Categories
The other side of the bet. The ethics of political gambling. – politicalbetting.com
The other side of the bet. The ethics of political gambling. – politicalbetting.com
The first polls are closing and I am absolutely optimistic. pic.twitter.com/ryfTfmJctt
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Love the use of "one lawyer heroically" rather than "one heroic lawyer".
Or some kind of rules cuck where Betfair decide to interpret the rules differently again e.g. what if Pence or Kamala became president and they decided to settle for them (not entirely impossible to see them doing that since they already broke their rules).
Trump bettors would have certainly gloated a lot.
The area where it becomes morally wrong is with regard to genuine problem gamblers who are losing a lot of money that they can't afford, and consistently - lives ruined, turning to crime. Your article puts the buck on the bookmakers and exchanges for that which I guess, fair enough.
Where I feel somewhat uncomfortable, even as I fully take advantage, is that I know for a fact that they don't *truly* care. E.g. even though I'm in good net profit at both smarkets and Betfair exchange, I've suddenly had 'regulation' questions about my gambling. Yet when I had a bigger exposure before the election, or when I lost thousands, I never got those questions. They also approve big deposits or exposures *before* asking such questions which seems like the wrong way around to do things. It makes me wonder if they're using those 'regulations' to try to get rid of successful gamblers while.. conveniently overlooking or not tackling the real problem gamblers. The whole thing has felt dubious to me.
I read a stat that apparently the bookies have made 60% of their profits from a small amount of 'problem gamblers'. So if they genuinely cared to tackle the problem gamblers... that would clearly mean a big hit to their profits. (Yet they still would probably turn a good profit - the profits that the bookies make are just staggering... I recall that bet365 was in the news for that this year.)
All in all, the government has clearly wanted the bookies to self-regulate but they don't or can't which appears to be the reason for this next round of gambling crackdowns.
Gambling in the UK is out of control and the bookies/exchanges find all sorts of ways to push out successful bettors so I can't say that I have a lot of sympathy. Get rid of VIP schemes, advertising, limit losses on casino games (no skill there), promo sign ups, bonuses, I would be happy about a lot of these things. There is a reason why in Monaco local citizens as well as the actual royal family are prohibited from gambling despite Monaco's famous casino industry.
https://newsthump.com/2019/12/05/fears-grow-over-fate-of-missing-simpleton-mark-francois/
The next Welsh government will be Labour/Plaid because there is no other realistic combination available short of something truly seismic, which there is no sign of. I don’t know how hard a bargain Price will drive. A smart move might be to put Rhun ab Iorwerth forward as a John Costello style compromise figure for FM. Drakeford should certainly be removed as a sine qua non of support.
What is probably going to be decisive, as in Georgia, is differential turnout. Here the Tories and Plaid have an advantage. Yes their leaders are weak and the messaging uninspiring and confused, but they’ve done nothing disastrous because they’re in opposition.
Drakeford, by contrast, has a string of extraordinary fiascos to defend. It’s not just the COVID stuff, his entire administration is a shambles. For example, he needs to explain how the former Chief Executive of Carmarthenshire Council can admit to fraud, perjury and embezzlement in open court, be arrested by police, be under investigation along with Swansea University for malfeasance, be backed by the council - and that council not be suspended. And that is the tip of a very nasty iceberg in local government. He also needs to explain a shambolic health service and a fading education system.
If you were a Labour voter, would you turn out after all this? Quite possibly not, given they’re expected to win anyway. And that may be a problem.
I don’t say the Tories will get most seats. But they have the second largest voter base by a clear margin and it isn’t massively smaller than Labour’s now. I can see pathways for them getting 24 seats to Labour’s 23.
They won’t be in government, but such a result would be a start to dismantling Welsh Labour’s disastrous hegemony.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain
I bet only on politics, and football and rarely on specials such as the Oscars or Eurovision. Clearly though the bookies do try to push people to more addictive games of chance such as FOBT and online games. Indeed some bookies websites keep pushing those.
Is there such a thing as ethical gambling? Probably not, but I do find bet365 better than most. They don't have high st shops or push online games and their football odds are good. Ladbrokes has good political markets, but I get fed up with their free spins type of promotions, and having to swipe through ads to get to the right markets.
Betfair, I find OK, if slow to settle, but Paddypower seem very restrictive on stakes for people who actually win sometimes. They clearly only want perpetual losers.
There clearly is considered to be an ethical limit, because we have seen the betting companies suspend their markets when leading politicians have been ill, preventing gamblers from effectively gambling on the outcome of their illness. In such circumstances there has appeared to be a good chance that in the event of death the whole market would have been voided.
Thus while a whole range of personal circumstances and life events can be factored into punters’ assessments of whether leading politicians can achieve or retain high office, their potential health prospects appears to be excluded.
This becomes relevant when you consider that Betfair had (and, less clearly, still is) for many weeks been allowing punters to bet on the prospects of a coup in the US. I was going to use the word ‘illegal’, but of course this becomes a grey area when the law might itself have been subverted to achieve the coup.
If you imagine an equivalent in the UK - for example a hypothetical Corbyn landslide in either 2017 or 2019 followed by a Lord Mountbatten style army coup of the sort portrayed as having been considered in the 70s by ‘The Crown’ - would a Corbyn ‘next PM’ bet pay out (the BFE rules likely having been met), not pay out because he never became PM, or would the market be voided? My bet is on the latter.
The chances are that any such coup - either in the US or UK - would have its violent dimension very likely leading to some deaths.
Allowing people to bet on such a scenario in the US does not seem ethnically more justifiable than betting on a politician’s health.
Why do Ministers feel they have to emphasise that they are indecisive wazzocks?
STFU, you pillocks.
The reason Burnham has ended up as Mayor of Manchester is he is crap at actually running anything.
On your recommendation, I had Fillet Steak tonight. I'm sorry. It didn't cut it.
Select Committees are there to scrutinise Government, something Johnson absolutely hates.
https://www.tes.com/news/why-its-time-teachers-start-saying-no
Horses for courses then. Although I suspect we'd both agree about horse steak. Tends to be very tough. A bit like hippopotamus which I've eaten. Appropriately, as in Greek the latter means 'river horse.'
There is something unethical about TV businesses trying to maximise revenues by pushing the wrong sort of games at people who can’t afford to lose
It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.
When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.
Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html
SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.
Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.
https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
Being a boring old fart by inclination I do not suffer an addictive personality. I consider myself extremely fortunate in that respect, it is using Alastair's analogies almost entirely a matter of chance with no skill involved. But I have seen enough to empathise and be concerned with those afflicted and I certainly would not want to take advantage of it even, possibly particularly, when their beliefs are irrational.
"Material extent" means to me that I have no problem with the odd fun bet for a stake of no consequence. I have had a few bets with people through this site but never for more than £50. I have an account with Wm Hills but I rarely use it. If those who are less boring than me get fun out of gambling and can avoid the perils of addiction good luck to them but its not for me and on balance I think I am happier that way.
Hi James. I write further to my email of 4th December and our earlier telephone conversation of 2nd December.
So Betfair finally settled its outstanding US election markets on 14th December following the announcement of the Electoral College votes on that day and I got my money along with everybody else who was green on Biden. Am I happy then? Well, in respect of the money, yes, but in many other respects not at all. My returns amounted to about £10k of which about £1k was profit so you can see that I made my money by backing Biden at very short odds, mostly after the result had been called by Associated Press and all the major Networks. Normally I wouldn't give a thought to losing parties because they have as much chance as me of making a winning bet but on this occasion I confess to much sympathy with all those who backed Trump after the election had been called and before the date Betfair settled, over a month later. I guess you would understand why. They were betting on an event that was over. You can argue perhaps that they were gullible to do so but there is no excuse for Betfair to encourage them. Betfair has a duty of care to their customers and the idea that they would disregard that and take commission from a market kept open long past its proper settlement date leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I like to win but I don't like to see any punter taken for a ride and that appears to be what happened to Trump-backers from about November 7th, by which time the projected electoral votes had been announced, and December 14th when Betfair suspended the markets and began to settle them.
There are other reasons for disapproving of Betfair's behaviour. Obviously gambling becomes chaotic and dangerous when a major trader, running a major market, changes the rules after the event. Where the sums are substantial, and in this case the amounts matched were I believe close to £2billion, unstable secondary markets are apt to form quite probably to the benefit of money-launderers rather than ordinary punters, as well as the disadvantage of newcomers to betting who might assume that a market would not continue to be traded if the outcome of the event were already established.... [cont'd]
Some Trump-backers were dismayed, I understand, when their bets were deemed losers on Dec 14th because they were of the view that the means of appeal, protests, legal challenges and the like had some way to run; nor had their man done anything to suggest he was yet ready to concede. Again, I sympathise. Whilst it always appeared exceedingly unlikely any of these protests would overturn the result, I should say that once Betfair had decided not to settle on the date the election was called for Biden, there was no particular logic in them settling on the 14th December since it had no bearing on the 'projected electoral college votes'. The relevance of this date to the political process is that it signifies the point at which projected votes become actual (although even then there are further procedural elements of confirming the next US President with which constitutional experts and some punters are familiar). What Betfair and nobody else can explain is how and why for the purposes of the betting markets the 'actual' date for casting the college votes came to supplant the date of 'projected' votes referred to very clearly in Betfair's market rules. Once the switch from 'projected' to 'actual' was made however there was every reason for Trump-backers to question the finality of the outcome and point to the various appeals, objections and Trump's refusal to concede as evidence that the actual result was still contestable.
In short, once Betfair moved the goalposts the date of market-settlement became unclear, indefinite and open to debate. I might think that Trump has zero chance of being re-elected as President, but I can certainly see why those who backed him to do so feel miffed that Betfair have ruled against them before every conceivable possibility has been exhausted. In fact I do not see how Betfair can remove their grievances without admitting they were wrong to shift the goalposts in the first place.
I do not know what, if anything , the Gambling Commission can or will do about all this, but I nevertheless have conveyed my thoughts in the hope that you can bring these matters to Betfair's attention. At the very least it might encourage them to frame their rules better in future, stick to the rules they have framed, and show greater respect to reasonable complaints from their customers. Anything you can do to bring this about will be much appreciated.
Warm regards, thanks and good luck.
Peter Smith
These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
The EU knows how unprepared we are. It seems that many businesses do not. Or are wishing it away.
Not that this is their fault of course. They are being asked to invest time and money to "prepare" for the unknown, for IT systems that aren't built yet, for trading rules that aren't finalised, for customs barriers that aren't resourced, and for shortages in supply chains that they can't control.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.138799270
Hopefully BF will be clearer next time. Much better to simply say they pay out on day ECV meets. Or say the 'projected' vote will be what Assoc Press say on the night of the election is their projected vote.
Replace Tory for Labour. Would people be jumping up and down then?
Free £1 Ladbrokes bet today. Already put tiny sums on Ferrari/McLaren for the Constructors' next year, so decided to slap it on Red Bull at 4. The Verstappen/Perez lineup could be good enough.
If I hadn't made a bet then the slightly longer Ferrari odds (13, had been around 12) would've probably been my pick.
Alistair is right though that unlike drinking, betting is a zero-sum game. Any game that gives the other guy effectively zero chance is ethically questionable. Any organisation that encourages mugs to make hopeless bets should be reined in.
Looking at the state of the betting industry in the UK I should say Parliament and the Gambling Commission have a fair bit of work to do.
We need a deal. It must be done now.
Neither of these statements is controversial, unless your head is up your ass.
Conservatives most seats is not beyond the realms of possibly, and Drakeford has a few months yet to lower his competence bar still further. There may be a bounce for the Tories with Boris' vaccine (I am surprised that hasn't been seen yet) and his awesome Brexit deal, but for me the stars are not aligning. As a disillusioned Labour voter, I rate Adam Price, but I lent Leanne my vote last time, only for her to attempt a rainbow pact with UKIP and RT.
I was unaware Kirsty was off to pastures new. I really like her.
Telegraph
Perhaps Betfair, more used to sports betting, had something like this in mind. They could have defined it as projected winner of EC when eg ABC, NBC and Fox News all agree on this, with further rules on how to handle it if they don't all agree. This would avoid having to wait for any court cases, coups, deaths, resignations, alien invasions - but would need to be clearly highlighted to anyone betting.
You do wonder why BFE didn't simply make the market on who would be installed as the president in January (or at any earlier date if Trump relinquished), rather than produce convoluted rules relating to projected votes. That's what punters thought they were betting on, as the bets for Harris and Pelosi and Pence etc. surely indicate.
Betfair seems to love these misleading markets, with titles that imply one thing (such as "will there be a no deal Brexit") that, when you read the small print, are actually about something different - with time limits not mentioned at all in the title, or defining 'no deal' in ways that significantly change the bet.
Any half rational person facing the situation we are in would roll these discussions on until this time next year. It would still be completed well in time for 2024 when Johnson faces the voters again.
What is it with Johnson electioneering at an Openreach depot in Bolton mid pandemic (spreading his new Southern super-virus to the good people of Greater Burnham) and three and a half years out from the next General Election?
"Our experts were seriously worried that there would be a jump in cases over Christmas... We therefore had to act,"
That would be the PM of Italy, not Bozo.
It is entirely reasonable, they said, for betting rules to be defined in a way that provides a quick and clear outcome. This is no doubt what Betfair had in mind when they framed the Next President rules. They were written so that the results could be determined quickly, probably within a few days of the election and without having to wait for Trump to concede or legal challenges to work their way through the system. They were good rules in this respect, although they ought perhaps to have been more explicit as to what they meant by 'projected electoral college votes'.
Betfair's problem arose not from bad rules, but from changing them after the event. I don't think anybody has a problem seeing what was wrong with that, legally and ethically.
"Well don't do it then."
I agree with your proposition that they have taken many of the late backers of Trump for a ride.
I'd also argue that those who backed Pence or Pelosi or Harris, based on perfectly reasonable inferences from the way BFE presented the bet, have also been taken for a ride.
The interesting thing is that sometimes they crossover.Betting slightly more than i can afford to lose getting goosepimps and the bet winning is one of the most exciting feelings one can experience.If the bet loses one hopes to learn something about oneself or the world.Technically betting more than one can afford to lose is a definition of a 'problem gambler' but i would not see myself as such.
The govt and the media should be trying to counter those addictions that are not widely recognised of which i would argue football is one.When one sees the amount of time even money many people spend on football it is an addiction.I happen to support Man City and have been fortunate that over the last 10 years they have played both beautiful soccer and been successful enough to justify the time and money i spent following them in previous decades (i started in the 70's). But how many football fans over 50 can look back and say that all the time and money was worth it?
(Well maybe Rees Mogg)
As it always was.
This is like an incredibly protracted corporate deal, which it is essential for the company to conclude, getting down to a handful of the toughest issues - and then a couple of the non-execs issue a public report criticising your negotiations to date and telling you - and the Board - "Just sign the bloody deal on offer. You will never get anything better."
With whom do you think the shareholders are going to be pissed off?
There’s at least two, possibly three hotels in Dubai that were built with rooms designed as casinos, with all the cabling in the floor and ceiling, waiting for the day that the government allows them to open. It’s not happened yet!