politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Podcast discussion on general election betting between Mike

Ah William Hill

Oh right I thought Sharpe was chief odds compiler !

Anecdote time:

A new poster for the Con council seats of Evington and North Evington vandalised the day it went up on Humberstone rd.

I wore my tartan tie (usually kept for Burns night) today. No animosity to Scots or indeed remarks about the election from either patients or staff.

One of my recently naturalised foreign Doctors popped his head into my office to sing God save the Queen. I looked blank for a bit until the penny dropped: the Queens birthday. On the one hand he has assimilated both knowledge and loyalty, but on the other hand he has not assimilated British reticence in these matters...

I must say that Mike sounds nothing like I thought he would. I thought he would be more of a Terry Pratchett sort of tone.

WHAT DID THE BLOKE IN THE SHOP SAY?????

I think someone is trying to force the price down on EM4PM. £4500 looking to back 1.79 (with commission) when Ladbrokes would probably happily lay 5/6 and plenty of firms are 4/5.

TGOHF said:

Tissue_Price said:

I think someone is trying to force the price down on EM4PM. £4500 looking to back 1.79 (with commission) when Ladbrokes would probably happily lay 5/6 and plenty of firms are 4/5.

Naughty naughty.

It's a free market. Ultimately someone will probably call their bluff.

nigel4england said:

Love this:

https://www.facebook.com/977HTZFM/photos/a.100562179997735.144.100295090024444/705812092806071/?type=1

Good that ;-)

Talking about good,how good is your youth team.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3047722/Manchester-City-U18-1-3-Chelsea-U18-Tammy-Abraham-stars-Blues-FA-Youth-Cup-final-advantage-west-London.html

FPT: @ManchesterKurt and @JJ

New, and clear, lines.

The current system is constrained - it's about changing those constraints. If you stick a fast train on a crap line you'll get tiny improvements - I'm reasonably sure that there's no degradation. Fast trains on fast lines (exclusively) though works.

ManchesterKurt said:

JosiasJessop said:

Omnium said:

ManchesterKurt said:

But maglev is terrible at fixing the track capacity issues which is the primary reason for HS2.

A maglev track cannot run onto other cities that don't have maglev track that HS2 does.

Also, the speeds wouldn't actually be quicker, the limitations are curvature and acceleration given the human body didn't appreciate massive acceleration around corners, up and down hills, away from stations or breaking to slow down.

Great is you've limitless budget, don't care about blight and aren't interested in resolving capacity issues, if you're only interested in speed, that isn't what HS2 is planned to achieve though.

Fast trains = more capacity. Fluid dynamics really.

There's no problem if you build straight lines. You could easily build banked tracks within the tunnels to mitigate that. There is a slight problem with the 'if we crash you're deader that dead".

Tunnels don't 'blight', and as mentioned above fast=more capacity. However cost is really problematic.

"Fast trains = more capacity."

AIUI that is very wrong, although less wrong if they ever get ERTMS level 3 up and running (although IANAE).

The reason is the way block signalling works, and the vastly increased stopping distances for high-speed trains. Basically, you can fit more slow-speed trains on a line due to the fact they have shorter stopping distances. High-speed trains need longer blocks, or to take up two or three blocks, whereas a slow train may only take up one block, allowing the other blocks to be filled with other trains.

Where high speed routes win for capacity is in separating slow-moving freight and frequently-stopping local passenger traffic from the high-speed traffic.This frees up capacity on both lines.

I think we have an armchair expert who thinks that they know more than the transport planners around the world.

That's slightly unfair. High-speed Maglev is a futuristic, sexy technology. I'd love it to work, and I can see why others do (the same sort of reason attracts me to Boris Island, amongst others).

However I've read enough, and talked to enough people, to believe that it is virtually never the best solution to a problem, at least with current technology.

But I quite like dreamers ...

How about this for a civil engineering horrorshow:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/21/huge-10-ton-fatberg-removed-chelsea-sewer-london

Bit dodgy, Chelsea...

Omnium said:

FPT: @ManchesterKurt and @JJ

New, and clear, lines.

The current system is constrained - it's about changing those constraints. If you stick a fast train on a crap line you'll get tiny improvements - I'm reasonably sure that there's no degradation. Fast trains on fast lines (exclusively) though works.

New and clear lines, you mean like HS2?

So, does HS2 or maglev remove more intercity services off the legacy network?

From the WCML, by building HS2 from London to Brum and Manc you also remove the intercity services from Glasgow, Carlisle, Lancaster, Preston, Wigan, Warrington, Liverpool, Crewe etc from the WCML - freeing up many paths on the WCML for more freight and commuter services between the towns and cities on the WCML.

Now, please answer this very simple question, if you build a brand new maglev line from London to Brum and Manc, how many of those services from Glasgow, Carlisle, Lancaster, Preston, Wigan, Warrington, Liverpool, Crewe etc can be removed from the old WCML?

Simple question that gets straight to the point as to why maglev is useless.

Simple question that I guarantee you will not even try to answer.

You seem to be missing the point that HS2 creates the capacity on the OLD network for new services on the OLD network, not just on HS2.

asjohnstone said:

Tissue_Price said:

TGOHF said:

Tissue_Price said:

I think someone is trying to force the price down on EM4PM. £4500 looking to back 1.79 (with commission) when Ladbrokes would probably happily lay 5/6 and plenty of firms are 4/5.

Naughty naughty.

It's a free market. Ultimately someone will probably call their bluff.

It seems very out of whack with the next government market where the sum total of Lab maj, Lab min and any other imply a probability of just less than 50%

Lay Ed PM and back the various Labour next governments for some free money

Hmm - not sure about the maths there - I make all the lab govts + any other = 59.2% @ current odds. That's equivalent to backing EdPM @ about 1.7

TGOHF said:

Ooof
@SkyNews: Tesco to announce statutory pre-tax losses of well over £5bn, Sky News understands http://t.co/DNAqN1ACPj http://t.co/d1uOu7fx1X

Why is it called a "statutory" pre-tax loss?

TGOHF said:

RobD said:

TGOHF said:

Ooof
@SkyNews: Tesco to announce statutory pre-tax losses of well over £5bn, Sky News understands http://t.co/DNAqN1ACPj http://t.co/d1uOu7fx1X

Why is it called a "statutory" pre-tax loss?

Definition of statutory profit or loss
A statutory loss (or profit) is simply the bottom line of a company's profit and loss account. It includes everything that must be added and deducted from revenue to comply with legal and accounting requirements.
Companies often contrast it with "underlying profit" (or loss) which would normally exclude "exceptional" items, leaving, as some might put it, profit without the bad stuff.

So if they sold, for example, a £5bn bit of property in a one-off transaction, that would be a statutory pre-tax loss of £5bn, but an underlying loss of £0?

Lab Votes, Lab Seats 235.52
Lab votes, Con seats 210.49
Con votes, Lab Seats 188.95
Con Votes, Con seats 45.43 atm,

Hmm be interesting to watch the Yougov later.

Evening all, what is Labours biggest lead in the Yougov's this year?

TGOHF said:

Ooof
@SkyNews: Tesco to announce statutory pre-tax losses of well over £5bn, Sky News understands http://t.co/DNAqN1ACPj http://t.co/d1uOu7fx1X

Understands what? Understands what it's like to make a loss?

Tissue_Price said:

peter_from_putney said:

*** Betting Post ***
If asked to nominate the very worst value political bet in the entire market - and there are literally hundreds and hundreds to choose from, my pick would have to be Betfair Sportsbook's odds of 0.7/1 for the Greens Deposit Losses to be less than 20%.
Already dipping nationally below the crucial deposit-saving 5% level and continuing to leak support as the GE draws ever closer, they are standing for the first time in literally scores of seats where they have little or no established organised support structure within such constituencies.
In these circumstances, I would assess the correct odds for this bet as being in the region of at least 3/1 - 4/1. Better value in my view would be the 41% - 50% band on offer at 9/2 or even the 51% - 60% band available at 7/1.
As ever, DYOR.

PfP - you're reading it the wrong way round. The 0.7/1 is for them to SAVE fewer than 20% of their deposits.

Some of us are on that at 8/1.

Really? I stand to be corrected but that's not the way I read the market in question on Oddschecker:
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/greens-deposit-losses-percentage

ManchesterKurt said:

Omnium said:

FPT: @ManchesterKurt and @JJ

New, and clear, lines.

The current system is constrained - it's about changing those constraints. If you stick a fast train on a crap line you'll get tiny improvements - I'm reasonably sure that there's no degradation. Fast trains on fast lines (exclusively) though works.

New and clear lines, you mean like HS2?

So, does HS2 or maglev remove more intercity services off the legacy network?

From the WCML, by building HS2 from London to Brum and Manc you also remove the intercity services from Glasgow, Carlisle, Lancaster, Preston, Wigan, Warrington, Liverpool, Crewe etc from the WCML - freeing up many paths on the WCML for more freight and commuter services between the towns and cities on the WCML.

Now, please answer this very simple question, if you build a brand new maglev line from London to Brum and Manc, how many of those services from Glasgow, Carlisle, Lancaster, Preston, Wigan, Warrington, Liverpool, Crewe etc can be removed from the old WCML?

Simple question that gets straight to the point as to why maglev is useless.

Simple question that I guarantee you will not even try to answer.

You seem to be missing the point that HS2 creates the capacity on the OLD network for new services on the OLD network, not just on HS2.

I shall try to answer!

A Maglev line by definition wouldn't be interchangeable. So such a line would remove no existing services. Zero.

As there's no overlap at all then I don't see that you've defined 'useless' very well.

HS2 does provide capacity over the old network. Great - it's a plus. However I can perhaps give you a great dial-up connection these days, but you ain't going to embrace it against the new technologies available to access the internet.

RobD said:

compouter2 said:

Evening all, what is Labours biggest lead in the Yougov's this year?

4%, 4-5 March and 27-28 March

Tories had a 4% lead on 8-9 March

Think I will stick around for this one ;-)

TGOHF said:

Ooof
@SkyNews: Tesco to announce statutory pre-tax losses of well over £5bn, Sky News understands http://t.co/DNAqN1ACPj http://t.co/d1uOu7fx1X

It's all write downs, way less exciting than it could have been, they don't (seem) to have cash flow problems and its cash flow problems that kill companies.

Hadn't realised the Tories had ever managed such a large lead with YouGov. False alarm then, even a repeat, if it happens, would be full

This had better not be a no change.

Has anybody told the Metro there is an election on? 100's of people dying trying to cross the Med to Europe? ISIS still killing people every day.....

Tomorrow's front page with the big important story...Jamelia says fatties shouldn't be able to buy cool clothes on the high street.

Jesus wept.

Tories will be ahead

RobD said:

I'm gonna go for a tie.

Edit: or Tories on 42%, as I said before

42% would be a game changer tbh.

Lab < 30%

peter_from_putney said:

foxinsoxuk said:

How about this for a civil engineering horrorshow:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/21/huge-10-ton-fatberg-removed-chelsea-sewer-london

Bit dodgy, Chelsea...

Albeit it a better class of fat.

My dad's company had a contract to supply a large pumping unit every few months. Each time it was used for a couple of days to pump and flush a sump - hardly an unusual request.

Unfortunately the sump belonged to an abattoir.

Even after cleaning, it used to be in such a hideous, stinky state that the same unit was kept on some clear land until the next time they hired it, and was not hired out to anyone else.

It would have been far cheaper for them to buy one. And less messy for us.

Pulpstar said:

RobD said:

I'm gonna go for a tie.

Edit: or Tories on 42%, as I said before

42% would be a game changer tbh.

I am pretty sure I would feel a great disturbance in the Force. As if a million Basils cried out momentarily, and then fell silent..............

Greece is just politics now. We'll either have the most scandalous betrayal of electoral promises ever, or chaos.

It won't be the latter because none of the interested parties want that.

Lord knows what the Greeks will make of this!

asjohnstone said:

Pong said:

asjohnstone said:

Tissue_Price said:

TGOHF said:

Tissue_Price said:

I think someone is trying to force the price down on EM4PM. £4500 looking to back 1.79 (with commission) when Ladbrokes would probably happily lay 5/6 and plenty of firms are 4/5.

Naughty naughty.

It's a free market. Ultimately someone will probably call their bluff.

It seems very out of whack with the next government market where the sum total of Lab maj, Lab min and any other imply a probability of just less than 50%

Lay Ed PM and back the various Labour next governments for some free money

Hmm - not sure about the maths there - I make all the lab govts + any other = 59.2% @ current odds. That's equivalent to backing EdPM @ about 1.7

Bugger. I missed out the Lab / Lib Dem option.

Thanks for the spot.

Although I'm not exactly sure what the 10.5 for any other covers in realistic terms? Lab / SNP and Lab / Con grand I guess.

Milliband has ruled it out formal SNP deal, Grand seems improbable.

I think I'm going to lay this.

I've been backing "any other"

My reading of this is eg;

Con minority with DUP attending cabinet
LAB + LD coalition, with the SNP providing c&s, or abstaining

Basically any arrangement that isn't specifically listed, of which there are many.

Pulpstar said:

Hanretty is the only chap providing constituency probabilities.

Pulps
Doesn't EC provide these too- well predictions which are as good as?
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/regions.html

RobD said:

I'm gonna go for a tie.

A kipper tie? Or has that one been done?

Tissue_Price said:

peter_from_putney said:

Tissue_Price said:

peter_from_putney said:

*** Betting Post ***
If asked to nominate the very worst value political bet in the entire market - and there are literally hundreds and hundreds to choose from, my pick would have to be Betfair Sportsbook's odds of 0.7/1 for the Greens Deposit Losses to be less than 20%.
Already dipping nationally below the crucial deposit-saving 5% level and continuing to leak support as the GE draws ever closer, they are standing for the first time in literally scores of seats where they have little or no established organised support structure within such constituencies.
In these circumstances, I would assess the correct odds for this bet as being in the region of at least 3/1 - 4/1. Better value in my view would be the 41% - 50% band on offer at 9/2 or even the 51% - 60% band available at 7/1.
As ever, DYOR.

PfP - you're reading it the wrong way round. The 0.7/1 is for them to SAVE fewer than 20% of their deposits.

Some of us are on that at 8/1.

Really? I stand to be corrected but that's not the way I read the market in question on Oddschecker:
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/greens-deposit-losses-percentage

Never trust Oddschecker on unusual market descriptions - go to the source.

PS Given your misapprehension, you should have been advising MAX BETTING the 40/1, shame on you!

Yes, I see it now ...... blasted Oddschecker getting this 100% round their neck and making me look a complete idiot .... Grrh!
Sorry PBers.

If Lab is ahead, compouter2 must surely be an insider!

Pong said:

asjohnstone said:

Pong said:

asjohnstone said:

Tissue_Price said:

TGOHF said:

Tissue_Price said:

I think someone is trying to force the price down on EM4PM. £4500 looking to back 1.79 (with commission) when Ladbrokes would probably happily lay 5/6 and plenty of firms are 4/5.

Naughty naughty.

It's a free market. Ultimately someone will probably call their bluff.

It seems very out of whack with the next government market where the sum total of Lab maj, Lab min and any other imply a probability of just less than 50%

Lay Ed PM and back the various Labour next governments for some free money

Hmm - not sure about the maths there - I make all the lab govts + any other = 59.2% @ current odds. That's equivalent to backing EdPM @ about 1.7

Bugger. I missed out the Lab / Lib Dem option.

Thanks for the spot.

Although I'm not exactly sure what the 10.5 for any other covers in realistic terms? Lab / SNP and Lab / Con grand I guess.

Milliband has ruled it out formal SNP deal, Grand seems improbable.

I think I'm going to lay this.

I've been backing "any other"

My reading of this is eg;

Con minority with DUP attending cabinet
LAB + LD coalition, with the SNP providing c&s, or abstaining

Basically any arrangement that isn't specifically listed, of which there are many.

Wouldn't Lab + Lib Dem coalition be settled as err Lib/Lab coalition even if its a minority coalition ?

OGH!!!! What a great broadcasting voice. I feel he should have been around in 1940, giving reassuring talks to the nation during the dark days of the war.

TheScreamingEagles said:

YouGov/Sun Conservatives on 35%, Labour 34%, Ukip 13%, Lib Dems 7% and Greens 5%.

NEWTON DUNN RAMPS THE MOE

The more they bleat, the more it suggests the pain.

Chuka Umunna‏@ChukaUmunna·5 mins5 minutes ago
Major desperation from the PM & his party in every sense today. Their negative & divisive campaign is tanking and they don't know what to do

Pong said:

asjohnstone said:

Pong said:

asjohnstone said:

Tissue_Price said:

TGOHF said:

Tissue_Price said:

I think someone is trying to force the price down on EM4PM. £4500 looking to back 1.79 (with commission) when Ladbrokes would probably happily lay 5/6 and plenty of firms are 4/5.

Naughty naughty.

It's a free market. Ultimately someone will probably call their bluff.

It seems very out of whack with the next government market where the sum total of Lab maj, Lab min and any other imply a probability of just less than 50%

Lay Ed PM and back the various Labour next governments for some free money

Hmm - not sure about the maths there - I make all the lab govts + any other = 59.2% @ current odds. That's equivalent to backing EdPM @ about 1.7

Bugger. I missed out the Lab / Lib Dem option.

Thanks for the spot.

Although I'm not exactly sure what the 10.5 for any other covers in realistic terms? Lab / SNP and Lab / Con grand I guess.

Milliband has ruled it out formal SNP deal, Grand seems improbable.

I think I'm going to lay this.

I've been backing "any other"

My reading of this is eg;

Con minority with DUP attending cabinet
LAB + LD coalition, with the SNP providing c&s, or abstaining

Basically any arrangement that isn't specifically listed, of which there are many.

My read of the market rules is that Lab + LD with SNP providing C&S would be settled as a LAB+LD coalition not as any other.

"A Coalition Government is one which has members from at least two parties attending Cabinet meetings and are said to “have a seat at Cabinet”. A minority Government would see all the Cabinet posts filled by one party, but supply and confidence would be enjoyed by that party by one or more other parties in Parliament in order to pass votes and budgets etc."


If there isn't SNP cabinet members, then it's a Lab + LD winner I think. The DUP one is interesting, I did consider it but ruled it out, what cabinet post do you think they could get? Sec State for NI is clearly off the table as this post requires a neutral figure.

you are joking.

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

RobD said:

I'm gonna go for a tie.

Edit: or Tories on 42%, as I said before

42% would be a game changer tbh.

I am pretty sure I would feel a great disturbance in the Force. As if a million Basils cried out momentarily, and then fell silent..............

With joy. Basil keeps whailing for those heady days when he was told of Crossover January, yearns for pulling away February and cries out for consistant Tory majority winning leads March. He has been known to wake up screaming out "Where the Feck is Crosbys swingback."

Still he wanders on, with his goalposts aloft and through tears of pain all he can see in front of him is six huge letters .....E....I....C....I....P.....M.

You have got to feel for the little feller.