politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A worrying trend for Ed Miliband’s team: Labour’s 2010 Lib

TheWatcher said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

After Newsnight last night and Andy Burnham with Kay Burley this afternoon it is difficult not to conclude that labour really need a new health secretary with immediate effect if they hope to gain any political points out of the NHS. Also my wife who is not interested in politics commented this afternoon that every time she hears David Cameron he seems to get better and better and that Ed Miliband just gets worse and worse.

It's too close to the GE now. Burnham's only get out could be 'health reasons', either himself or a family member.

isam said:

Pong said:

Th NS article on the last thread is fascinating.

http://may2015.com/featured/may-2015-and-the-art-of-political-betting/

I remain of the view that bookies will struggle to make money out of political betting / current affairs. It is one of the few market areas where informed, shrewd punters have a substantial edge over the bookies.

As part of a general (much overdue) bookkeeping exercise, I listed every one of my fixed odds political bets on a spreadsheet last night (not including my substantial betfair positions/trades).

In total, I've staked £1044 on 52 bets. If all the bets won at the odds that I took, I'd be £12351 in profit. Bear in mind, this is profit, not including the return of the stake. Also, It would be impossible for all of the bets to come in - but for the purpose of this exercise, that doesn't matter. The odds have since lengthened on 2 bets, remained the same on 9 and have shortened on all the others.

The key point here is - If I were to place those exact same bets now (for the same stakes) at the best odds currently available, my profit would be only £5816. If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.

That's quite an edge I have on the bookies.

I'm not willy-waving here. I'm just wondering if there are enough heart-over-head mug-punters, betting enough cash at poor odds for the bookies to offset their losses to the sharps.

I hope so, but I'm sceptical.

Mirror Mirror on the wall, who is the shrewdest of them all?

Tissue_Price said:

Pong said:

If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.

No, you wouldn't. Cash out is based on taking the "other side" of the price. If you back something at 4/1 and it shortens to 2/1, you only make about 33% (because you have to back the other side at 4/11).

If you back something at 25/1, and it shortens to 12/1, you just get your money back on a cash out (because bookies usually bet 1/25 v 12/1).

Many of these selections have shortened precisely because you backed them. Chances are, they're good bets, but chances also are that the bookies have over-reacted to your money.

audreyanne said:

I'd say the 11-20 at 9/2 at Ladbrokes is a very good bet right now. It's much shorter at WillHill , for a reason. And if they do go 11-20 that's pretty much my 20 blue gains sewn up.

isam said:

Tissue_Price said:

Pong said:

If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.

No, you wouldn't. Cash out is based on taking the "other side" of the price. If you back something at 4/1 and it shortens to 2/1, you only make about 33% (because you have to back the other side at 4/11).

If you back something at 25/1, and it shortens to 12/1, you just get your money back on a cash out (because bookies usually bet 1/25 v 12/1).

Many of these selections have shortened precisely because you backed them. Chances are, they're good bets, but chances also are that the bookies have over-reacted to your money.

Its why the cashout button is muggy... you are paying the over round twice

Pong said:

isam said:

Pong said:

Th NS article on the last thread is fascinating.

http://may2015.com/featured/may-2015-and-the-art-of-political-betting/

I remain of the view that bookies will struggle to make money out of political betting / current affairs. It is one of the few market areas where informed, shrewd punters have a substantial edge over the bookies.

As part of a general (much overdue) bookkeeping exercise, I listed every one of my fixed odds political bets on a spreadsheet last night (not including my substantial betfair positions/trades).

In total, I've staked £1044 on 52 bets. If all the bets won at the odds that I took, I'd be £12351 in profit. Bear in mind, this is profit, not including the return of the stake. Also, It would be impossible for all of the bets to come in - but for the purpose of this exercise, that doesn't matter. The odds have since lengthened on 2 bets, remained the same on 9 and have shortened on all the others.

The key point here is - If I were to place those exact same bets now (for the same stakes) at the best odds currently available, my profit would be only £5816. If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.

That's quite an edge I have on the bookies.

I'm not willy-waving here. I'm just wondering if there are enough heart-over-head mug-punters, betting enough cash at poor odds for the bookies to offset their losses to the sharps.

I hope so, but I'm sceptical.

Mirror Mirror on the wall, who is the shrewdest of them all?

OK, now that is willy waving

Have you done a similar calculation, sam?

audreyanne said:

surbiton said:

Dair said:

audreyanne said:

The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory 3/3

8 other outside chances to watch:

Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Argyll and Bute
Eastbourne
Eastleigh
Edinburgh West
Leeds North West
Thornbury and Yate
Twickenham (shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose?)


My outside tip for THE shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose Twickenham


My apologies to those who had to endure this yesterday afternoon

You keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.

She has no knowledge of what is going on in Scotland. The reason the Lib Dems will be slaughtered is precisely because they went into bed with the Tories.

Again, if you look carefully, actually even if you don't look carefully but instead simply look, you'll see that there are only 2 Scottish seats in the list of 25 possibles. Neither of those two are out of the realms.

Tissue_Price said:

Pong said:

If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.

No, you wouldn't. Cash out is based on taking the "other side" of the price. If you back something at 4/1 and it shortens to 2/1, you only make about 33% (because you have to back the other side at 4/11).

If you back something at 25/1, and it shortens to 12/1, you just get your money back on a cash out (because bookies usually bet 1/25 v 12/1).

Many of these selections have shortened precisely because you backed them. Chances are, they're good bets, but chances also are that the bookies have over-reacted to your money.

Pulpstar said:

Weight of cash suggests Thornbury and Yate is safe, not a single bet at 11-4 there for the Conservatives.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/thornbury-and-yate/winning-party

TheWatcher said:

Grandiose said:

TheWatcher said:

rcs1000 said:

Just a little Greece update:

An unhealthy dynamic is appearing in the Greek-troika public posturing. It looks like Syriza will cancel the €950m sale of the land on which the former Athens airport stood. This is a particularly odd one, as the development of this land would create jobs (as well bringing in €950m to the government coffers). It's also a sign that Syriza is more in hock to the Chavez side of his party than to the Lula side.

In addition, his demands for a 50% haircut to Greek debts will clearly be completely unacceptable to the IMF. There are ways of lowering interest bills and pushing repayment of capital into the 2040s, which would have the effect of reducing the effective value of Greek debts by c. 50% - but meaningful haircuts would be politically unacceptable across the Eurozone, and would be straight vetoed by the IMF.

Germany, the IMF and the ECB have now all stepped up the rhetoric on the other side of the table, making it clear that (in the case of the IMF and the ECB) there will be no haircut, and that (in the case of Germany) they are not "scared" of Grexit.

With tensions rising, the possibility of a disorderly default and Grexit are rising. If Syriza were to try and call the bluff of the creditors by threatening to suspend interest payments, then I think that rating agencies would immediately declare a technical default, and the ECB would cease to accept Greek bonds as collateral. This would result in the immediate closure of the Greek banking system, due to the withdrawal of Emergency Liquidity Assistance, and (in all probability) the exit of Greece from the Eurozone within 24 hours.

To my mind, backtracking on the privatization of the Athens airport land (and some of the comments regarding the role of tourism) are the most worrying signs- it suggests the leadership is completely oblivious to economic reality. (Whether the Eurozone is right for Greece is somewhat beside the point, when you're opposing selling off unused land for development as it's part of some capitalist plot... well, you're the one who's lost the plot...)

They'd better start printing Drachma, or find someone else who can.

Maybe they are. You wouldn't tell anyone if you were...

There are only a few banknote paper manufacturers, and printers. Someone would know...

TCPoliticalBetting said:

More details on why UKIP is struggling in Portsmouth. As Farage boasts, "not from Oxbridge".....

Ishmael_X said:

MikeSmithson said:

Lots of speculation here without looking at the polling numbers.

The last two waves of Ashcroft CON-LD battlegrounds each had average swings to CON of just 2%. Now there was an awful lot of variation between the seats but they don't, as some on here are suggesting, point to big gains. Possibly 7 but maybe 10 max.

In most of these defences the LDs are far better organised with more skilled ground troops and far better databases.

Clearly where an incumbent MP like Alan Beith is standing down then it will be a harder. But the Ashcroft polling had the yellows ahead amongst alll those expressing a preference in his seat.

I don't think I am ever going to understand this. That is historical polling, however specialised and expensive and interesting it was at the time. If I want to know what the weather is going to be like tomorrow where I live, a bespoke micro-climatological forecast for my house and garden conducted by a team of met office experts, if it's more than 24 hours old, is bugger all value compared with just listening to the national forecast.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

More details on why UKIP is struggling in Portsmouth. As Farage boasts, "not from Oxbridge".....

Farage
"Mr Lovegrove may have fallen off the rails earlier in his life but he is now totally reformed and we are standing by him 100 per cent. We knew about his past.
‘With any political party, having people from all walks of life is a bonus."

I wouldn't bet on Mr Lovegrove surviving as the local UKIP chairman for long...

rcs1000 said:

chestnut said:

Ashcroft has polled every LD seat in England and Wales where the winning margin was under 20%.

Tories lead in nine, are level in two and are within a few points in another four.

Labour also lead in nine, with Cambridge the only close call.

And the LibDems have gone backwards and the Conservatives 'forward' since then.

That being said, Huppert will hold on to Cambridge.