politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is PaddyPower right not to pay out now on these “2020 or later

TheGreenMachine said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheGreenMachine said:

rcs1000 said:

Regarding the bets: I understand why Paddy Power is not paying out on (for example) the aliens one.

The problem I have is that - while aliens have not been found - neither you nor Paddy Power has won. And if aliens are discovered immediately after your death, well, Paddies will just say "couldn't find customer, I'll keep it". It seems there is an asymmetry that I'm not really happy with.

Your relatives could collect it, if it's placed in a betting shop and it would go towards your funeral.

Do antepost bets lapse on death? There was some sort of kerfuffle on this a few years ago but I cannot remember the details.

If it's down in store, anyone can collect it.

Surely if it's online then the estate/beneficiaries can inherit the bet as an asset in any case? Maybe there's been a case on this, but I don't see why a bet couldn't transfer when a futures contract on oil could (or any other financial asset).

Cookie said:

Anabobazina said:

Cookie said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Super rich elites making London 'off limits' for young people from poorer backgrounds https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-51196849

Yeah young people more likely to move to Manchester these days in my experience.

London's an amazing city. But almost everybody has a budget. And you can live in the best suburb of pretty much any other British city for the same price as living in some dreary grimpot on the outer edges of London. Why live in Feltham when you could live in Didsbury or Gosforth or Hunters Bar or Mossley Hill?

As often remarked, London has a vastly superior climate to Manchester, Newcastle etc. And it's a far better city, with more to do, more to see and better domestic and global transport links. .

The higher salaries make up for the higher cost of living as I have posted repeatedly on here, to deaf ears.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/regionalaccounts/grossdisposablehouseholdincome/bulletins/regionalgrossdisposablehouseholdincomegdhi/1997to2017

The weatger is pleasant, I'll grant you - though sometimes unpleasantly hot and humid in the summer. Equally, though, Manchester, Newcastle etc have the best of England's scenery on their doorsteo. It just comes down to what you value.

And London offers far more opportunity to achieve astronomical salaries. But for most of us, even if we're pretty comfortable, that's not going to be achievable wherever we live. The 10-15% more we earn for our middling jobs wont give us a conparable lifestyle to what we can achieve in Manchester etc.

This really isn't a criticism of Lindon or those who make the choice to live there! It's a fantastic city, even just to look at, and I can see why people make the choices they do. But nor am I surprised when people choose Mamchester, Newcastle etc.

As someone who finds British summers too hot I actually prefer the slightly cooler weather up north since I moved.

kinabalu said:

Stark_Dawning said:

I'm struggling to see the gripe here. 'Not happening before 2020' and 'Happening after 2020' are in no way logically equivalent. I haven't climbed Mount Everest before 2020. Does that imply that I will climb Mount Everest at some point in the future?

But there is no Never Happen option offered in the bet. Thus the total population of possible outcomes is limited to when it happens. That's the market they put up.

I am confident that @Quincel wins this at the Bailey and I am happy to be his Rumpole.

What do you regard as the negation of X happens after Y?

1) X happens before Y.

or

2) X happens before Y or X never happens.

It has to be 2) because if X never happens then 'X happens after Y' is false.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

F1: there's now a points match market on Ladbrokes.

Got to say none appeals, possibly excepting Latifi at 5.5 to beat Russell. But it's a season long thing which puts me off a bit.

They were laying LeClerc Vs Vettel for a while now, although the rest are new.

kinabalu said:

isam said:

If Paddy and IBAS get out of the right side of the bed they might get voided, but they can't, and I am pretty certain they wont, pay out a bet as a winner that relies on something happening which hasn't happened.

"When will Dagenham & Redbridge win the Premier League?"

Before the end of the 2025/26 season 100/1

After the end of the 2025/26 season 1/100

Have £100 on the latter, and you don't win a pound until they win the Premier League

That bet would be borderline fraud. I get your point about "mugs" - and in a sense all hail them since there is no industry otherwise - but there are limits to this. And for me, the alien, the sindy2, and this new one here you've thrown in, are over the line if they don't settle as a win and instead keep hold of the stake money potentially ad infinitum.

Yes it is an absolute pisstake by Paddy Power to even offer such markets, but bookies try to take the piss all the time in many different ways and it's up to punters to be savvy enough not to encourage it.

Mr. Dawning, if he's looking at it purely in those terms (which fits with the PM's self-absorbed personality) he may cancel HS2 and spend (tens of) billions on northern infrastructure.

Mr. Machine, I did consider Norris/Vettel but I suspect the German's on his way out and the Briton's odds are a bit too short against the experienced Sainz.

https://twitter.com/fraserwhyte81/status/1219933438360289281?s=21

If, on head to head polling, Nandy beats Starmer, then if the Momentum crowd don't want Starmer to win they should urge RLB to stand aside, rather than come a poor second to Sir Keir.

Stark_Dawning said:

What do you regard as the negation of X happens after Y?

1) X happens before Y.

or

2) X happens before Y or X never happens.

It has to be 2) because if X never happens then 'X happens after Y' is false.

That is correct.

But for "X never happens" to be a real world proposition - triggering either a settlement or a void of the bet - there has to be a non-negligible chance of it happening.

I.E. "X never happens" must be realistically capable of happening.

My contention is that this is not the case here.

Stark_Dawning said:

I see Grant Shapps is now dithering over HS2 on Boris's behalf. In fairness, this is a tricky one for Boris. The Tory Right/Daily Mail/Kippers despise it mainly because it was associated with the Cameron and Osborne era. Yet the now fashionable north seem to regard it as symbolic of Boris's love. What to do?

If Johnson is to pull the plug on HS2, he will reap more electoral benefits in the "north" (defined as starting at Watford Gap) if he simultaneously announces a very large programme of infrastructure and other capital investment in the north, on things that really will make a difference to the lives of a large number of people. That programme will need to have some detail being it in order to be credible. It will take time to put together and would need to be integrated with the Budget planning process.

In addition, Johnson would find it useful to have the NAO report on HS2, due at the end of this month, to act as a counterweight to Oakervee's recommendation.

So we can interpret his thinking from the timing:
a. There is no obvious reason for delay if Johnson wants to proceed with HS2, as per the recommendations of the "independent" report of its former chairman.
b. There is every reason for delaying an announcement if he has already decided to scrap the scheme.
c. The only other reason for delay is that he is yet to make up his mind.

It must be b or c at this point.

@MikeSmithson What were the prices for both sides of the bets your mate had? If they added up to less than 100% he doesn't have a leg to stand on. If they came to more than that he might get them voided

@Morris_Dancer

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Machine, Leclerc at 1.28 isn't great, though.

On the Ferrari bet: I considered that, but Leclerc's long term contract makes it perhaps less likely. Depends on what happens with Mercedes. It's perhaps value but I'm unsure about it.

I think Hamilton's already announced that he wants to beat the record while at Ferrari, F1 is a multi billion dollar industry, someone could just buy LeClerc or Vettel could perhaps retire.

Quincel said:

isam said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

If you bet on something to happen, it has to happen for you to win the bet. That's it.

I think the wording of these bets tempers that a bit. The bet wasn't 'Alien Existence will happen in 2020 or later', it was 'When will Alien Existence happen?' > '2020 or later'. The *market* already presumed the event occurring, in a sense.

Yes, it's like a street hustler mesmerising someone into betting on a coin being under a cup that it is obviously under, but isn't. They are stupid bets to have, and people should know better than to have them.

I must admit, I find the argument that PP are right not to pay out *because* they tricked me to be one I find very difficult. If they have acted to try and trick customers then they should be prevented from doing so. We don't accept fiddling with the small print and misleading claims in general transactions, or at least we (and regulators) shouldn't.

That's my view too. It is literally impossible for Donald Trump to be POTUS forever, so they should pay out on "2020 or later".

When (as I recall() BA defended a claim that their fast planes reduced jet lag by saying that jet lag didn't actually scientifically exist, so it was harmless to say that they reduced it, the derision that they attracted did them far more damage than any ASA ruling.

NickPalmer said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

Quincel said:

isam said:

If you bet on something to happen, it has to happen for you to win the bet. That's it.

I think the wording of these bets tempers that a bit. The bet wasn't 'Alien Existence will happen in 2020 or later', it was 'When will Alien Existence happen?' > '2020 or later'. The *market* already presumed the event occurring, in a sense.

Yes, it's like a street hustler mesmerising someone into betting on a coin being under a cup that it is obviously under, but isn't. They are stupid bets to have, and people should know better than to have them.

I must admit, I find the argument that PP are right not to pay out *because* they tricked me to be one I find very difficult. If they have acted to try and trick customers then they should be prevented from doing so. We don't accept fiddling with the small print and misleading claims in general transactions, or at least we (and regulators) shouldn't.

That's my view too. It is literally impossible for Donald Trump to be POTUS forever, so they should pay out on "2020 or later".

When (as I recall() BA defended a claim that their fast planes reduced jet lag by saying that jet lag didn't actually scientifically exist, so it was harmless to say that they reduced it, the derision that they attracted did them far more damage than any ASA ruling.

Dear god, that argument falls down on every level. Even if you buy it superficially it is still an admission of lying in their advert!

david_herdson said:

There is no requirement to offer a 'never happens' option, just as there is no requirement for a bookie to offer a full range of options in any market.

If a bookie offers odds on outcomes A, B, C and D - four football teams to win the league, or four politicians to win an election, say - that does not mean that that just because A, B and C have not happened and cannot happen then D must automatically be a winner.

A bookie limiting options in that way is not necessarily twisting the market in their favour (though they may be). Doing so certainly gives the punter fewer chances to win but it also gives them fewer chances on which to lose.

Agreed. You need to look at each case based on its particular characteristics.

Mr. Machine, I'm on the other side of the win bet, just because I've got about 9 or so on Hamilton beating Schumacher's total win record (there's a tiny window in which both could come off this year).

------

Stark_Dawning said:

Love this bit.

One cabinet minister, who asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations, told me that Ireland was a small country, which meant that the quality of its ministers could not match that of those in the U.K.. And yet this attitude proved part of London’s undoing in the negotiations, which saw Ireland win more of its objectives than Britain did.

Any ideas who this arrogant twit could have been?

It wasn't just the government - it was the civil service too and our "Rolls Royce" (sic) Foreign Office - Ireland ran rings around us in Brussels.

Fate, or destiny?

THERE ARE real tribal differences between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil that date back hundreds of years before the foundation of the State, according to two political scientists.
An analysis of the names of all of the TDs who have served in the Dáil shows that Fine Gael TDs are more likely to come from Norman/Old English families while Fianna Fáilers tend to come from Gaelic backgrounds.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ff-and-fg-tribal-split-traced-back-to-12th-century-1.607729

Mr. Machine, 92 race wins are needed.

I think if Hamilton gets 8-9 both come off this year.

If he gets under that then the race wins bet will likely come off next year. If he gets over I lose the season bet but that's more than matched by the race wins bet.

Edited extra bit: anyway, I must be off for a bit.

Kim Il-sung is still the president of NK despite being dead for 25 years. With a "when will event x happen" there is often the opportunity that x will never happen, with that option missing from the selection.