In Minnesota and a fundraiser. Not to mention potentially infecting White House staff.
So, if the above hypothesis is true - what follows?
Well there will be claims that he criminally infected other people. Will this affect his votes? I`m guessing, yes, but not significantly.
On the other side, my take on the debate is that it was a score draw. Trump repulsive as ever but Biden, I felt, came over as someone who was easily bullied by Trump. Wimpish even. Harsh, I know, but this may have an affect in the other direction - along with the new Trump narrative that "I beat Covid and Biden is a pussy".
At the future debates (I think they will go ahead) Trump will no doubt bully again - and again try to trigger a Biden stuttering episode to build up the new Trump narrative.
So. Yes, I`m worried.
I'm less so but am not as relaxed as I was before this episode.
What Trump price would tempt you to cash out?
That`s an excellent question - the very one I`ve been contemplating over the weekend.
My default position is that I don`t "cash out". Each bet is a judgement in itself at the prevailing odds. One`s existing bets are irrelevant in this evaluation. However, my confusion over BF`s rules have unsettled me somewhat I admit.
I won`t cash out (BF`s cash out is a mirage anyway - it just tempts new bets) but I may consider backing Trump when the price is above the probability as I see it. Smarkets, which are open, have Trump at 3.35. I`d want more than that. I`d be very tempted at anything over 4.
Yes I meant a back back not using the "cashout" button. And of course you are strictly speaking right. There is no cash out. There is only doing a new bet or not. But your existing position is a bit relevant because of cash flow and risk appetite etc. I agree with over 4. Well over 4 in fact. My supremacy at 28, if that gets close to 100 I will be snaffling it. In the 60s when he threw his sickie.
If you bring cash flow and risk appetite into it, the betting returns are very likely to be sub-optimal. It should solely be about probability.
If you have total assets of say £1 million and you are offered 10/1 on a 6 coming up on a fair 6 sided dice, would you put the million on it?
I should do yes. I wouldn`t though, no. So in this case my betting would be sub-optimal.
So the spreadsheet they were using for the results reached its maximum size and simply excluded all the results that followed.
Epic fail.
WTAF? Who works with large datasets and doesn't know that Excel has a maximum file size? I despair.
The email size limit being the issue seems more believable; the maximum excel size/length is surely enormous?
Edit: Ah, if the entire list of cases is being stored in Excel I could see that being an issue! Weird that they were still able to add some cases but not all on the affected days though.
It is pretty big but big datasets quickly exhaust it (eg the global Google mobility data are now too large to open in Excel).
In addition to reopening the markets (how much business are they losing to competitors over this?) BF needs to clarify the market rules on their Next President market.
When BF do reopen for business, I don`t know if or which way I will bet due to the interpretation of BF rules as understood by some on here.
I have have Laid Trump big and also have Backed Pence. If Trump were to bow out through ill health and Pence were to run for President instead - going on to win so that Pence is Next President - I would expect to win my Trump bet and win my Pence bet.
However, according to some on here I would lose both bets.
There has been a risk premium in Trump and Biden`s price from the off - originally due to age but now amplified due to Covid. For the above interpretation to be right the risk premium should not have been there (at least after the nomination stage). That leads me to think that there may be an opportunity to back Trump when Bf opens as I suspect, looking as Smarket odds, that he is going to open higher-priced that when Bf suspended the market and part of this higher price could? be based on a misunderstanding on BF rules.
Any views on all this?
It's a sad fact with BF that the title of their bets often don't match up with the published small print rules. An earlier classis was "will there be a no deal Brexit, yes or no" where the small print had a whole stack of provisos and tied the bet to a particular date. So you have to be very careful to make sure that what you think you are betting on is indeed the case.
Indeed. The title of the market is "Presidential Election 2020 - Next President". I`ve been laying Trump for months and I admit I didn`t look at the rules initially, thinking that the title of market pretty much said it all. When I did check the rules the last sentence, that basically says the market doesn`t void if someone dies, was reassuring (I thought). What`s concerning is that experienced PB.com punters take opposite interpretations of their rules.
There is a storm brewing for BF.
I think some people overcomplicate and overthink matters.
From memory the winner is the "projected" winner according to the rules? Well, if hypothetically Trump pulls out now and is replaced by Pence then even if the ballot papers say Trump the "projected" winner if the GOP wins on the night will be Pence.
Others take the other view, an overly literal interpretation that the ballot paper says Trump so Trump will have won. But in that scenario I think the media and everyone will be projecting that Pence has won, so you would win your bet.
The key is who interprets who has "projected" the winner. The rules don't, as some seem to think, insist upon the name on the ballot paper being the winner.
I think it's wise to *actually read the rules* rather than relying on your recollection.
From the rules link, I think it matches Philip's recollection:
Event Start Time 03 November 2020, 20:00 Win Only Market
MARKET INFORMATION
For further information please see Rules & Regs.
Who will be elected to be the next President of the United States of America as a result of the 2020 presidential election?
This market will be turned in-play at the stated time on the day of the election. Thereafter the market will not be actively managed. Customers are entirely responsible for their bets at all times.
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This market will be void if an election does not take place in 2020. If more than one election takes place in 2020, then this market will apply to the first election that is held.
10/03/2020 10:30am – Once voting (whether postal, electronic or at the ballot box) begins in the year 2020 for the US Presidential Election 2020, the election will be deemed to have taken place for the purposes of this market. We will then settle the market as per our rules regardless of whether the election process is fully completed in 2020 or beyond.
If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.
Betfair expressly reserves the right to suspend and/or void any and all bets on this market at any time if Betfair is not satisfied (in its absolute discretion) with the certainty of the outcome.
Additional candidates may be added to this market on request.
Please note that candidates in this market will not be partially settled and will remain in the market until it is fully settled. This is to allow customers to continue trading candidates that they have positions on and because each candidate is still a valid runner in this market.
Customers should be aware that:
Transmissions described as “live” by some broadcasters may actually be delayed.
The extent of any such delay may vary, depending on the set-up through which they are receiving pictures or data.
Please note, due to internal administrative procedures, the indicated start date/time of this market is subject to change. This will have no impact on settlement as detailed in our market specific rules. Any changes to the start time/date will be recorded in the market rules. 16:00 17/06/2020 –Market rules have been updated to reflect new information above..
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)
Sorry but i think there is an important difference between 'projected winner' and candidate projected to win EC votes at 2020 election.
The *candidate* means the person nominated. That's Trump not Pence.
I disagree. They say "Please note that candidates in this market will not be partially settled and will remain in the market until it is fully settled. This is to allow customers to continue trading candidates that they have positions on and because each candidate is still a valid runner in this market." There is no way that that only means those whose names are printed on ballots even if they're dead and who were standing for parties which have now chosen replacements. It means everyone on the BF list.
It means that BF believe there is a chance that any of their "runners", i.e. anyone they have got listed, has a chance of being the winning "candidate", meaning the person who gets a majority of projected ECVs or who is appointed by the 12th amendment procedure.
And BF are quite right about that. If we just look at the PECVs, that literally CAN be anybody who is alive. (Sorry but members of the EC in my opinion will not vote for a person they know to be dead.) House delegations have to vote for one of the leading 3 candidates by ECVs (although goodness knows what happens if there is a tie for 3rd place, or if only two candidates won any votes in the EC and they both died after the EC votes were submitted). But there is no such restriction for members of the EC, who can vote for anyone (who is eligible, born in the US, etc.). Never mind state law here. Perhaps they will end up in state jail if they defy state authorities. That doesn't matter. The person they vote for doesn't (by federal law) have to be a person who was named on ballots for hoi polloi. This is not a pedantic point. On the contrary, it is the basis of where BF are coming from when they write that "each candidate is still a valid runner in this market" - meaning that they will remain a "valid runner" until the market is fully settled. That's slightly vague terminology, but it means that the "projected winner" of the EC could, as far as they and we know now, be anybody. It could for example be Oprah Winfrey - who was available until recently at 1000 and will presumably still be available at that price when the market reopens. So don't worry, @Stocky. If Trump withdraws and Pence becomes the GOP candidate, i.e. he is chosen by the RNC and the GOP then tell voters that "If it says 'Trump' on your ballot paper, that means 'Pence' ", and Pence then wins in enough states to be "projected" to win a majority of ECVs, then you will win your bet on Pence.
It doesn't matter whether dead people have been elected in other elections in the US. No serious "projector" will "project" that EC members will vote for someone they know is dead, and it won't happen.
Welcome - and thank you for your detailed comments. You seem very well informed - and this is your first post - is this some form of official response by any chance?
Thanks. No, it's just my take on it, but I have a lot staked and before staking I considered this very carefully.
I'm sure you're right. They would pay out on Pence in that circumstance. But it's not happening unless Trump takes a massive turn for the worse and dies, which is a low low probability. At the moment he is milking a mild case of coronavirus.
So the spreadsheet they were using for the results reached its maximum size and simply excluded all the results that followed.
Epic fail.
WTAF? Who works with large datasets and doesn't know that Excel has a maximum file size? I despair.
The email size limit being the issue seems more believable; the maximum excel size/length is surely enormous?
Edit: Ah, if the entire list of cases is being stored in Excel I could see that being an issue! Weird that they were still able to add some cases but not all on the affected days though.
It is pretty big but big datasets quickly exhaust it (eg the global Google mobility data are now too large to open in Excel).
Yeah, but it's odd it didn't just grind to a halt completely one day once that limit was reached, rather than being able to add only half of the cases. Anyway, they should be storing the raw counts separately by day and ingesting those into a proper database, SQL or something.
I am on leave today and am going to see Tenet in South Woodford this afternoon plus facemask after watching Rishi Sunak's speech, cinemas need the money given Bond has been delayed until 2021 now
Does anyone know if there is a betting market on words and phrases that will be uttered at the VP debate this week? I think a strong favourite is "Californisation" from Pence.
Californization, surely. ? The yanks can’t seem to cope with the concept of the passive S.
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
Oh come off it. We have universities offering OU courses for Oxbridge prices. I don't blame them - they face a serious cash crisis if they don't. I blame the government.
Many students are paying for what exactly - online teaching in a room they are barred from leaving? £15k for something they could have for a fifth of the price
So the government should make up the shortfall, eh? That would be us, the taxpayers. And who gets the benefit of the continuation of the institutions? The students.
The idea that our government has some bottomless pit of money into which it can dip with no cost every time something is not ideal is just delusional. We really need to get away from it.
The govt used to fund University places.
Then the Unis were seen as a great way to get kids off the dole figures (remember NEETs? Not in Employment, Education, Training). New Labour came up a great scheme, keep 50% in education and make THEM pay for it. Lower jobless figures, less claiming dole and (maybe) better educated population.
In Scotland the government pretend to fund University places. It's not true of course. They limit the number of places available, they rely very heavily on cross-subsidy from English students and foreign students paying approximately 5x and 10x as much for the same course and still Scottish Universities have not been able to match the growth of the English University sector.
I have deep reservations about the current system but government funding has been tried and failed.
Are you saying that all those educated in Universities prior to 2000(ish) were failures? The system seemed to work well enough. The big issue was that it was fundable for 10% of the population but not for New Labour's desired 50%.
So whilst the argument is that many more people get to go to Uni than (say) 20 years ago, all it has done is introduce more and more courses, not all of which will benefit the student, and introduce a hell of a lot of debt into the system which will never be paid off.
So the funding of students who will never pay back the debt is just another fantasy that somehow the govt will not have to deal with it because it can sell the student debt. Somebody, somewhere is going to be left holding the can on this because that debt is exactly that - a time-limited debt with a write-off date.
In the meantime we have many students with degrees of marginal or no use, starting their lives with a large debt burden.
If you think that is a working system, then your idea of "working" is wildly different from mine.
But we seem to be in agreement that what worked for 10% of the population wouldn't work for 50%. We are also in agreement that far too many students are being (mis)sold courses with little or any benefit to their potential career earnings. I am not seeking to defend the current set up, I am simply pointing out that it has created far, far more resources for the tertiary sector than they have ever had before. On the premise that is a good thing any replacement is going to have to produce similar levels of funds.
It might be good for the tertiary sector, but I am not convinced it is good for the country and I am d*mn certain it is not good for the debt-ridden graduates.
I am on leave today and am going to see Tenet in South Woodford this afternoon plus facemask after watching Rishi Sunak's speech, cinemas need the money given Bond has been delayed until 2021 now
Good for you - "fearlessly and with common sense" ...
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
It doesn't matter. BF will go by the "projection" once votes are counted. If the "projection" is that 300 electors will vote in a way that "many people", or the vast majority of the commentariat, or most lawyers for that matter, call "faithless", that still doesn't matter. That's "subsequent". BF say "subsequent" doesn't matter. What matters is the "projection". Of course if there is no consensus on what to "project", then we have a problem. But if the RNC nominate Pence as their candidate on say 10 October and he accepts their nomination, debates Biden on the TV, and so on, and then the GOP ticket - which may have "Trump/Pence" written on it in some or even in all states - wins enough states, then BF will pay out on Pence.
Well in 2016 they said they wouldn't pay out on Paine in a similar scenario.
Were their rules the same in 2016, though ?
Largely but this they are even more explicit so in the event of withdrawal/death so that Paine principle is confirmed.
What is the Paine principle? What is the story? Any link?
Back in 2016 when Hillary had her health scares and some were ramping that she might not make it to election day I asked Betfair what would happen if she died/withdrew from the race and the DNC made Paine (or A N Other) their candidate would they pay out on that candidate being the next President.
Betfair informed me that no they wouldn't because the ballot papers had been printed and in some places already sent in so the electoral college would have to legally vote for HRC in over 30 states even if she was dead, they would pay out on Hillary being the winning candidate.
If in the scenario I was talking about I should back the Dems in the winning party market.
I'll try and find the chat logs/screen shots.
This argument is reinforced by their current T&Cs
'If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.'
Thanks. So it hinges on the assertion that "the electoral college would have to legally vote for HRC in over 30 states even if she was dead." I wonder what law that is? I wonder if the BF spokesperson is still in place? It does muddy the water. You would think that BF would ensure there was no doubt in the rules - though I think the defined rules are clear and unambiguous.
It's going to turn in a bloody mess, another reason for Trump to survive Covid-19.
It is possible that some cunning Dems who make up the electoral college split the GOP vote if Trump dies, so it could see Trump on say 150 electoral college votes, and Pence say on 118 electoral college votes.
Betfair are also quite clear the winner of this market has to become President via the 12th amendment not the 25th amendment, something the Pelosi backers seem not to be aware of.
There is a path for Pelosi to win via the 12th, but its extraordinarily unlikely. Hundreds to one at least.
It is possible that some cunning Dems who make up the electoral college split the GOP vote if Trump dies, so it could see Trump on say 150 electoral college votes, and Pence say on 118 electoral college votes.
I don't get it, aren't Trump/Pence electors people who were selected by the GOP to represent Trump/Pence? If they have a majority, it doesn't matter what cunning Dems do, unless they're incredibly patient sleeper agents.
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
It doesn't matter. BF will go by the "projection" once votes are counted. If the "projection" is that 300 electors will vote in a way that "many people", or the vast majority of the commentariat, or most lawyers for that matter, call "faithless", that still doesn't matter. That's "subsequent". BF say "subsequent" doesn't matter. What matters is the "projection". Of course if there is no consensus on what to "project", then we have a problem. But if the RNC nominate Pence as their candidate on say 10 October and he accepts their nomination, debates Biden on the TV, and so on, and then the GOP ticket - which may have "Trump/Pence" written on it in some or even in all states - wins enough states, then BF will pay out on Pence.
Well in 2016 they said they wouldn't pay out on Paine in a similar scenario.
Were their rules the same in 2016, though ?
Largely but this they are even more explicit so in the event of withdrawal/death so that Paine principle is confirmed.
What is the Paine principle? What is the story? Any link?
Back in 2016 when Hillary had her health scares and some were ramping that she might not make it to election day I asked Betfair what would happen if she died/withdrew from the race and the DNC made Paine (or A N Other) their candidate would they pay out on that candidate being the next President.
Betfair informed me that no they wouldn't because the ballot papers had been printed and in some places already sent in so the electoral college would have to legally vote for HRC in over 30 states even if she was dead, they would pay out on Hillary being the winning candidate.
If in the scenario I was talking about I should back the Dems in the winning party market.
I'll try and find the chat logs/screen shots.
This argument is reinforced by their current T&Cs
'If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.'
Thanks. So it hinges on the assertion that "the electoral college would have to legally vote for HRC in over 30 states even if she was dead." I wonder what law that is? I wonder if the BF spokesperson is still in place? It does muddy the water. You would think that BF would ensure there was no doubt in the rules - though I think the defined rules are clear and unambiguous.
It's going to turn in a bloody mess, another reason for Trump to survive Covid-19.
It is possible that some cunning Dems who make up the electoral college split the GOP vote if Trump dies, so it could see Trump on say 150 electoral college votes, and Pence say on 118 electoral college votes.
Betfair are also quite clear the winner of this market has to become President via the 12th amendment not the 25th amendment, something the Pelosi backers seem not to be aware of.
There is a path for Pelosi to win via the 12th, but its extraordinarily unlikely. Hundreds to one at least.
Not going to happen, it is too late, the ballot papers have been printed, the candidates have been chosen.
These are the people who are going to introduce a new friction free border control?
Kent's utterly fucked and will end up part of France, you just know it.
This is just a testament to Boris's political genius. This sort of stuff would have finished off any other British PM long ago. The way in which he's still held in affection by many must be the greatest example of brand resilience in history.
So the spreadsheet they were using for the results reached its maximum size and simply excluded all the results that followed.
Epic fail.
WTAF? Who works with large datasets and doesn't know that Excel has a maximum file size? I despair.
The email size limit being the issue seems more believable; the maximum excel size/length is surely enormous?
Edit: Ah, if the entire list of cases is being stored in Excel I could see that being an issue! Weird that they were still able to add some cases but not all on the affected days though.
It is pretty big but big datasets quickly exhaust it (eg the global Google mobility data are now too large to open in Excel).
Yeah, but it's odd it didn't just grind to a halt completely one day once that limit was reached, rather than being able to add only half of the cases. Anyway, they should be storing the raw counts separately by day and ingesting those into a proper database, SQL or something.
Yes, in data management terms it is utterly woeful. Can you imagine being the person in charge of this and the moment when they realised what was going on? It's the kind of awful basic mistake that anyone who works with data has probably had a nightmare about.
So the spreadsheet they were using for the results reached its maximum size and simply excluded all the results that followed.
Epic fail.
WTAF? Who works with large datasets and doesn't know that Excel has a maximum file size? I despair.
The email size limit being the issue seems more believable; the maximum excel size/length is surely enormous?
Edit: Ah, if the entire list of cases is being stored in Excel I could see that being an issue! Weird that they were still able to add some cases but not all on the affected days though.
I bet the issue is that the upload system only handles CSVs (a python limitation) and Excel files were being put into it. I've seen that happen loads of times because the people making the system intrinsically understand that python works properly with CSVs but doesn't with Excel files but the people doing the uploads don't know the difference.
Betfair were right to suspend when the news broke but should now re-open the market. It is clear that Trump is neither dying nor pulling out incapacitated. The interesting question is how this episode will affect the rest of the campaign and the result. Does it make any difference at all? If so, does it help him or hurt him? These are valid bettable issues.
I think he was infected days before he has admitted - probably at the nomination ceremony (which I believe was Saturday 26th). So almost a week before. He was sweating profusely at the debate and showed up late. An American friend of mine says that the lateness was deliberate so as to be too late to get tested before the debate, but I don`t know whether this is true.
The point is that Trump probably already knew he was infected when the debate took place, and possibly days before as well. Then he went on to a rally In Minnesota and a fundraiser. Not to mention potentially infecting White House staff.
So, if the above hypothesis is true - what follows?
Well there will be claims that he criminally infected other people. Will this affect his votes? I`m guessing, yes, but not significantly.
On the other side, my take on the debate is that it was a score draw. Trump repulsive as ever but Biden, I felt, came over as someone who was easily bullied by Trump. Wimpish even. Harsh, I know, but this may have an affect in the other direction - along with the new Trump narrative that "I beat Covid and Biden is a pussy".
At the future debates (I think they will go ahead) Trump will no doubt bully again - and again try to trigger a Biden stuttering episode to build up the new Trump narrative.
So. Yes, I`m worried.
I'm less so but am not as relaxed as I was before this episode.
What Trump price would tempt you to cash out?
That`s an excellent question - the very one I`ve been contemplating over the weekend.
My default position is that I don`t "cash out". Each bet is a judgement in itself at the prevailing odds. One`s existing bets are irrelevant in this evaluation. However, my confusion over BF`s rules have unsettled me somewhat I admit.
I won`t cash out (BF`s cash out is a mirage anyway - it just tempts new bets) but I may consider backing Trump when the price is above the probability as I see it. Smarkets, which are open, have Trump at 3.35. I`d want more than that. I`d be very tempted at anything over 4.
Yes I meant a back back not using the "cashout" button. And of course you are strictly speaking right. There is no cash out. There is only doing a new bet or not. But your existing position is a bit relevant because of cash flow and risk appetite etc. I agree with over 4. Well over 4 in fact. My supremacy at 28, if that gets close to 100 I will be snaffling it. In the 60s when he threw his sickie.
If you bring cash flow and risk appetite into it, the betting returns are very likely to be sub-optimal. It should solely be about probability.
If you have total assets of say £1 million and you are offered 10/1 on a 6 coming up on a fair 6 sided dice, would you put the million on it?
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Lord no, what a waste of time that would be. I find golf just beyond tedious. The only good things about it are the walk and the outdoors.
Oh no. Bang goes another national stereotype. Be none left at this rate.
I played the Ryder Cup course at The Belfry the other week. Shot twice my age - which would have been quite impressive if I were a decade younger.
Brabazon course? That destroyed me a few years back.
I like golf for the competitive aspect, the thrill when you nail a shot and the locations that it puts you in - which are often stunning. As for the "clubhouse aspect": the dress, the tedious lower middle class matey golf banter and jumped up snobbiness - I can do without all of that.
Ha. Another one the same here. I've not played for a year or two mainly because I can't be arsed with golf clubs, but I did enjoy the game itself and used to be half decent at it.
Call me antisocial but I often preferred a game on my own when the course was empty. Could walk at a decent pace and not have to talk about football.
Perhaps that's why I moved on to climbing hills instead.
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Lord no, what a waste of time that would be. I find golf just beyond tedious. The only good things about it are the walk and the outdoors.
The sandpit things on my local course are excellent for jumping my CRF250.
You go to extraordinary lengths to achieve a certain level of popularity, don't you? Remarkable.
Leave Dura-ace alone - he`s comedy gold.
When I was 18 me and my mate did donuts on a golf course in his dad's W115 220 automatic. It open diffed and blew up the torque convertor on the second loop. His dad was livid and sent him to Sunderland Polytechnic as punishment.
It is possible that some cunning Dems who make up the electoral college split the GOP vote if Trump dies, so it could see Trump on say 150 electoral college votes, and Pence say on 118 electoral college votes.
I don't get it, aren't Trump/Pence electors people who were selected by the GOP to represent Trump/Pence? If they have a majority, it doesn't matter what cunning Dems do, unless they're incredibly patient sleeper agents.
I should have been clearer. I'm talking about states in which the Dems control the state house and governorships, some of them have the power to override the electoral college voters and award their state's electoral college voters how they see fit.
It is something the GOP have talked about doing themselves.
Betfair were right to suspend when the news broke but should now re-open the market. It is clear that Trump is neither dying nor pulling out incapacitated. The interesting question is how this episode will affect the rest of the campaign and the result. Does it make any difference at all? If so, does it help him or hurt him? These are valid bettable issues.
I think he was infected days before he has admitted - probably at the nomination ceremony (which I believe was Saturday 26th). So almost a week before. He was sweating profusely at the debate and showed up late. An American friend of mine says that the lateness was deliberate so as to be too late to get tested before the debate, but I don`t know whether this is true.
The point is that Trump probably already knew he was infected when the debate took place, and possibly days before as well. Then he went on to a rally In Minnesota and a fundraiser. Not to mention potentially infecting White House staff.
So, if the above hypothesis is true - what follows?
Well there will be claims that he criminally infected other people. Will this affect his votes? I`m guessing, yes, but not significantly.
On the other side, my take on the debate is that it was a score draw. Trump repulsive as ever but Biden, I felt, came over as someone who was easily bullied by Trump. Wimpish even. Harsh, I know, but this may have an affect in the other direction - along with the new Trump narrative that "I beat Covid and Biden is a pussy".
At the future debates (I think they will go ahead) Trump will no doubt bully again - and again try to trigger a Biden stuttering episode to build up the new Trump narrative.
So. Yes, I`m worried.
I'm less so but am not as relaxed as I was before this episode.
What Trump price would tempt you to cash out?
That`s an excellent question - the very one I`ve been contemplating over the weekend.
My default position is that I don`t "cash out". Each bet is a judgement in itself at the prevailing odds. One`s existing bets are irrelevant in this evaluation. However, my confusion over BF`s rules have unsettled me somewhat I admit.
I won`t cash out (BF`s cash out is a mirage anyway - it just tempts new bets) but I may consider backing Trump when the price is above the probability as I see it. Smarkets, which are open, have Trump at 3.35. I`d want more than that. I`d be very tempted at anything over 4.
Yes I meant a back back not using the "cashout" button. And of course you are strictly speaking right. There is no cash out. There is only doing a new bet or not. But your existing position is a bit relevant because of cash flow and risk appetite etc. I agree with over 4. Well over 4 in fact. My supremacy at 28, if that gets close to 100 I will be snaffling it. In the 60s when he threw his sickie.
If you bring cash flow and risk appetite into it, the betting returns are very likely to be sub-optimal. It should solely be about probability.
If you have total assets of say £1 million and you are offered 10/1 on a 6 coming up on a fair 6 sided dice, would you put the million on it?
I should do yes. I wouldn`t though, no. So in this case my betting would be sub-optimal.
I'm guessing that would be prepared to put £100 on it.
Like most people (and organisations) your utility function is linear at small fractions of total assets but flattens out at high fractions. It is a measure of your risk aversion. The utility function is the basis of the insurance industry and also explains why most people diversify their risk. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70998-5_1
So the spreadsheet they were using for the results reached its maximum size and simply excluded all the results that followed.
Epic fail.
WTAF? Who works with large datasets and doesn't know that Excel has a maximum file size? I despair.
The email size limit being the issue seems more believable; the maximum excel size/length is surely enormous?
Edit: Ah, if the entire list of cases is being stored in Excel I could see that being an issue! Weird that they were still able to add some cases but not all on the affected days though.
It is pretty big but big datasets quickly exhaust it (eg the global Google mobility data are now too large to open in Excel).
Yeah, but it's odd it didn't just grind to a halt completely one day once that limit was reached, rather than being able to add only half of the cases. Anyway, they should be storing the raw counts separately by day and ingesting those into a proper database, SQL or something.
Yes, in data management terms it is utterly woeful. Can you imagine being the person in charge of this and the moment when they realised what was going on? It's the kind of awful basic mistake that anyone who works with data has probably had a nightmare about.
Well it makes me think the reason they give isn't the actual reason, since it doesn't actually make sense when you think about it.
I am on leave today and am going to see Tenet in South Woodford this afternoon plus facemask after watching Rishi Sunak's speech, cinemas need the money given Bond has been delayed until 2021 now
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
Oh come off it. We have universities offering OU courses for Oxbridge prices. I don't blame them - they face a serious cash crisis if they don't. I blame the government.
Many students are paying for what exactly - online teaching in a room they are barred from leaving? £15k for something they could have for a fifth of the price
So the government should make up the shortfall, eh? That would be us, the taxpayers. And who gets the benefit of the continuation of the institutions? The students.
The idea that our government has some bottomless pit of money into which it can dip with no cost every time something is not ideal is just delusional. We really need to get away from it.
The govt used to fund University places.
Then the Unis were seen as a great way to get kids off the dole figures (remember NEETs? Not in Employment, Education, Training). New Labour came up a great scheme, keep 50% in education and make THEM pay for it. Lower jobless figures, less claiming dole and (maybe) better educated population.
In Scotland the government pretend to fund University places. It's not true of course. They limit the number of places available, they rely very heavily on cross-subsidy from English students and foreign students paying approximately 5x and 10x as much for the same course and still Scottish Universities have not been able to match the growth of the English University sector.
I have deep reservations about the current system but government funding has been tried and failed.
Are you saying that all those educated in Universities prior to 2000(ish) were failures? The system seemed to work well enough. The big issue was that it was fundable for 10% of the population but not for New Labour's desired 50%.
So whilst the argument is that many more people get to go to Uni than (say) 20 years ago, all it has done is introduce more and more courses, not all of which will benefit the student, and introduce a hell of a lot of debt into the system which will never be paid off.
So the funding of students who will never pay back the debt is just another fantasy that somehow the govt will not have to deal with it because it can sell the student debt. Somebody, somewhere is going to be left holding the can on this because that debt is exactly that - a time-limited debt with a write-off date.
In the meantime we have many students with degrees of marginal or no use, starting their lives with a large debt burden.
If you think that is a working system, then your idea of "working" is wildly different from mine.
But we seem to be in agreement that what worked for 10% of the population wouldn't work for 50%. We are also in agreement that far too many students are being (mis)sold courses with little or any benefit to their potential career earnings. I am not seeking to defend the current set up, I am simply pointing out that it has created far, far more resources for the tertiary sector than they have ever had before. On the premise that is a good thing any replacement is going to have to produce similar levels of funds.
It might be good for the tertiary sector, but I am not convinced it is good for the country and I am d*mn certain it is not good for the debt-ridden graduates.
I also have reservations about the current system, not least of which is what is going to happen to our property owning democracy when so many find themselves on higher rates of tax repaying loans throughout the years that they will be trying to have and bring up families, but that was not my original point.
Comments
What Trump price would tempt you to cash out?
I like golf for the competitive aspect, the thrill when you nail a shot and the locations that it puts you in - which are often stunning. As for the "clubhouse aspect": the dress, the tedious lower middle class matey golf banter and jumped up snobbiness - I can do without all of that.
Today's warning from history.
My default position is that I don`t "cash out". Each bet is a judgement in itself at the prevailing odds. One`s existing bets are irrelevant in this evaluation. However, my confusion over BF`s rules have unsettled me somewhat I admit.
I won`t cash out (BF`s cash out is a mirage anyway - it just tempts new bets) but I may consider backing Trump when the price is above the probability as I see it. Smarkets, which are open, have Trump at 3.35. I`d want more than that. I`d be very tempted at anything over 4.
And yet, for all that, they're still the best information we have. All things considered, I'm surprised at how good they are. But yes, we should be wary. They could be very wrong... The Republicans could be headed for such a large shellacking that Trump loses Louisiana, and McConnell loses Kentucky!
Epic fail.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1312910046670581760?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1312925700299653120?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1312976899312885760?s=20
https://www.rtve.es/alacarta/videos/noticias-24-horas/controles-policiales-metro-madrid-durante-primer-dia-laborable-tras-restricciones/5677171/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24x_aXoNYsk&feature=emb_logo
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1312910929227649026?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1312958499022942225?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1312958831127867392?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1312959362856615936?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1312978218224320512?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1312982527964045313?s=20
A Trumper too. Philip will be proud to identify with such people.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1312938622568595461?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1312936354343522304?s=20
So whilst the argument is that many more people get to go to Uni than (say) 20 years ago, all it has done is introduce more and more courses, not all of which will benefit the student, and introduce a hell of a lot of debt into the system which will never be paid off.
So the funding of students who will never pay back the debt is just another fantasy that somehow the govt will not have to deal with it because it can sell the student debt. Somebody, somewhere is going to be left holding the can on this because that debt is exactly that - a time-limited debt with a write-off date.
In the meantime we have many students with degrees of marginal or no use, starting their lives with a large debt burden.
If you think that is a working system, then your idea of "working" is wildly different from mine.
https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president
Betfair informed me that no they wouldn't because the ballot papers had been printed and in some places already sent in so the electoral college would have to legally vote for HRC in over 30 states even if she was dead, they would pay out on Hillary being the winning candidate.
If in the scenario I was talking about I should back the Dems in the winning party market.
I'll try and find the chat logs/screen shots.
This argument is reinforced by their current T&Cs
'If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.'
https://twitter.com/JAHeale/status/1313039072261214210?s=20
I'm a bit the same as you. More so in fact. I hate everything about golf except the game, which I love.
https://twitter.com/paperghost/status/1313053787477749761?s=20
(or the French are just as rubbish)
https://twitter.com/_b_meyer/status/1313001720860094465
By the end of September over 10% of tests were coming back positive in Spain and France so the actual rate of cases will be much more than they're showing.
We are also in agreement that far too many students are being (mis)sold courses with little or any benefit to their potential career earnings.
I am not seeking to defend the current set up, I am simply pointing out that it has created far, far more resources for the tertiary sector than they have ever had before. On the premise that is a good thing any replacement is going to have to produce similar levels of funds.
https://twitter.com/Aiannucci/status/1313058066410205186?s=20
Edit: Ah, if the entire list of cases is being stored in Excel I could see that being an issue! Weird that they were still able to add some cases but not all on the affected days though.
It is possible that some cunning Dems who make up the electoral college split the GOP vote if Trump dies, so it could see Trump on say 150 electoral college votes, and Pence say on 118 electoral college votes.
Betfair are also quite clear the winner of this market has to become President via the 12th amendment not the 25th amendment, something the Pelosi backers seem not to be aware of.
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1294045129834213382?s=20
Shut up.
just stop talking...
https://twitter.com/pkelso/status/1313058764514357249
Kent's utterly fucked and will end up part of France, you just know it.
I suppose if they tried using a database it would have been MS-Access
South Carolina - slight Biden trend.
Texas - slight Trump trend.
Iowa - Trump trend.
Georgia - Biden trend.
Ohio - no clear trend.
Maine (2) - slight Trump trend.
North Carolina - Biden trend.
Arizona - no clear trend.
Florida - Biden trend.
Nebraska (2) - Biden trend.
Pennsylvania - Biden trend.
Wisconsin - Biden trend.
Nevada - slight Biden trend.
Michigan - Biden trend.
Really suggests Biden will win the EC easily, but not likely with a ridiculous landslide.
Call me antisocial but I often preferred a game on my own when the course was empty. Could walk at a decent pace and not have to talk about football.
Perhaps that's why I moved on to climbing hills instead.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-876f42ae-5e44-41c0-ba2d-d6fd537aadfe
It is something the GOP have talked about doing themselves.
Like most people (and organisations) your utility function is linear at small fractions of total assets but flattens out at high fractions. It is a measure of your risk aversion.
The utility function is the basis of the insurance industry and also explains why most people diversify their risk.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70998-5_1