On topic I wasn't expecting Betfair to settle this market until the electoral college meet and I'm now resigned on them not paying out until the 20th of January.
On topic I wasn't expecting Betfair to settle this market until the electoral college meet and I'm now resigned on them not paying out until the 20th of January.
On topic I wasn't expecting Betfair to settle this market until the electoral college meet and I'm now resigned on them not paying out until the 20th of January.
It seems bizarre in the extreme, it looks like buying money. There must be more to it, but what could it be? Why aren't shrewd gamblers with millions in the bank making it 1.01?
Or are they laying both sides to artificially back Biden, whilst keeping the price up?
There is a credit risk. I know in theory Betfair is sitting on cold hard cash, but it isn't, and unlike the banks isn't backed by, the Bank of England.
Edit: Flutter Entertainment PLC = BBB- at Fitch, Ba1 at Moody's.
Its shares are also at an all time high so doubt they are broke .
So were Wirecard's until they weren't.
Of course they are almost certainly in fine financial trim, but it is simply irrational to say "LOL this is a better return than I'd get from my bank" as if the differential in credit risk did not exist (as well as the fact that banks are not allowed to confiscate your entire deposit because the SCOTUS has a brain fart).
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
Three things we know:- 1. Betfair has not settled by its own rules 2. Betfair has not removed and settled the now impossible candidates like Amy, Hillary and Michelle 3. Betfair has not told us when and how they will settle
From which:- My uninformed guess is Betfair stalled when Trump did not concede and instead launched legal action. Now Betfair is stuck hoping something will turn up. If they had an actual plan, Betfair could tell us what it is but there isn't so they can't. Or at least, they haven't so I infer there isn't.
By not settling according to its rules on the projected winner, Betfair may have inadvertently changed those rules, specifically the meaning of "projected".
Leaving the no-hopers makes it easier to void the market. (Worryingly, it also makes it easier to settle on the wrong candidate so I'd be inclined to lay Trump or look to one of the related markets such as winning party if I were coming at this anew. This takes us back several months, of course.)
I do not think Betfair plans to do this but is keeping its options open. I doubt there is a plan.
Last night I bailed out and cashed out on this market. It feels to me that there is a real risk now, imho, of this market being voided on a technicality.
I'm very pissed off with BF at the moment. The rules were clear - projected winner. AP and every mainstream broadcaster has a projected Biden win. The certifications have come in. There is no justification whatsoever for keeping this market open.
If they want a long market post election day then put one up that says the winner is whoever mounts the steps to be sworn into office on 21st jan 2021 at noon.
Three things we know:- 1. Betfair has not settled by its own rules 2. Betfair has not removed and settled the now impossible candidates like Amy, Hillary and Michelle 3. Betfair has not told us when and how they will settle
From which:- My uninformed guess is Betfair stalled when Trump did not concede and instead launched legal action. Now Betfair is stuck hoping something will turn up. If they had an actual plan, Betfair could tell us what it is but there isn't so they can't. Or at least, they haven't so I infer there isn't.
By not settling according to its rules on the projected winner, Betfair may have inadvertently changed those rules, specifically the meaning of "projected".
Leaving the no-hopers makes it easier to void the market. (Worryingly, it also makes it easier to settle on the wrong candidate so I'd be inclined to lay Trump or look to one of the related markets such as winning party if I were coming at this anew. This takes us back several months, of course.)
I do not think Betfair plans to do this but is keeping its options open. I doubt there is a plan.
Last night I bailed out and cashed out on this market. It feels to me that there is a real risk now, imho, of this market being voided on a technicality.
I'm very pissed off with BF at the moment. The rules were clear - projected winner. AP and every mainstream broadcaster has a projected Biden win. The certifications have come in. There is no justification whatsoever for keeping this market open.
If they want a long market post election day then put one up that says the winner is whoever mounts the steps to be sworn into office on 21st jan 2021 at noon.
Unless you close your account, I'm not sure cashing out helps, since Betfair would claw it back when and if they void the market. This is what they do when horserace winners are disqualified after settlement.
Three things we know:- 1. Betfair has not settled by its own rules 2. Betfair has not removed and settled the now impossible candidates like Amy, Hillary and Michelle 3. Betfair has not told us when and how they will settle
From which:- My uninformed guess is Betfair stalled when Trump did not concede and instead launched legal action. Now Betfair is stuck hoping something will turn up. If they had an actual plan, Betfair could tell us what it is but there isn't so they can't. Or at least, they haven't so I infer there isn't.
By not settling according to its rules on the projected winner, Betfair may have inadvertently changed those rules, specifically the meaning of "projected".
Leaving the no-hopers makes it easier to void the market. (Worryingly, it also makes it easier to settle on the wrong candidate so I'd be inclined to lay Trump or look to one of the related markets such as winning party if I were coming at this anew. This takes us back several months, of course.)
I do not think Betfair plans to do this but is keeping its options open. I doubt there is a plan.
If a player is substituted in a football match before the first goal is scored, Betfair leave him open for trading on the First Goalscorer market, and people chance their arm laying him at 1000 - it's nothing new for runners that cant win to be left up. Horses that fall and die are traded until the winner passes the post
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Does anyone here live in Newcastle-under-Lyme? I heard a nasty rumour that their MP is a bit of a gambling fan.
Actually that's an interesting though. Aaron Bell (aka Tissue Price) might well undertake to give Betfair a ring a quietly suggest they stop acting the goat.
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
How much money are Betfair earning in interest, having over £1bn sitting in their bank account for a month?
They dont have a £1bn in the bank from this market. Volume traders will have traded in and out dozens of times. Having money tied up in long term markets slows down day to day trading which is how they make their money.
Ah yes. Unless the headline amount goes down as people trade out, which I don't think it does, there's going to be a lot less than a billion actually in play.
It never goes down. It is just BF amping their own market.*
*OK, so properly, total "matched", which is complete at the time it is matched.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Very sad. Montreal is indeed an island of good food in the North American sea of culinary mediocrity.
The only problem with Montreal (other than the weather in the winter) is they speak some funny language there....the insist its French, but I am not convinced :-)
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
After the great Theresa May exit date fiasco I get the feeling Betfair doesn't have a specialist political markets chap.
And now they're crapping themselves, because they never expected a billion-pound market on something that no-one really understands properly. It's probably now with the head of operations and the corporate lawyers to sort out, after all the legal challenges have been exhausted and the results certified by the States.
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
Media projections is what Betfair settled all the states on, bar the five that remain open, so I think that is what people expected and what Betfair meant. Trouble is, as I suggested in the other post, maybe in not settling, Betfair might inadvertantly have changed the meaning along the lines you suggest.
Dies anyone know the rules re visiting a 2nd home (tier 2 to tier 2). We have a stove being installed. Bit tricky if we can't be there
Is it the same tier 2 area?
No it isn't. 150 miles away. I can't find any info on it.
Looking at it you should be fine;
So long as you and the installers engage in mask wearing/social distancing (and you're not required to self isolate on the install date) you should be fine.
Does anyone know the rules re visiting a 2nd home (tier 2 to tier 2). We have a stove being installed. Bit tricky if we can't be there
There is an exemption in the current lockdown for making a home habitable or rentable/saleable which you could try if pressed; there are no movement restrictions after the 2nd.
After the great Theresa May exit date fiasco I get the feeling Betfair doesn't have a specialist political markets chap.
And now they're crapping themselves, because they never expected a billion-pound market on something that no-one really understands properly. It's probably now with the head of operations and the corporate lawyers to sort out, after all the legal challenges have been exhausted and the results certified by the States.
It has been useful and profitable because of plenty of people don't understand the rules, far too many people treated that market as the next President market when it clearly isn't.
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
Media projections is what Betfair settled all the states on, bar the five that remain open, so I think that is what people expected and what Betfair meant. Trouble is, as I suggested in the other post, maybe in not settling, Betfair might inadvertantly have changed the meaning along the lines you suggest.
Exactly. Betfair are being inconsistent. The way they settled most of the States is exactly the way most of us expected it to be done. If they had something else in mind, or they wished to change the rules mid-event they had to explain themselves. They haven't.
To be honest, I suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy but it is bloody aggravating.
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
Media projections is what Betfair settled all the states on, bar the five that remain open, so I think that is what people expected and what Betfair meant. Trouble is, as I suggested in the other post, maybe in not settling, Betfair might inadvertantly have changed the meaning along the lines you suggest.
If the media projections were non contentious they would have been sufficient. I think they probably still are given the wording of the market, but Betfair expressly reserve the right to use their reasonable discretion in how to settle the market (and absolute discretion if they choose to void it). They are well within their reasonable discretion even if they have made the wrong call. Patience is a virtue.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
After the great Theresa May exit date fiasco I get the feeling Betfair doesn't have a specialist political markets chap.
And now they're crapping themselves, because they never expected a billion-pound market on something that no-one really understands properly. It's probably now with the head of operations and the corporate lawyers to sort out, after all the legal challenges have been exhausted and the results certified by the States.
That's fair enough but haven't the results been certified by enough States now?
What legal challenges are now still outstanding given certification has already happened?
Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire 7/1 State Combinations - State Betting Combinations
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
Media projections is what Betfair settled all the states on, bar the five that remain open, so I think that is what people expected and what Betfair meant. Trouble is, as I suggested in the other post, maybe in not settling, Betfair might inadvertantly have changed the meaning along the lines you suggest.
So they've applied the same wording in different ways, in different markets. Sounds like they'd have been better off not settling the others!
To assume cock-up rather than conspiracy, my best guess is the size of the main market has triggered some sort of internal escalation procedure that's being over-cautious over settling.
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
Media projections is what Betfair settled all the states on, bar the five that remain open, so I think that is what people expected and what Betfair meant. Trouble is, as I suggested in the other post, maybe in not settling, Betfair might inadvertantly have changed the meaning along the lines you suggest.
Exactly. Betfair are being inconsistent. The way they settled most of the States is exactly the way most of us expected it to be done. If they had something else in mind, or they wished to change the rules mid-event they had to explain themselves. They haven't.
To be honest, I suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy but it is bloody aggravating.
If there's no legal challenge in a state and the loser has conceded that state it seems fair enough to settle those states while leaving only those in dispute to be still in play.
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
Media projections is what Betfair settled all the states on, bar the five that remain open, so I think that is what people expected and what Betfair meant. Trouble is, as I suggested in the other post, maybe in not settling, Betfair might inadvertantly have changed the meaning along the lines you suggest.
If the media projections were non contentious they would have been sufficient. I think they probably still are given the wording of the market, but Betfair expressly reserve the right to use their reasonable discretion in how to settle the market (and absolute discretion if they choose to void it). They are well within their reasonable discretion even if they have made the wrong call. Patience is a virtue.
They have to be consistent though. They are not being, nor are they explaining themselves.
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
Media projections is what Betfair settled all the states on, bar the five that remain open, so I think that is what people expected and what Betfair meant. Trouble is, as I suggested in the other post, maybe in not settling, Betfair might inadvertantly have changed the meaning along the lines you suggest.
If the media projections were non contentious they would have been sufficient. I think they probably still are given the wording of the market, but Betfair expressly reserve the right to use their reasonable discretion in how to settle the market (and absolute discretion if they choose to void it). They are well within their reasonable discretion even if they have made the wrong call. Patience is a virtue.
They have to be consistent though. They are not being, nor are they explaining themselves.
I think reasonable would cover being consistent in their ultimate settlement of the markets, but not sure it is unreasonable to have paid out some markets "early" (in their mindset) if they are comfortable with that.
After the great Theresa May exit date fiasco I get the feeling Betfair doesn't have a specialist political markets chap.
And now they're crapping themselves, because they never expected a billion-pound market on something that no-one really understands properly. It's probably now with the head of operations and the corporate lawyers to sort out, after all the legal challenges have been exhausted and the results certified by the States.
That's fair enough but haven't the results been certified by enough States now?
What legal challenges are now still outstanding given certification has already happened?
In Betfair's defence (yeah I know) back in 2000 Florida certified at the end of November but with a different SCOTUS that certification could have been changed in the middle of December.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
So which foreigner is backing him now? Bannon and Putin seem a bit distant these days for some reason... Trump has to save his cash for certain forthcoming legal expenses... Is it Kim Jong Un maybe?
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
Media projections is what Betfair settled all the states on, bar the five that remain open, so I think that is what people expected and what Betfair meant. Trouble is, as I suggested in the other post, maybe in not settling, Betfair might inadvertantly have changed the meaning along the lines you suggest.
Exactly. Betfair are being inconsistent. The way they settled most of the States is exactly the way most of us expected it to be done. If they had something else in mind, or they wished to change the rules mid-event they had to explain themselves. They haven't.
To be honest, I suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy but it is bloody aggravating.
If there's no legal challenge in a state and the loser has conceded that state it seems fair enough to settle those states while leaving only those in dispute to be still in play.
Would have been fair enough if something to that effect had been stated in the rules, but it wasn't. The rules are very clear and the settlements to date have fallen squarely within the rules. The trouble is that the States which have not been settled also fall squarely within the same rules, and no reason has been given for treating them differently. The reason no reason has been given is that there is no reason. They're making the rules up as they go along.
It isn't good Philip. I've been involved in betting all my life, and so have generations of my family before me. This is a breach of trust. If you can't trust the bookie, don't bet them.
After the great Theresa May exit date fiasco I get the feeling Betfair doesn't have a specialist political markets chap.
And now they're crapping themselves, because they never expected a billion-pound market on something that no-one really understands properly. It's probably now with the head of operations and the corporate lawyers to sort out, after all the legal challenges have been exhausted and the results certified by the States.
That's fair enough but haven't the results been certified by enough States now?
What legal challenges are now still outstanding given certification has already happened?
In Betfair's defence (yeah I know) back in 2000 Florida certified at the end of November but with a different SCOTUS that certification could have been changed in the middle of December.
It was already certified? I thought it was still mid-recount and the SCOTUS halted the recount.
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
Media projections is what Betfair settled all the states on, bar the five that remain open, so I think that is what people expected and what Betfair meant. Trouble is, as I suggested in the other post, maybe in not settling, Betfair might inadvertantly have changed the meaning along the lines you suggest.
Exactly. Betfair are being inconsistent. The way they settled most of the States is exactly the way most of us expected it to be done. If they had something else in mind, or they wished to change the rules mid-event they had to explain themselves. They haven't.
To be honest, I suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy but it is bloody aggravating.
If there's no legal challenge in a state and the loser has conceded that state it seems fair enough to settle those states while leaving only those in dispute to be still in play.
Would have been fair enough if something to that effect had been stated in the rules, but it wasn't. The rules are very clear and the settlements to date have fallen squarely within the rules. The trouble is that the States which have not been settled also fall squarely within the same rules, and no reason has been given for treating them differently. The reason no reason has been given is that there is no reason. They're making the rules up as they go along.
It isn't good Philip. I've been involved in betting all my life, and so have generations of my family before me. This is a breach of trust. If you can't trust the bookie, don't bet them.
The reason I've seen quoted from them is they are waiting for legal challenges to be resolved.
Thank you everyone re stove fitting feedback. Much appreciated.
We couldn't travel to the house during the original lockdown so I assumed it would be the same, but no info at all.
The original installation went pear shaped (you don't want to know!) so had to be rescheduled and I just got a date, but neither I nor the installer knew if it was allowed.
After the great Theresa May exit date fiasco I get the feeling Betfair doesn't have a specialist political markets chap.
And now they're crapping themselves, because they never expected a billion-pound market on something that no-one really understands properly. It's probably now with the head of operations and the corporate lawyers to sort out, after all the legal challenges have been exhausted and the results certified by the States.
That's fair enough but haven't the results been certified by enough States now?
What legal challenges are now still outstanding given certification has already happened?
In Betfair's defence (yeah I know) back in 2000 Florida certified at the end of November but with a different SCOTUS that certification could have been changed in the middle of December.
Would not impact the settlement of the bets under the rules as stated by Betfair.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Yesterdays man along with Trump
Yesterday's man but he has had a more lasting legacy on UK politics than anyone in the last thirty years. We'll be living with Brexit, the monument to the Tory party's fear of Farage, for decades to come.
Mr. Punter, it was with the Sportsbook, but I was less than thrilled when Betfair tried not paying out on a Hamilton win bet because he started from the pit lane. When I pointed out this both made it less likely he'd win *and* was public knowledge at the time I made the bet I got a small sum of credit for betting but that was it.
Much prefer Ladbrokes. I think the Betfair Exchange is mostly fine for F1.
Is no one else more concerned about the lack of a 2024 market than when we get paid our Biden winnings? Would be some great bets available I am sure. Romney, Clinton, both Obamas, Bloomberg et al.
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
Media projections is what Betfair settled all the states on, bar the five that remain open, so I think that is what people expected and what Betfair meant. Trouble is, as I suggested in the other post, maybe in not settling, Betfair might inadvertantly have changed the meaning along the lines you suggest.
Exactly. Betfair are being inconsistent. The way they settled most of the States is exactly the way most of us expected it to be done. If they had something else in mind, or they wished to change the rules mid-event they had to explain themselves. They haven't.
To be honest, I suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy but it is bloody aggravating.
If there's no legal challenge in a state and the loser has conceded that state it seems fair enough to settle those states while leaving only those in dispute to be still in play.
Would have been fair enough if something to that effect had been stated in the rules, but it wasn't. The rules are very clear and the settlements to date have fallen squarely within the rules. The trouble is that the States which have not been settled also fall squarely within the same rules, and no reason has been given for treating them differently. The reason no reason has been given is that there is no reason. They're making the rules up as they go along.
It isn't good Philip. I've been involved in betting all my life, and so have generations of my family before me. This is a breach of trust. If you can't trust the bookie, don't bet them.
The reason I've seen quoted from them is they are waiting for legal challenges to be resolved.
That seems different to there being no reason.
That wasn't stated in their rules, nor even implied by them, nor does it make any kind of sense in its own terms. They may as well have said they are waiting for Santa Claus to arrive. That too would have been 'a reason', of sorts.
Edit: On reflection, when you look at some of the legal objections the Trump team has put forward, the Santa Claus clause would be relatively strong.
After the great Theresa May exit date fiasco I get the feeling Betfair doesn't have a specialist political markets chap.
And now they're crapping themselves, because they never expected a billion-pound market on something that no-one really understands properly. It's probably now with the head of operations and the corporate lawyers to sort out, after all the legal challenges have been exhausted and the results certified by the States.
That's fair enough but haven't the results been certified by enough States now?
What legal challenges are now still outstanding given certification has already happened?
In Betfair's defence (yeah I know) back in 2000 Florida certified at the end of November but with a different SCOTUS that certification could have been changed in the middle of December.
It was already certified? I thought it was still mid-recount and the SCOTUS halted the recount.
It was, Katherine Harris certified on the 26th of November.
But then there were several legal cases that tried to undo that certification (mostly to do with allowing more votes to be counted) that the Florida Supreme allowed after Nov 26th.
If people don't behave themselves at Christmas, we are all going to be there come February.
What's going on up north? Is HMG making any effort to find out what is different in these places that renders lockdown ineffective compared with most of the rest of the country?
I've been gambling on politics for 20 years and this is easily the most bizarre thing I have seen. Like being allowed to carry on betting after you know the result, which according the Betfair rules it appears we do (barring maybe the Supreme court somehow voiding the election which I think would void the Supreme court instead and lead to an actual civil war). I'm on the hook for a five figure amount and not the least bit worried. If I was worth 100 million I'd be prepared to risk at least a quarter of it.
After the great Theresa May exit date fiasco I get the feeling Betfair doesn't have a specialist political markets chap.
And now they're crapping themselves, because they never expected a billion-pound market on something that no-one really understands properly. It's probably now with the head of operations and the corporate lawyers to sort out, after all the legal challenges have been exhausted and the results certified by the States.
That's fair enough but haven't the results been certified by enough States now?
What legal challenges are now still outstanding given certification has already happened?
In Betfair's defence (yeah I know) back in 2000 Florida certified at the end of November but with a different SCOTUS that certification could have been changed in the middle of December.
Would not impact the settlement of the bets under the rules as stated by Betfair.
I know, but they get to define what is classed as projected.
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
Media projections is what Betfair settled all the states on, bar the five that remain open, so I think that is what people expected and what Betfair meant. Trouble is, as I suggested in the other post, maybe in not settling, Betfair might inadvertantly have changed the meaning along the lines you suggest.
Exactly. Betfair are being inconsistent. The way they settled most of the States is exactly the way most of us expected it to be done. If they had something else in mind, or they wished to change the rules mid-event they had to explain themselves. They haven't.
To be honest, I suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy but it is bloody aggravating.
If there's no legal challenge in a state and the loser has conceded that state it seems fair enough to settle those states while leaving only those in dispute to be still in play.
Would have been fair enough if something to that effect had been stated in the rules, but it wasn't. The rules are very clear and the settlements to date have fallen squarely within the rules. The trouble is that the States which have not been settled also fall squarely within the same rules, and no reason has been given for treating them differently. The reason no reason has been given is that there is no reason. They're making the rules up as they go along.
It isn't good Philip. I've been involved in betting all my life, and so have generations of my family before me. This is a breach of trust. If you can't trust the bookie, don't bet them.
The reason I've seen quoted from them is they are waiting for legal challenges to be resolved.
That seems different to there being no reason.
That wasn't stated in their rules, nor even implied by them, nor does it make any kind of sense in its own terms. They may as well have said they are waiting for Santa Claus to arrive. That too would have been 'a reason', of sorts.
To be fair there is a difference between waiting for legal disputes over the results to be resolved and waiting for Santa.
If you'd bet on Trump and the Supreme Court ruled that he was the winner by eg disqualifying enouh "illegal" Biden votes then they'd have to pay out on Trump.
A very large number of the bar staff, waiters, counter staff etc in London (for example) are from abroad. They come to London, and tolerate the low wages and poor accommodation for a variety of reasons.
Some because of poor prospects at home. Some because they are studying or trying to. Some for the partying...
Without an income - many were in by-the-hour jobs - they will have gone home to be unemployed, but live at Mum & Dad Hotel.
This is the charity I mentioned last night, you get your money back (most of the time)
Great news – you have received 5 repayments to your lendwithcare.org account. This means your chosen recipients are doing well enough to pay back more instalments of the loan they received from you. You'll find your repayment details and your account balance below.
Entrepreneur Payment Type Amount
Pov Phan Buffer Repayment (?) £1.38
Alexandra Jacqueline Maita Estrada Buffer Repayment (?) £1.35
Hospitalisations a little up, but still looking like wiggling around a solid downhill trend. Deaths still climbing against date of death, but that's because they're still baked in. When we look back, I'm more and more sure we'll see the peak against date of death somewhere between 20-24 November.
Updated projection of baked-in deaths (as the ONS survey data has been updated). As before:
- Red is actual deaths across the UK, up to 1 week before the most recent reported deaths (to avoid the worst of the data lag - although the most recent day or three on the graph will almost certainly see a bit of growth). - Light blue is projections of death across the UK based on 1.2 x average rate of death from hospitalisations in England, delayed 10 days. - Light yellow is projections of death across the UK based on 1.2 x average rate of death from infections in England from the ONS survey, delayed 19 days (future dates based on onwards projection of R=0.91 during lockdown as that seems to be around what we've seen)
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
Is no one else more concerned about the lack of a 2024 market than when we get paid our Biden winnings? Would be some great bets available I am sure. Romney, Clinton, both Obamas, Bloomberg et al.
The 2024 election should be an amazing betting heat.
Obviously Biden should be favourite, followed by Harris but there's outside chances for a whole heap of Dems if you fancy longer odds. The GOP side likely has about 3 or 4 Trumps in it (Don, Don Jr, Ivanka, Eric) as well as potentially another run for Rubio, perhaps Pence. There'll also be the wild cards - Bloomberg, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and so on and so forth.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Yesterdays man along with Trump
Yesterday's man but he has had a more lasting legacy on UK politics than anyone in the last thirty years. We'll be living with Brexit, the monument to the Tory party's fear of Farage, for decades to come.
In some ways it's fortunate Covid came several years after Brexit, by which time Farage's magic had been somewhat diminished by the cold draught of reality. Imagine the mayhem he'd be causing now if he still wielded the influence he did around 2014.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
I didn't say that.
The aftermath of the pandemic will be with us for years after lockdown. The lockdown itself will have gone already though.
NHS neglect is getting worse when the COVID rate spikes leading to the NHS only being able to handle COVID cases and needing to cancel eg cancer screenings. Lockdown was designed to prevent not cause NHS neglect.
Huge pressure on regulator and government over oxford vaccine...if you approve something, which the makers say they need to run further tests on. But to not go with it, will probably mean another 6 months delay in getting UK population done.
The anti-vaxxers are going to leap all over the news.
Sounds like I underestimated the effect in my morning header. If true then we could have had the first year of net emigration since the 1980s.
It probably shouldn't surprise us if there is net emigration this year. I can't imagine many are immigrating into the UK this year and even if only a small proportion of migrants who have come in recent years "return home" then that would result in net emigration.
Huge pressure on regulator and government over oxford vaccine...if you approve something, which the makers say they need to run further tests on. The anti-vaxxers are going to leap all over the news.
The makers can say they have the data needed but more tests are needed for the US market because they don't accept UK data (which is true).
Huge pressure on regulator and government over oxford vaccine...if you approve something, which the makers say they need to run further tests on. The anti-vaxxers are going to leap all over the news.
It's a bigger pickle than the Betfair presidential trading team.
Huge pressure on regulator and government over oxford vaccine...if you approve something, which the makers say they need to run further tests on. The anti-vaxxers are going to leap all over the news.
Indeed, I suspect it'll get worse if someone connected to the AZ/Oxford vaccine is a mate of Boris Johnson and will make squillions from this vaccine.
Mr. Dawning, the era of massive political turbulence is not over yet.
Farage may yet wield significant influence. If the PM agrees any deal, the resurgence of Farage seems eminently possible.
No it really isn't.
Especially since there is no Proportional Representation European Parliament for him to get publicity in or have elections in. Farage's political career is over.
Mr. Dawning, the era of massive political turbulence is not over yet.
Farage may yet wield significant influence. If the PM agrees any deal, the resurgence of Farage seems eminently possible.
Darkly, I am looking forward to seeing Farage complaining that this is the wrong type of no deal as Kent gets turned into a giant toilet in the new year.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
Yes, the (ETA politico-) economic consequences of the pandemic and Brexit could be 1992-1997 all over again, when the Conservative government screwed over its natural supporters (sky-high interest rates, negative equity) to stay in the ERM only to throw in the towel, leading to a Labour landslide.
Don't forget there are other vaccinations coming likely through in Q1 2021 - GSK/Sanofi will be starting P3 trials in early December.
News on Imperials effort is very quiet.
There was talk also talk of challenge trials to begin in the New Year, but I don't know which vaccines they were going to test. Oxford previously ruled out theirs being involved.
A small but significant portion could slide off to I Can't Believe It's Not UKIP, whilst boring centrists look at the dimwitted ditherer in Downing Street, see Starmer being a bit tedious but actually capable of answering hard questions like "How many children do you have?" and decide the court jester should get off the bloody throne.
The PCP would be advised to get their knives nice and sharp.
...Soriot said he didn’t expect the additional trial to hold up regulatory approvals in the U.K. and European Union. Clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration may take longer because the regulator is unlikely to approve the vaccine on the basis of studies conducted elsewhere, especially given the questions over the results, he said. Authorization in some countries is still expected before the end of the year, he said...
"But holiday trips overseas have also been a factor in the Covid-19 infection rate and the Scottish National party government has made only limited efforts to enforce the quarantine imposed on travellers returning from countries with relatively high levels of infection."
Time and time and time again...
And now we've got "ski season" coming up.....where the initial UK outbreak came from.....
Luckily the Italians seem to have decided that's off this season and the German's appear to be be putting the pressure on the rest of the EU to put in place a ban it across Europe.
Austria are flouting that and have opened the ski slopes to benefit from everyone else's being closed.
I’m told that the French ski slopes are going bankrupt and in talks to be bailed out by the government
Comments
Frappe encore du MacORON
https://twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/1331937238213664769?s=20
Of course they are almost certainly in fine financial trim, but it is simply irrational to say "LOL this is a better return than I'd get from my bank" as if the differential in credit risk did not exist (as well as the fact that banks are not allowed to confiscate your entire deposit because the SCOTUS has a brain fart).
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I'm very pissed off with BF at the moment. The rules were clear - projected winner. AP and every mainstream broadcaster has a projected Biden win. The certifications have come in. There is no justification whatsoever for keeping this market open.
If they want a long market post election day then put one up that says the winner is whoever mounts the steps to be sworn into office on 21st jan 2021 at noon.
https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1331981349771735041?s=20
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
*OK, so properly, total "matched", which is complete at the time it is matched.
Especially since its Tier 2 not Tier 3 (I thought it was advisory not to travel Tier 3)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwpH_MarfSM
So long as you and the installers engage in mask wearing/social distancing (and you're not required to self isolate on the install date) you should be fine.
To be honest, I suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy but it is bloody aggravating.
https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1331964493983748102
What legal challenges are now still outstanding given certification has already happened?
Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire
7/1
State Combinations - State Betting Combinations
To assume cock-up rather than conspiracy, my best guess is the size of the main market has triggered some sort of internal escalation procedure that's being over-cautious over settling.
I wonder what the positivity rate is now?
https://twitter.com/thewillmetcalfe/status/1331995615052566530?s=21
It isn't good Philip. I've been involved in betting all my life, and so have generations of my family before me. This is a breach of trust. If you can't trust the bookie, don't bet them.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18901207.angus-robertson-dragged-alex-salmond-affair-inquiry
That seems different to there being no reason.
We couldn't travel to the house during the original lockdown so I assumed it would be the same, but no info at all.
The original installation went pear shaped (you don't want to know!) so had to be rescheduled and I just got a date, but neither I nor the installer knew if it was allowed.
Cheers for the feedback.
https://twitter.com/business/status/1331994822534713349
Much prefer Ladbrokes. I think the Betfair Exchange is mostly fine for F1.
Edit: On reflection, when you look at some of the legal objections the Trump team has put forward, the Santa Claus clause would be relatively strong.
https://www.upi.com/News_Photos/view/upi/56c5ddd1180163752af927868d31373a/Secretary-of-State-Katherine-Harris-certifies-the-vote/
But then there were several legal cases that tried to undo that certification (mostly to do with allowing more votes to be counted) that the Florida Supreme allowed after Nov 26th.
If you'd bet on Trump and the Supreme Court ruled that he was the winner by eg disqualifying enouh "illegal" Biden votes then they'd have to pay out on Trump.
Some because of poor prospects at home. Some because they are studying or trying to. Some for the partying...
Without an income - many were in by-the-hour jobs - they will have gone home to be unemployed, but live at Mum & Dad Hotel.
Great news – you have received 5 repayments to your lendwithcare.org account. This means your chosen recipients are doing well enough to pay back more instalments of the loan they received from you. You'll find your repayment details and your account balance below.
Entrepreneur Payment Type Amount
Pov Phan Buffer Repayment (?) £1.38
Alexandra Jacqueline Maita Estrada Buffer Repayment (?) £1.35
Thumbwe Group Buffer Repayment (?) £1.37
Kumbukani Group Buffer Repayment (?) £1.36
Pemphero Group Buffer Repayment (?) £1.37
Total £6.83
Deaths still climbing against date of death, but that's because they're still baked in. When we look back, I'm more and more sure we'll see the peak against date of death somewhere between 20-24 November.
Updated projection of baked-in deaths (as the ONS survey data has been updated). As before:
- Red is actual deaths across the UK, up to 1 week before the most recent reported deaths (to avoid the worst of the data lag - although the most recent day or three on the graph will almost certainly see a bit of growth).
- Light blue is projections of death across the UK based on 1.2 x average rate of death from hospitalisations in England, delayed 10 days.
- Light yellow is projections of death across the UK based on 1.2 x average rate of death from infections in England from the ONS survey, delayed 19 days (future dates based on onwards projection of R=0.91 during lockdown as that seems to be around what we've seen)
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
Obviously Biden should be favourite, followed by Harris but there's outside chances for a whole heap of Dems if you fancy longer odds. The GOP side likely has about 3 or 4 Trumps in it (Don, Don Jr, Ivanka, Eric) as well as potentially another run for Rubio, perhaps Pence. There'll also be the wild cards - Bloomberg, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and so on and so forth.
The aftermath of the pandemic will be with us for years after lockdown. The lockdown itself will have gone already though.
NHS neglect is getting worse when the COVID rate spikes leading to the NHS only being able to handle COVID cases and needing to cancel eg cancer screenings. Lockdown was designed to prevent not cause NHS neglect.
The anti-vaxxers are going to leap all over the news.
Farage may yet wield significant influence. If the PM agrees any deal, the resurgence of Farage seems eminently possible.
Especially since there is no Proportional Representation European Parliament for him to get publicity in or have elections in. Farage's political career is over.
There was talk also talk of challenge trials to begin in the New Year, but I don't know which vaccines they were going to test. Oxford previously ruled out theirs being involved.
A small but significant portion could slide off to I Can't Believe It's Not UKIP, whilst boring centrists look at the dimwitted ditherer in Downing Street, see Starmer being a bit tedious but actually capable of answering hard questions like "How many children do you have?" and decide the court jester should get off the bloody throne.
The PCP would be advised to get their knives nice and sharp.