Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
Damn revisionist historians opened the door to this
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
That election is over, the 2020 election isn't over yet.
Blame the stupid US Constitution.
It's over, or shortly will be as per Betfair's rules.
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If I bet at 10/1 with them, and then lay at 1/10, I stand still, but "bets matched" goes up.
This problem is worse for short odds, as here.
If I put £10,000 on Biden, I will win £300, or something like £6 to £15 of commission for Betfair. The starting point is already that a large "bet matched" is less profitable for BF than much smaller money at evens. However it is still £10,000 matched and, as above, if I trade out of it, the difference becomes even more stark.
If, using your example, you bet at 10/1 with them, and then lay at 1/10, you stand still, but "bets matched" goes up - AND one of those bets wins and BF get 2% of those winnings.
Just because there are deluded backers doesn't mean Betfair should create a false market.
Until SCOTUS ruled it wasn't a false market. Projected votes could have changed. Just as the network's initial projection of Gore winning Florida 2000 was wrong.
I can't see BF paying now until Biden is holding the bible in his hand in late January.
It does become more and more unjustifiable from Betfair.
I had some sympathy with them while legal challenges were ongoing to certification (even though a lot of us knew those were meritless) because there was a tiny chance they may have paid out £1 billion in error. But those are now over, and the market rules state the decisive matter is projected Electoral College votes. We know the projected Electoral College vote and today we will know the actual Electoral College vote (although the Betfair rules also state faithless electors don't count so it should be enough already).
Even if Republicans in Congress were to find a mechanism to overturn the Electoral College result and deny Biden the Presidency when it comes to the floor on 6th January (which is inconceivable in my view, but for the sake of argument) it wouldn't matter. Ditto if Biden were to be incapacitated and unable to take office on 20th January. Under the specific terms of the market, it's now over.
Agreed 100%.
I disagreed with Peter and others wanting it paid out on projected votes prior to disputes being resolved. Projected votes were not finalised until SCOTUS ruled.
They are finalised now. No if's or buts. Today they become actual votes.
Yes, all 50 States have certified the election result, and appointed electors who are projected to vote for certain candidates today.
Those 50 projections should be enough to call the market, irrespective of who those electors actually vote for - Betfair were quite specific about this point in the Ts and Cs.
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If I bet at 10/1 with them, and then lay at 1/10, I stand still, but "bets matched" goes up.
This problem is worse for short odds, as here.
If I put £10,000 on Biden, I will win £300, or something like £6 to £15 of commission for Betfair. The starting point is already that a large "bet matched" is less profitable for BF than much smaller money at evens. However it is still £10,000 matched and, as above, if I trade out of it, the difference becomes even more stark.
If, using your example, you bet at 10/1 with them, and then lay at 1/10, you stand still, but "bets matched" goes up - AND one of those bets wins and BF get 2% of those winnings.
Either a typo or the biggest betting market in the history of the Universe "...The total of matched bets on Betfair is now heading for £1.7m BILLION.. "
£1.7m billion = 1.7x10^6 x 10^9 = £1.7x10^15 or £1,500 trillion.
That could sort out the UK's national debt and maybe even buy the entire EU in order to make Brexit better
Or m means milli, so a millibillion would be a million...
In the SI system definitely, but we all know the finance types can only use small letters. Big letters are reserved for "clever" schemes like CDS
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
That election is over, the 2020 election isn't over yet.
Blame the stupid US Constitution.
It's over, or shortly will be as per Betfair's rules.
Depends how you define official as per the Betfair small print. But yes I think it becomes official today.
What is even weirder, try opening YouTube in incognito mode and it works fine.
If Incognito works fine, then it’s the Google server that deals with local cookie responses and history that’s the issue. They can load *a* YouTube home page, but can’t load *your* Youtube home page.
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
Clearly, bookmakers do provide prices on things that are objectively ludicrous (I believe you can bet on Elvis turning up alive this year).
I think what stops them in some cases is that it goes beyond daft fun (showing your mates the betting slip with Elvis alive at 50,000-1) and into exploiting the mentally ill.
But Betfair exchange is a different case as, particularly if you're betting on short odds, it's flipping irritating to have the cash tied up when the terms of the market have literally been met (Biden has 306 projected electoral votes and that cannot now change - terms say faithless voters irrelevant and, if Republicans find a way to subvert it, it now has to be in another way as that die is cast).
I put a few thousand down at 1.07 - 7% return is a nice return in a month, and okay but less good for two months (plus tied up over Xmas which isn't ideal - albeit some scope to cash a bit in if I must).
What is even weirder, try opening YouTube in incognito mode and it works fine.
If Incognito works fine, then it’s the Google server that deals with local cookie responses and history that’s the issue. They can load *a* YouTube home page, but can’t load *your* Youtube home page.
Yes, that makes sense. YT is working incognito for me too.
And I've been logged out of Gmail. That's a bit annoying right now.
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
That election is over, the 2020 election isn't over yet.
Blame the stupid US Constitution.
It's over, or shortly will be as per Betfair's rules.
Depends how you define official as per the Betfair small print. But yes I think it becomes official today.
The only state which shouldn't be settled is, technically, Wisconsin. There is a non zero (It won't happen) the electors could be overturned or voided there by SCOWIS. Electoral college votes market is a related market so could arguably be kept open.
I'm really not sure how much of a clue the person running the market actually has mind. Which is an issue when it's worth almost 2 billion quid.
We can wait till the 20th when Biden is holding the bible, the MAGA betting loons will still be claiming it was fraudulently stolen so Betfair shouldn't pay out though.
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
Clearly, bookmakers do provide prices on things that are objectively ludicrous (I believe you can bet on Elvis turning up alive this year).
I think what stops them in some cases is that it goes beyond daft fun (showing your mates the betting slip with Elvis alive at 50,000-1) and into exploiting the mentally ill.
But Betfair exchange is a different case as, particularly if you're betting on short odds, it's flipping irritating to have the cash tied up when the terms of the market have literally been met (Biden has 306 projected electoral votes and that cannot now change - terms say faithless voters irrelevant and, if Republicans find a way to subvert it, it now has to be in another way as that die is cast).
I put a few thousand down at 1.07 - 7% return is a nice return in a month, and okay but less good for two months (plus tied up over Xmas which isn't ideal - albeit some scope to cash a bit in if I must).
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
Clearly, bookmakers do provide prices on things that are objectively ludicrous (I believe you can bet on Elvis turning up alive this year).
I think what stops them in some cases is that it goes beyond daft fun (showing your mates the betting slip with Elvis alive at 50,000-1) and into exploiting the mentally ill.
But Betfair exchange is a different case as, particularly if you're betting on short odds, it's flipping irritating to have the cash tied up when the terms of the market have literally been met (Biden has 306 projected electoral votes and that cannot now change - terms say faithless voters irrelevant and, if Republicans find a way to subvert it, it now has to be in another way as that die is cast).
I put a few thousand down at 1.07 - 7% return is a nice return in a month, and okay but less good for two months (plus tied up over Xmas which isn't ideal - albeit some scope to cash a bit in if I must).
It's probably only money-launderers who are using the market to any significant extent now.
Academic institutions (from primary though to tertiary) can be particularly prone to bullying problems, thanks to the power of managers over the careers of those under them.
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
That election is over, the 2020 election isn't over yet.
Blame the stupid US Constitution.
It's over, or shortly will be as per Betfair's rules.
Depends how you define official as per the Betfair small print. But yes I think it becomes official today.
The only state which shouldn't be settled is, technically, Wisconsin. There is a non zero (It won't happen) the electors could be overturned or voided there by SCOWIS. Electoral college votes market is a related market so could arguably be kept open.
I'm really not sure how much of a clue the person running the market actually has mind. Which is an issue when it's worth almost 2 billion quid.
We can wait till the 20th when Biden is holding the bible, the MAGA betting loons will still be claiming it was fraudulently stolen so Betfair shouldn't pay out though.
The confusion is from projected electors. What is a projected elector?
I can see an argument that should be the last, official projected electors: which is today. Prior to today and prior to SCOTUS ruling especially it was still "in play" as the projections weren't yet official and could change.
That ends today. If this runs past today then they're not settling by their actual rules.
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
Clearly, bookmakers do provide prices on things that are objectively ludicrous (I believe you can bet on Elvis turning up alive this year).
I think what stops them in some cases is that it goes beyond daft fun (showing your mates the betting slip with Elvis alive at 50,000-1) and into exploiting the mentally ill.
But Betfair exchange is a different case as, particularly if you're betting on short odds, it's flipping irritating to have the cash tied up when the terms of the market have literally been met (Biden has 306 projected electoral votes and that cannot now change - terms say faithless voters irrelevant and, if Republicans find a way to subvert it, it now has to be in another way as that die is cast).
I put a few thousand down at 1.07 - 7% return is a nice return in a month, and okay but less good for two months (plus tied up over Xmas which isn't ideal - albeit some scope to cash a bit in if I must).
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
Clearly, bookmakers do provide prices on things that are objectively ludicrous (I believe you can bet on Elvis turning up alive this year).
I think what stops them in some cases is that it goes beyond daft fun (showing your mates the betting slip with Elvis alive at 50,000-1) and into exploiting the mentally ill.
But Betfair exchange is a different case as, particularly if you're betting on short odds, it's flipping irritating to have the cash tied up when the terms of the market have literally been met (Biden has 306 projected electoral votes and that cannot now change - terms say faithless voters irrelevant and, if Republicans find a way to subvert it, it now has to be in another way as that die is cast).
I put a few thousand down at 1.07 - 7% return is a nice return in a month, and okay but less good for two months (plus tied up over Xmas which isn't ideal - albeit some scope to cash a bit in if I must).
It's probably only money-launderers who are using the market to any significant extent now.
How would one even go about getting a five-figure sum into Betfair, in a way that would let them withdraw it a few days later? It would trigger all sorts of KYC investigation.
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
That election is over, the 2020 election isn't over yet.
Blame the stupid US Constitution.
It's over, or shortly will be as per Betfair's rules.
Depends how you define official as per the Betfair small print. But yes I think it becomes official today.
The only state which shouldn't be settled is, technically, Wisconsin. There is a non zero (It won't happen) the electors could be overturned or voided there by SCOWIS. Electoral college votes market is a related market so could arguably be kept open.
I'm really not sure how much of a clue the person running the market actually has mind. Which is an issue when it's worth almost 2 billion quid.
We can wait till the 20th when Biden is holding the bible, the MAGA betting loons will still be claiming it was fraudulently stolen so Betfair shouldn't pay out though.
If Betfair do not settle after the electoral college meets today, then they are, IMO, engaged in naked grift.
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
Clearly, bookmakers do provide prices on things that are objectively ludicrous (I believe you can bet on Elvis turning up alive this year).
I think what stops them in some cases is that it goes beyond daft fun (showing your mates the betting slip with Elvis alive at 50,000-1) and into exploiting the mentally ill.
But Betfair exchange is a different case as, particularly if you're betting on short odds, it's flipping irritating to have the cash tied up when the terms of the market have literally been met (Biden has 306 projected electoral votes and that cannot now change - terms say faithless voters irrelevant and, if Republicans find a way to subvert it, it now has to be in another way as that die is cast).
I put a few thousand down at 1.07 - 7% return is a nice return in a month, and okay but less good for two months (plus tied up over Xmas which isn't ideal - albeit some scope to cash a bit in if I must).
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
Clearly, bookmakers do provide prices on things that are objectively ludicrous (I believe you can bet on Elvis turning up alive this year).
I think what stops them in some cases is that it goes beyond daft fun (showing your mates the betting slip with Elvis alive at 50,000-1) and into exploiting the mentally ill.
But Betfair exchange is a different case as, particularly if you're betting on short odds, it's flipping irritating to have the cash tied up when the terms of the market have literally been met (Biden has 306 projected electoral votes and that cannot now change - terms say faithless voters irrelevant and, if Republicans find a way to subvert it, it now has to be in another way as that die is cast).
I put a few thousand down at 1.07 - 7% return is a nice return in a month, and okay but less good for two months (plus tied up over Xmas which isn't ideal - albeit some scope to cash a bit in if I must).
It's probably only money-launderers who are using the market to any significant extent now.
Is it really possible to launder money with an online betting exchange now? The transactions are all pretty well traceable. I know Betfair has run into trouble on it in the past (Gambling Commission fine) and perhaps there are backdoors somewhere. But query whether that's what's happening here.
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If I bet at 10/1 with them, and then lay at 1/10, I stand still, but "bets matched" goes up.
This problem is worse for short odds, as here.
If I put £10,000 on Biden, I will win £300, or something like £6 to £15 of commission for Betfair. The starting point is already that a large "bet matched" is less profitable for BF than much smaller money at evens. However it is still £10,000 matched and, as above, if I trade out of it, the difference becomes even more stark.
If, using your example, you bet at 10/1 with them, and then lay at 1/10, you stand still, but "bets matched" goes up - AND one of those bets wins and BF get 2% of those winnings.
20% from me, possibly more from bigger fish.
How can you be paying 20% Pulpstar?
I have BF`s "Basic Plan". It says: "2% Commission: You will pay 2% commission on net winnings in Exchange markets."
Dom went (which some have been advising for about six months now ) Lockdown 2 ended The vaccine came onstream
There's a tsunami of ordure gushing over the hilltop as we speak, and some of us don't see how Bozza and chums avoid it, but yes, the boys and girls done well this month.
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
Clearly, bookmakers do provide prices on things that are objectively ludicrous (I believe you can bet on Elvis turning up alive this year).
I think what stops them in some cases is that it goes beyond daft fun (showing your mates the betting slip with Elvis alive at 50,000-1) and into exploiting the mentally ill.
But Betfair exchange is a different case as, particularly if you're betting on short odds, it's flipping irritating to have the cash tied up when the terms of the market have literally been met (Biden has 306 projected electoral votes and that cannot now change - terms say faithless voters irrelevant and, if Republicans find a way to subvert it, it now has to be in another way as that die is cast).
I put a few thousand down at 1.07 - 7% return is a nice return in a month, and okay but less good for two months (plus tied up over Xmas which isn't ideal - albeit some scope to cash a bit in if I must).
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
Clearly, bookmakers do provide prices on things that are objectively ludicrous (I believe you can bet on Elvis turning up alive this year).
I think what stops them in some cases is that it goes beyond daft fun (showing your mates the betting slip with Elvis alive at 50,000-1) and into exploiting the mentally ill.
But Betfair exchange is a different case as, particularly if you're betting on short odds, it's flipping irritating to have the cash tied up when the terms of the market have literally been met (Biden has 306 projected electoral votes and that cannot now change - terms say faithless voters irrelevant and, if Republicans find a way to subvert it, it now has to be in another way as that die is cast).
I put a few thousand down at 1.07 - 7% return is a nice return in a month, and okay but less good for two months (plus tied up over Xmas which isn't ideal - albeit some scope to cash a bit in if I must).
It's probably only money-launderers who are using the market to any significant extent now.
Surely MAGA idiots who think as long as they keep betting and the market stays open it means their hero is still a potential winner.
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
Clearly, bookmakers do provide prices on things that are objectively ludicrous (I believe you can bet on Elvis turning up alive this year).
I think what stops them in some cases is that it goes beyond daft fun (showing your mates the betting slip with Elvis alive at 50,000-1) and into exploiting the mentally ill.
But Betfair exchange is a different case as, particularly if you're betting on short odds, it's flipping irritating to have the cash tied up when the terms of the market have literally been met (Biden has 306 projected electoral votes and that cannot now change - terms say faithless voters irrelevant and, if Republicans find a way to subvert it, it now has to be in another way as that die is cast).
I put a few thousand down at 1.07 - 7% return is a nice return in a month, and okay but less good for two months (plus tied up over Xmas which isn't ideal - albeit some scope to cash a bit in if I must).
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
Clearly, bookmakers do provide prices on things that are objectively ludicrous (I believe you can bet on Elvis turning up alive this year).
I think what stops them in some cases is that it goes beyond daft fun (showing your mates the betting slip with Elvis alive at 50,000-1) and into exploiting the mentally ill.
But Betfair exchange is a different case as, particularly if you're betting on short odds, it's flipping irritating to have the cash tied up when the terms of the market have literally been met (Biden has 306 projected electoral votes and that cannot now change - terms say faithless voters irrelevant and, if Republicans find a way to subvert it, it now has to be in another way as that die is cast).
I put a few thousand down at 1.07 - 7% return is a nice return in a month, and okay but less good for two months (plus tied up over Xmas which isn't ideal - albeit some scope to cash a bit in if I must).
It's probably only money-launderers who are using the market to any significant extent now.
Surely MAGA idiots who think as long as they keep betting and the market stays open it means their hero is still a potential winner.
Expect MAGA rage if it settles today.
I'm not convinced that the Betfair market is at the forefront of MAGA rage.
Academic institutions (from primary though to tertiary) can be particularly prone to bullying problems, thanks to the power of managers over the careers of those under them.
Don't you know that there wasn't a "don't know" option in 2014? Or are you just being dishonest and hoping people are too stupid to notice?
In HYUFD's wonderful world of psephology, don't knows are direct transfers to his favoured view. Doesn't prevent him running scared from actually testing this of course.
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
Clearly, bookmakers do provide prices on things that are objectively ludicrous (I believe you can bet on Elvis turning up alive this year).
I think what stops them in some cases is that it goes beyond daft fun (showing your mates the betting slip with Elvis alive at 50,000-1) and into exploiting the mentally ill.
But Betfair exchange is a different case as, particularly if you're betting on short odds, it's flipping irritating to have the cash tied up when the terms of the market have literally been met (Biden has 306 projected electoral votes and that cannot now change - terms say faithless voters irrelevant and, if Republicans find a way to subvert it, it now has to be in another way as that die is cast).
I put a few thousand down at 1.07 - 7% return is a nice return in a month, and okay but less good for two months (plus tied up over Xmas which isn't ideal - albeit some scope to cash a bit in if I must).
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If people believe Kinnock won the 1992 General Election, would bookmakers be able to open a market on it ?
Clearly, bookmakers do provide prices on things that are objectively ludicrous (I believe you can bet on Elvis turning up alive this year).
I think what stops them in some cases is that it goes beyond daft fun (showing your mates the betting slip with Elvis alive at 50,000-1) and into exploiting the mentally ill.
But Betfair exchange is a different case as, particularly if you're betting on short odds, it's flipping irritating to have the cash tied up when the terms of the market have literally been met (Biden has 306 projected electoral votes and that cannot now change - terms say faithless voters irrelevant and, if Republicans find a way to subvert it, it now has to be in another way as that die is cast).
I put a few thousand down at 1.07 - 7% return is a nice return in a month, and okay but less good for two months (plus tied up over Xmas which isn't ideal - albeit some scope to cash a bit in if I must).
It's probably only money-launderers who are using the market to any significant extent now.
Surely MAGA idiots who think as long as they keep betting and the market stays open it means their hero is still a potential winner.
Expect MAGA rage if it settles today.
I'm not convinced that the Betfair market is at the forefront of MAGA rage.
It doesn't need to be. It's like in 1984, the rage can transfer target easily.
If Betfair do the right thing then they will get their Two Minutes Hate today.
But MAGAs can't count so it will last longer than two minutes.
Don't you know that there wasn't a "don't know" option in 2014? Or are you just being dishonest and hoping people are too stupid to notice?
Don't Knows largely went No in 2014, hence No did better than the final polls
Whatevs.
I refer you to your original somewhat Trumpish post: "Yes down to just 44%, even lower than the 45% it got in 2014, including don't knows who are now up to 14%"
Academic institutions (from primary though to tertiary) can be particularly prone to bullying problems, thanks to the power of managers over the careers of those under them.
One of the curious things (also true in this example) is that it is successful female academics who often end up being accused of bullying.
I suspect some of the claims of bullying against female academics have some elements of gender bias or misogyny.
Possibly, but I'm skeptical. Gender of course plays a part in power dynamics, but in an academic context position overwhelmingly trumps that. In my (admittedly relatively limited) experience, the two worst cases I encountered both involved women leaders, and the problems were not confined to a couple of individuals.
Barnier said the prime minister’s acceptance of the need for a treaty-level mechanism to ensure fair competition as regulatory standards diverge over time had unlocked the talks. His comments came despite suggestions from Downing Street that a no-deal exit remains likely.
Betfair shouldn't keep the market open longer than today. If they do, they're
i) Withholding payment to Biden backers ii) Allowing Trump backers to bet into a market which by Betfair's own rules should already be settled.
Today is the limit of what they could push things to, any further and lawyers/IBAS/gambling commission should be called to step in.
You are right but it is no certainty that Betfair will play fair, They are obsessed with throughput, and if they think they can milk the market for ore commission they may keep it open whatever anybody else thinks.
Has extending this market actually increased BF's commission?
I think the Bets Matched stat is very misleading in this respect.
Why wouldn't it increase their commission? Literally hundreds of millions of pounds have been matched on the relevant markets since election day.
If I bet at 10/1 with them, and then lay at 1/10, I stand still, but "bets matched" goes up.
This problem is worse for short odds, as here.
If I put £10,000 on Biden, I will win £300, or something like £6 to £15 of commission for Betfair. The starting point is already that a large "bet matched" is less profitable for BF than much smaller money at evens. However it is still £10,000 matched and, as above, if I trade out of it, the difference becomes even more stark.
If, using your example, you bet at 10/1 with them, and then lay at 1/10, you stand still, but "bets matched" goes up - AND one of those bets wins and BF get 2% of those winnings.
Unless everyone involved is simply caroselling money, without an increase in net exposure.
I probably should have been clearer - it probably is increasing, with at least some new money, but any increase could well be a very small percentage of the £1bn matched since election night.
Johnson will capitulate for a deal, in every deal so far this has been the case.
Not every concession counts as a capitulation, else any side in a negotiation will have capitulted to the other multiple times over. In this, at least, how many of the awkward squad cry foul will be useful, as they won't stay quiet out of party loyalty even though most do when there is a capitulation.
Johnson will capitulate for a deal, in every deal so far this has been the case.
Not every concession counts as a capitulation, else any side in a negotiation will have capitulted to the other multiple times over. In this, at least, how many of the awkward squad cry foul will be useful, as they won't stay quiet out of party loyalty even though most do when there is a capitulation.
There should be no need to capitulate for the UK, as we hold all the cards.
Barnier said the prime minister’s acceptance of the need for a treaty-level mechanism to ensure fair competition as regulatory standards diverge over time had unlocked the talks. His comments came despite suggestions from Downing Street that a no-deal exit remains likely.
Smells like capitulation
This is why the No 10 spin machine has been furiously mischaracterising the EU position for the last few weeks, so that when they agree to what the EU actually wants it will look like the UK won a huge concession. Anyway, as long as we get a deal I don't really care who blinked, who didn't.
The bigger lol is going to be good old Sir Keith voting through Boris' Deal...
I'm unsure which is going to anger the 'remainiacs' the most - the faux outrage over no deal or the real outrage over a deal?
As a remainer, happy to get a deal from here, no deal will be a genuine outrage. It will be a bad deal, but a bad deal is better than no deal, as I think the phrase goes...
Don't you know that there wasn't a "don't know" option in 2014? Or are you just being dishonest and hoping people are too stupid to notice?
Don't Knows largely went No in 2014, hence No did better than the final polls
Whatevs.
I refer you to your original somewhat Trumpish post: "Yes down to just 44%, even lower than the 45% it got in 2014, including don't knows who are now up to 14%"
Which was of course 100% correct.
The core vote for Yes down to just 44%, a terrible result for Sturgeon and the SNP despite all the recent events.
The final 2014 Survation poll was Yes 43% No 48% and don't knows 9%, the final result was Yes 45% No 55% so Yes +2 on the final poll but No +7.
On the same error it would be Yes 46% No 49% at present.
Barnier said the prime minister’s acceptance of the need for a treaty-level mechanism to ensure fair competition as regulatory standards diverge over time had unlocked the talks. His comments came despite suggestions from Downing Street that a no-deal exit remains likely.
Smells like capitulation
That's a huge climb down from the EU. They wanted unilateral rights to set tariffs, having a treaty level mechanism means they will be bound by specific rules on what each side is able to do in the case of divergence. As in they have capitulated to a UK demand.
You keep pushing this capitulatin narrative but you have no idea what it actually means. In all recent examples the EU has moved towards the UK. On NI they agreed to the trusted trader scheme (a UK proposal), on subsidies they agreed that EU funding counts as state aid (a huge sticking point for the UK), on divergence they've agreed that both sides will have the right to apply tariffs (a key UK demand), on those tariffs they're now proposing treaty rules and mechanisms for setting them (another key UK demand) rather than unilateral right.
On all major points both sides have negotiated well in this round and on balance the EU has given up much more than the UK.
Anyway, you continue to push the Boris capitulation narrative if it makes you feel better about it all, the reality on the ground is that the EU have given up hugely on both the LPF and governance and it looks like fishing will have a 4-6 year transition and then we'll have a Norway style agreement on it.
Johnson will capitulate for a deal, in every deal so far this has been the case.
Not every concession counts as a capitulation, else any side in a negotiation will have capitulted to the other multiple times over. In this, at least, how many of the awkward squad cry foul will be useful, as they won't stay quiet out of party loyalty even though most do when there is a capitulation.
There should be no need to capitulate for the UK, as we hold all the cards.
Yes, very amusing, but we're not judging things by slogans or memes.
Barnier said the prime minister’s acceptance of the need for a treaty-level mechanism to ensure fair competition as regulatory standards diverge over time had unlocked the talks. His comments came despite suggestions from Downing Street that a no-deal exit remains likely.
Smells like capitulation
Funny - I was reading yesterday that the EU has dropped the ratchet approach - have they capitulated too? Its called negotiation.
Don't you know that there wasn't a "don't know" option in 2014? Or are you just being dishonest and hoping people are too stupid to notice?
Well I confess to being too stupid to notice. Surely HYUFD my favourite poll reader hasn't been comparing apples and pears?
Also to the point, he's been hoping again today that people will only count SNP MSPs as pro-independence for the purposes of legitimising indyref 2, without remembering that the Scottish Greens are also pro-indy, as are several potential minor parties such as the SSP.
Johnson will capitulate for a deal, in every deal so far this has been the case.
Not every concession counts as a capitulation, else any side in a negotiation will have capitulted to the other multiple times over. In this, at least, how many of the awkward squad cry foul will be useful, as they won't stay quiet out of party loyalty even though most do when there is a capitulation.
There should be no need to capitulate for the UK, as we hold all the cards.
Yes, very amusing, but we're not judging things by slogans or memes.
Johnson will capitulate for a deal, in every deal so far this has been the case.
Not every concession counts as a capitulation, else any side in a negotiation will have capitulted to the other multiple times over. In this, at least, how many of the awkward squad cry foul will be useful, as they won't stay quiet out of party loyalty even though most do when there is a capitulation.
There should be no need to capitulate for the UK, as we hold all the cards.
Yes, very amusing, but we're not judging things by slogans or memes.
The game is 'heads I win, tails you lose' - where on earth would PB be without it?
Barnier said the prime minister’s acceptance of the need for a treaty-level mechanism to ensure fair competition as regulatory standards diverge over time had unlocked the talks. His comments came despite suggestions from Downing Street that a no-deal exit remains likely.
Smells like capitulation
Funny - I was reading yesterday that the EU has dropped the ratchet approach - have they capitulated too? Its called negotiation.
The EU's movement consists of finding a different way to package the same thing in a way that makes it presentationally acceptable to the UK government. That's not the same as a concession on the substance.
Barnier said the prime minister’s acceptance of the need for a treaty-level mechanism to ensure fair competition as regulatory standards diverge over time had unlocked the talks. His comments came despite suggestions from Downing Street that a no-deal exit remains likely.
Smells like capitulation
Funny - I was reading yesterday that the EU has dropped the ratchet approach - have they capitulated too? Its called negotiation.
I know it's completely ridiculous. Neither side is capitulating, this is just what the continuity remainers are telling themselves to make themselves feel better.
I'm actually surprised that we're getting a lot of 50/50 and 60/40 settlements. The LPF looks like it will end up with a fairly good 50/50 solution where both sides will get what they want out of it. We get to diverge and they get to set tariffs on those divergences but only to pre-agreed rules and mechanisms outlined in the treaty and we have the right to apply tariffs where they aren't meeting our standards, climate change is a big one IMO where we are pushing much faster on emissions and we should have the right to set tariffs against industries that benefit from their slower acting policies.
Barnier said the prime minister’s acceptance of the need for a treaty-level mechanism to ensure fair competition as regulatory standards diverge over time had unlocked the talks. His comments came despite suggestions from Downing Street that a no-deal exit remains likely.
Smells like capitulation
Funny - I was reading yesterday that the EU has dropped the ratchet approach - have they capitulated too? Its called negotiation.
The EU's movement consists of finding a different way to package the same thing in a way that makes it presentationally acceptable to the UK government. That's not the same as a concession on the substance.
That's bullshit though. Their original proposal on the LPF was unilateral lightning tariffs, no rules or guidelines and no right of reciprocating for the UK. Their original stance is that EU funding is admissable development aid rather than state aid but any similar UK funding is state aid.
In both cases the EU has completely reversed their positions.
Academic institutions (from primary though to tertiary) can be particularly prone to bullying problems, thanks to the power of managers over the careers of those under them.
One of the curious things (also true in this example) is that it is successful female academics who often end up being accused of bullying.
I suspect some of the claims of bullying against female academics have some elements of gender bias or misogyny.
Possibly, but I'm skeptical. Gender of course plays a part in power dynamics, but in an academic context position overwhelmingly trumps that. In my (admittedly relatively limited) experience, the two worst cases I encountered both involved women leaders, and the problems were not confined to a couple of individuals.
Alice Gast bullied "a senior colleague" (according to the Guardian).
For me, an essential component of bullying is the disparity in power. As you say, senior academics have a lot of power of the careers of junior academics, and also support staff. That is certainly open to the kind of abuse that I would describe as bullying.
However, I am normally sceptical of someone bullying "a senior colleague". I am not quite sure whether "bullying" is the right word if there is no significant disparity in power -- probably, poor management or interpersonal or behavioural skills is a better description.
Existence of gender bias in bullying allegations is capable of statistical testing. It is certainly curious that female VCs and professors are ending up in the dock so often.
Barnier said the prime minister’s acceptance of the need for a treaty-level mechanism to ensure fair competition as regulatory standards diverge over time had unlocked the talks. His comments came despite suggestions from Downing Street that a no-deal exit remains likely.
Smells like capitulation
Funny - I was reading yesterday that the EU has dropped the ratchet approach - have they capitulated too? Its called negotiation.
I know it's completely ridiculous. Neither side is capitulating, this is just what the continuity remainers are telling themselves to make themselves feel better.
I'm actually surprised that we're getting a lot of 50/50 and 60/40 settlements. The LPF looks like it will end up with a fairly good 50/50 solution where both sides will get what they want out of it. We get to diverge and they get to set tariffs on those divergences but only to pre-agreed rules and mechanisms outlined in the treaty and we have the right to apply tariffs where they aren't meeting our standards, climate change is a big one IMO where we are pushing much faster on emissions and we should have the right to set tariffs against industries that benefit from their slower acting policies.
The idea one side or the other is capitulating is simply immature
This is a serious and important negotiation and give and take unlocks the jam and will see a deal which should let everyone move on
Barnier said the prime minister’s acceptance of the need for a treaty-level mechanism to ensure fair competition as regulatory standards diverge over time had unlocked the talks. His comments came despite suggestions from Downing Street that a no-deal exit remains likely.
Smells like capitulation
Funny - I was reading yesterday that the EU has dropped the ratchet approach - have they capitulated too? Its called negotiation.
The EU's movement consists of finding a different way to package the same thing in a way that makes it presentationally acceptable to the UK government. That's not the same as a concession on the substance.
It’s neither. Both sides are actually moving. It’s a genuine compromise. I understand how this might upset remoaners who desire nothing but British defeat and surrender but what can you do. Yours is a pathology
The bigger lol is going to be good old Sir Keith voting through Boris' Deal...
I'm unsure which is going to anger the 'remainiacs' the most - the faux outrage over no deal or the real outrage over a deal?
I think you'll know the 'remainiacs' (nice move on the conciliation front btw) are angry when the Guardian has front pages about them sending the gunboats in.
Barnier said the prime minister’s acceptance of the need for a treaty-level mechanism to ensure fair competition as regulatory standards diverge over time had unlocked the talks. His comments came despite suggestions from Downing Street that a no-deal exit remains likely.
Smells like capitulation
That's a huge climb down from the EU. They wanted unilateral rights to set tariffs, having a treaty level mechanism means they will be bound by specific rules on what each side is able to do in the case of divergence. As in they have capitulated to a UK demand.
You keep pushing this capitulatin narrative but you have no idea what it actually means. In all recent examples the EU has moved towards the UK. On NI they agreed to the trusted trader scheme (a UK proposal), on subsidies they agreed that EU funding counts as state aid (a huge sticking point for the UK), on divergence they've agreed that both sides will have the right to apply tariffs (a key UK demand), on those tariffs they're now proposing treaty rules and mechanisms for setting them (another key UK demand) rather than unilateral right.
On all major points both sides have negotiated well in this round and on balance the EU has given up much more than the UK.
Anyway, you continue to push the Boris capitulation narrative if it makes you feel better about it all, the reality on the ground is that the EU have given up hugely on both the LPF and governance and it looks like fishing will have a 4-6 year transition and then we'll have a Norway style agreement on it.
Didn't Richard Nabavi point out the other day that the trusted trader scheme proposed by the UK was actually intended for the Eire/NI border, while there wasn't supposed to be a GB/NI border? Oh well, I suppose we can take the use of the trusted trader scheme as a win, even if it does apply to the border that we didn't actually want!
Barnier said the prime minister’s acceptance of the need for a treaty-level mechanism to ensure fair competition as regulatory standards diverge over time had unlocked the talks. His comments came despite suggestions from Downing Street that a no-deal exit remains likely.
Smells like capitulation
Funny - I was reading yesterday that the EU has dropped the ratchet approach - have they capitulated too? Its called negotiation.
The EU's movement consists of finding a different way to package the same thing in a way that makes it presentationally acceptable to the UK government. That's not the same as a concession on the substance.
That's bullshit though. Their original proposal on the LPF was unilateral lightning tariffs, no rules or guidelines and no right of reciprocating for the UK. Their original stance is that EU funding is admissable development aid rather than state aid but any similar UK funding is state aid.
In both cases the EU has completely reversed their positions.
Barnier said the prime minister’s acceptance of the need for a treaty-level mechanism to ensure fair competition as regulatory standards diverge over time had unlocked the talks. His comments came despite suggestions from Downing Street that a no-deal exit remains likely.
Smells like capitulation
Funny - I was reading yesterday that the EU has dropped the ratchet approach - have they capitulated too? Its called negotiation.
The EU's movement consists of finding a different way to package the same thing in a way that makes it presentationally acceptable to the UK government. That's not the same as a concession on the substance.
It’s neither. Both sides are actually moving. It’s a genuine compromise. I understand how this might upset remoaners who desire nothing but British defeat and surrender but what can you do. Yours is a pathology
They can't bear the idea that the UK and EU are equals in anything, the EU must always be more powerful or better. That isn't the case and it never has been. One of the reasons we're in this position is Barnier actually believing that and it's taken UVdL sidelining him to unlock a deal.
Don't you know that there wasn't a "don't know" option in 2014? Or are you just being dishonest and hoping people are too stupid to notice?
Well I confess to being too stupid to notice. Surely HYUFD my favourite poll reader hasn't been comparing apples and pears?
Also to the point, he's been hoping again today that people will only count SNP MSPs as pro-independence for the purposes of legitimising indyref 2, without remembering that the Scottish Greens are also pro-indy, as are several potential minor parties such as the SSP.
There already is an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood, if the SNP cannot even get an absolute majority at Holyrood as they had in 2011 before indyref 2014 then Boris will easily dismiss Sturgeon and any calls for indyref2, he would likely do so anyway but the lack of an SNP majority blows the argument for indyref2 below the waterline
Comments
What is even weirder, try opening YouTube in incognito mode and it works fine.
After today though it's literally impossible.
Those 50 projections should be enough to call the market, irrespective of who those electors actually vote for - Betfair were quite specific about this point in the Ts and Cs.
Edit: And no YouTube.
I think what stops them in some cases is that it goes beyond daft fun (showing your mates the betting slip with Elvis alive at 50,000-1) and into exploiting the mentally ill.
But Betfair exchange is a different case as, particularly if you're betting on short odds, it's flipping irritating to have the cash tied up when the terms of the market have literally been met (Biden has 306 projected electoral votes and that cannot now change - terms say faithless voters irrelevant and, if Republicans find a way to subvert it, it now has to be in another way as that die is cast).
I put a few thousand down at 1.07 - 7% return is a nice return in a month, and okay but less good for two months (plus tied up over Xmas which isn't ideal - albeit some scope to cash a bit in if I must).
And I've been logged out of Gmail. That's a bit annoying right now.
Electoral college votes market is a related market so could arguably be kept open.
I'm really not sure how much of a clue the person running the market actually has mind. Which is an issue when it's worth almost 2 billion quid.
We can wait till the 20th when Biden is holding the bible, the MAGA betting loons will still be claiming it was fraudulently stolen so Betfair shouldn't pay out though.
Imperial College London leaders admit they bullied colleagues
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/dec/14/imperial-college-london-executives-admit-they-bullied-colleagues-alice-gast
The earlier attempt to brush everything under the carpet is not unusual, either.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/dec/07/imperial-college-accused-of-cover-up-over-claims-of-bullying-by-president
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1338442898803658754?s=20
I can see an argument that should be the last, official projected electors: which is today. Prior to today and prior to SCOTUS ruling especially it was still "in play" as the projections weren't yet official and could change.
That ends today. If this runs past today then they're not settling by their actual rules.
https://twitter.com/eefnews/status/1338462189347287041?s=20
I have BF`s "Basic Plan". It says: "2% Commission: You will pay 2% commission on net winnings in Exchange markets."
https://twitter.com/JoeMurphyLondon/status/1338444757387923456?s=20
Dom went (which some have been advising for about six months now
Lockdown 2 ended
The vaccine came onstream
There's a tsunami of ordure gushing over the hilltop as we speak, and some of us don't see how Bozza and chums avoid it, but yes, the boys and girls done well this month.
Expect MAGA rage if it settles today.
What I want to know is why do they ever show us findings from the non-brilliant team at IpsosMori.
Excuse me if I am sceptical.
https://twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/1338460028076953601?s=20
It’s an absolute disgrace that more has not been done to prevent the rise of cases in Edinburgh, Sturgeon should hang her head in shame.
I am shocked!
I suspect some of the claims of bullying against female academics have some elements of gender bias or misogyny.
I say that as somebody it will impact.
If Betfair do the right thing then they will get their Two Minutes Hate today.
But MAGAs can't count so it will last longer than two minutes.
I refer you to your original somewhat Trumpish post:
"Yes down to just 44%, even lower than the 45% it got in 2014, including don't knows who are now up to 14%"
Lol
Gender of course plays a part in power dynamics, but in an academic context position overwhelmingly trumps that. In my (admittedly relatively limited) experience, the two worst cases I encountered both involved women leaders, and the problems were not confined to a couple of individuals.
Smells like capitulation
I probably should have been clearer - it probably is increasing, with at least some new money, but any increase could well be a very small percentage of the £1bn matched since election night.
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1338210550740762624
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1338210565055864832
The core vote for Yes down to just 44%, a terrible result for Sturgeon and the SNP despite all the recent events.
The final 2014 Survation poll was Yes 43% No 48% and don't knows 9%, the final result was Yes 45% No 55% so Yes +2 on the final poll but No +7.
On the same error it would be Yes 46% No 49% at present.
https://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/24-hour-scottish-referendum-poll.pdf
You keep pushing this capitulatin narrative but you have no idea what it actually means. In all recent examples the EU has moved towards the UK. On NI they agreed to the trusted trader scheme (a UK proposal), on subsidies they agreed that EU funding counts as state aid (a huge sticking point for the UK), on divergence they've agreed that both sides will have the right to apply tariffs (a key UK demand), on those tariffs they're now proposing treaty rules and mechanisms for setting them (another key UK demand) rather than unilateral right.
On all major points both sides have negotiated well in this round and on balance the EU has given up much more than the UK.
Anyway, you continue to push the Boris capitulation narrative if it makes you feel better about it all, the reality on the ground is that the EU have given up hugely on both the LPF and governance and it looks like fishing will have a 4-6 year transition and then we'll have a Norway style agreement on it.
My philosophy logic is 30 years old and very rusty. All advice welcome
https://twitter.com/catullus88/status/1338473774157598720?s=21
Its called negotiation.
I'm actually surprised that we're getting a lot of 50/50 and 60/40 settlements. The LPF looks like it will end up with a fairly good 50/50 solution where both sides will get what they want out of it. We get to diverge and they get to set tariffs on those divergences but only to pre-agreed rules and mechanisms outlined in the treaty and we have the right to apply tariffs where they aren't meeting our standards, climate change is a big one IMO where we are pushing much faster on emissions and we should have the right to set tariffs against industries that benefit from their slower acting policies.
In both cases the EU has completely reversed their positions.
For me, an essential component of bullying is the disparity in power. As you say, senior academics have a lot of power of the careers of junior academics, and also support staff. That is certainly open to the kind of abuse that I would describe as bullying.
However, I am normally sceptical of someone bullying "a senior colleague". I am not quite sure whether "bullying" is the right word if there is no significant disparity in power -- probably, poor management or interpersonal or behavioural skills is a better description.
Existence of gender bias in bullying allegations is capable of statistical testing. It is certainly curious that female VCs and professors are ending up in the dock so often.
This is a serious and important negotiation and give and take unlocks the jam and will see a deal which should let everyone move on
"We millennials are living proof that social media is toxic
Pravina Rudra" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/we-millennials-are-living-proof-that-social-media-is-toxic-j0rmqlxph