This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 Oct 20 8.36am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Mapletree
I just learned a new word. Charism. Thanks Wisbech So have I! It was a typo!
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
mezzer Main Stand, Block F, Row 20 seat 1... 15 Oct 20 11.31am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I have been watching the odds over the past months. It wasn't that long ago that both were close to evens but Trump has been sliding fast. Now I am not a gambler so no expert on how bookies make their book but my understanding is that it isn't all based on what they themselves regard as probable but on where the punters put their money. They try to balance the book with the aim of always winning. So it's interesting to read that the bulk of the money actually being gambled is going on a Trump win rather than Biden. Presumably "invested" by Trump supporters. So if more is being gambled on a Trump win and you can still get 15-8 on him what does that say about his actual chance? If he did win at those odds it would cost the bookies a packet and I don't seem them encouraging that, so it looks to me they are offering those odds in the hope of drawing in even more money and that their appraisal of his position is that it is significantly worse than this. If anyone understands the way bookmakers do their calculations better than I do then I will be interested to read their analysis. An article here from The Independent entitled "How the Bookies Got It So Wrong" around the Referendum result, explained by a chap from Ladbrokes. Couple of interesting points I saw in it....one that the size of bets going on Remain was reflected by the more affluent expecting a Remain vote, whereas the number of bets on Leave was greater. And the dangers of "Groupthink" shown by the woman who placed the first bet in her life of £100,000 on Remain in the anticipation of a quick and easy £40,000 profit. Where was it placed? In London. Where the probability of a Leave vote was almost totally discounted by the local opinion. Personally, I successfully had bets of 7-1 on Leave, and of 6-1 on Trump in 2016. I'd take the view that Biden is a shoe in with a huge pinch of salt.
Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Spiderman Horsham 15 Oct 20 11.56am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by mezzer
An article here from The Independent entitled "How the Bookies Got It So Wrong" around the Referendum result, explained by a chap from Ladbrokes. Couple of interesting points I saw in it....one that the size of bets going on Remain was reflected by the more affluent expecting a Remain vote, whereas the number of bets on Leave was greater. And the dangers of "Groupthink" shown by the woman who placed the first bet in her life of £100,000 on Remain in the anticipation of a quick and easy £40,000 profit. Where was it placed? In London. Where the probability of a Leave vote was almost totally discounted by the local opinion. Personally, I successfully had bets of 7-1 on Leave, and of 6-1 on Trump in 2016. I'd take the view that Biden is a shoe in with a huge pinch of salt. Thanks very informative. I was in the US in 2016, several media outlets celebrating a Clinton victory early evening, with huge grins. By the morning they could hardly speak and were on the verge of tears. Perhaps Clinton shouldn’t have been so arrogant and felt she didn’t need to visit several states “ as they would definitely vote for her”, which they didn’t.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Spiderman Horsham 15 Oct 20 12.06pm | |
---|---|
Some interesting insight as to why you can’t necessarily rely on data,
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 15 Oct 20 12.41pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Spiderman
Thanks very informative. I was in the US in 2016, several media outlets celebrating a Clinton victory early evening, with huge grins. By the morning they could hardly speak and were on the verge of tears. Perhaps Clinton shouldn’t have been so arrogant and felt she didn’t need to visit several states “ as they would definitely vote for her”, which they didn’t. Bill Clinton damaged his wife's chances with his "it's her turn" comment which smacked of monarchy, that went down a lead balloon with the voters you earn the right it is not gifted to you. Somebody on here posted a left wing podcast of the last election it was hilarious. They started the night arguing how many seats Jezza would win by and then as the results from the north came in their faces got longer and longer I thought at one point they were going to top themselves. Schadenfreude
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 Oct 20 12.48pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by mezzer
An article here from The Independent entitled "How the Bookies Got It So Wrong" around the Referendum result, explained by a chap from Ladbrokes. Couple of interesting points I saw in it....one that the size of bets going on Remain was reflected by the more affluent expecting a Remain vote, whereas the number of bets on Leave was greater. And the dangers of "Groupthink" shown by the woman who placed the first bet in her life of £100,000 on Remain in the anticipation of a quick and easy £40,000 profit. Where was it placed? In London. Where the probability of a Leave vote was almost totally discounted by the local opinion. Personally, I successfully had bets of 7-1 on Leave, and of 6-1 on Trump in 2016. I'd take the view that Biden is a shoe in with a huge pinch of salt. I'll leave the merits of believing Biden to be a "shoe in" to elsewhere. My interest was about how the bookies are valuing this, given they approach things solely from a financial and not an emotional perspective. Gamblers will make poor judgements all the time but bookies cannot. The article you referenced supports my original point. That bookies base their odds on the amount of money placed on each outcome and not on their view of the probability of a particular result. So if, as has been reported, much more has been placed on Trump than on Biden, why are his odds still 15-8? Conspiracy theorists could have a hayday.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 15 Oct 20 12.54pm | |
---|---|
Facebook and Twitter at it again
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Matov 15 Oct 20 1.13pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by mezzer
I'd take the view that Biden is a shoe in with a huge pinch of salt. Normally I would agree with you because Biden is just an appaling candidate. Bad beyond belief with nobody believing that even if he wins that he will actually be runnning the show. Surprised he is still in the race. But something is really off. Covid, these postal votes and just a sense that the Democrats, backed by all the usual suspects, have this election sewn up are notions I cannot shake. Usually more than willing to state an opinion on our outcome but what is going at the moment alarms me on a vareity of levels including the oddest one of late that maybe Trump actually wants to lose? But my political antenna just seems to be all over the place on the outcome of this all. Trump should win based on all kinds of factors but 2020 is utterly f***ed. Scary times. Not ashamed to admit I have never been so disconcerted by what I see going on from all sides.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Matov 15 Oct 20 1.42pm | |
---|---|
In fact ever since the Brext Referendum and then Trumps win in 2016 the concerted efforts to effectively render both as being non-valid is utterly terrifying and all from people who would have, prior to 2016, no doubt presented themselves as the champions of democracy and free speech. With no real thoughts about the consequences of their actions. Acting like spolit brats who cannot bear the fact that others did not agree with them and vote for events and people they do not like.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 15 Oct 20 2.34pm | |
---|---|
Here's a story that has no facts in it at all, just opinions, yet this is being promoted on all platforms, quelle surprise. Pass your own judgement.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
croydon proud Any european country i fancy! 15 Oct 20 2.45pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by mezzer
An article here from The Independent entitled "How the Bookies Got It So Wrong" around the Referendum result, explained by a chap from Ladbrokes. Couple of interesting points I saw in it....one that the size of bets going on Remain was reflected by the more affluent expecting a Remain vote, whereas the number of bets on Leave was greater. And the dangers of "Groupthink" shown by the woman who placed the first bet in her life of £100,000 on Remain in the anticipation of a quick and easy £40,000 profit. Where was it placed? In London. Where the probability of a Leave vote was almost totally discounted by the local opinion. Personally, I successfully had bets of 7-1 on Leave, and of 6-1 on Trump in 2016. I'd take the view that Biden is a shoe in with a huge pinch of salt. So are you going to lump on the don this time?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 Oct 20 3.09pm | |
---|---|
Thank goodness they are. More of this type of intervention is needed not less! That story in the New York Post is a scurrilous piece of misinformation if there ever was one. It ought never get past an editor. The level of desperate political pressure from the Trump campaign can only be imagined. There is also news today that the Trump-inspired, Barr initiated D o J "investigation" into the alleged involvement of Obama, Clinton and Biden in the FBIs work on Russian interference in 2016 has concluded that there is nothing to be seen (just as the GOP led Senate one did). However that news is being suppressed by the WH so as to give the impression the investigation is alive and about to produce results. The lead attorney has just resigned from the D o J!
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.