Eight weeks later
Posted on
February 07, 2014 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
The world's most-read Scottish politics website
-
About
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
-
Recent Posts
- 08-12
- 08-06
- 08-05
- 08-04
- 08-03
- 08-02
- 07-27
- 07-22
- 07-20
- 07-19
- 07-17
- 07-15
- 07-15
- 07-14
- 07-13
- 07-12
- 07-10
- 07-09
- 07-09
- 07-07
A tall tale
Wee Books
Probably a robbery
Transphobia
Life in Bedlam
Video
Keep up the good work, Stu.
I didn’t understand that when someone linked to it in the previous thread, and I still don’t understand it.
Morag – in December the best odds would see you get £90 profit for a £20 stake (or £9 for £2) 9/2 but now you’d only get £70 profit. I got on it at 5/1 in early December.
Still worth a punt!
Anyone not surprised that Sky is the only one bucking the trend (exception that proves the rule)?? We think the beeb’s biased… holy moly. That james patterson article on the website today was offensive to the eyes.
Morag says:
7 February, 2014 at 8:52 pm
I didn’t understand that when someone linked to it in the previous thread, and I still don’t understand it.
Like the difference between ‘good/bad’ diseases.;)
Harry, I understand that. Now if someone would plot a rolling average of that figure, I would follow it.
Used to sensible systems of units here, not changing the denominator randomly every time you refresh the page.
Morag
Take any single box. look at the fraction. You bet or (stake) the right hand number £ if you win then you get back the amount on the left hand side number £ + your original stake £.
Morag gave an answer you will understand in the last thread. Here it is again.
You’d prefer it in % terms so if the odds are 4/1 then the bookies believe that there is a 20% chance. 1/(4+1)
Or a more unusual one 100/30 = 30/(100+30) = 23%
9/2= 2/(9+2)= 18* ect. ect. ect.
One we will hit soon doesn’t use numbers, it’s called even money and is basically 1 to 1 = 1/(1+1)=50% 🙂
was covering this on twitter last week. One guy got 9/1 December 2012. So in just over a year the odds have been slashed! Compare that to the odds of a currency union – the odds are 1/100 if Scotland votes YES. The bookies are pretty sure there will be a currency union!
Rev Stu
Has any eager beaver journo enquired of a Mystic Meg prediction that you are aware of ? 🙂
So… when’s the last time anyone met a skint bookie?
I wonder if these odds were published before or after Dave’s telephone appeal
Ignore the narrative but enjoy the image – David Cameron answers questions from the media at the Olympic Park in East London after his speech on the importance of Scotland to the UK (Photo: AP)
link to blogs.telegraph.co.uk
Like so much of ‘better together’ – take away the media and he/ they are talking to an empty hall!!
Good article from Mr Hassan.
link to gerryhassan.com
It’s all moot anyway. Nobody in Scotland will live long enough to collect their winnings, say scientists.
Separate Scotlandshire may be susceptible to space storms, say scientists
link to bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk
@BBC Scotlandshire – Another superb article, we have to know the risks of marking a cross on a ballot paper next to yes, and comical Ally Darling dickhead LOL
Always amazes me that people vote en masse for shi** like Britain’s got talent but when it comes to the important decisuons it goes all dyslexic – ‘Britain’s got Latent’. In September lets show these people whats really important. A ‘No’voteu (whilst the decision of a raving lunatic) is more important than a ‘didnae, couldnie be bothered’ vote. I might not agree with a ‘no vote’ but at least the voter will have used their hard won right to representation.
Betfair odds:
link to sports.betfair.com
Yes graph:
link to uk.site.sports.betfair.com
No graph:
link to uk.site.sports.betfair.com
Those odds have been up for a few days.
The bookies are listening to metropolitan misinformation which doesn’t collate with the weight of money they are getting on a YES result so I think it is probable that the odds will shorten as there are signs that the political commentators are beginning to see the real story.
I’m taking 7/1 about a 55% plus YES result (though my wee bets won’t make a lot of difference to the odds)
@Morag
Thepnr is right and has expressed the chances in percentage terms, rather than fractional which is how bookies do it, or decimal as the exchanges like Betfair do it.
One point to bear in mind is that the with larger bookies like Ladbrokes it tales an awful lot more money actually being put down to move the price than it does for Bet365 or Paddy Power.
Several posters here mentioned after Mark Carney’s meeting with Alex Salmond that the odds on a currency union being offered by Ladbrokes (I think) were then standing at 1/100 which meant that their professional odds compilers thought it to be a 99% probability. The odds compilers are professionals.
Anyone discover why Cameron’s rostrum had the GCU logo?
Anyone else hear “Slip sliding away” play in their head when they review those odds?
link to blog.wolfram.com
= 42
Simples.
Take a look at the odds for the percentages for Yes and No too. They’ve moved in favour of a higher Yes share. I got 20/1 for Yes being 55%+. It’s now down to 7/1.
Perhaps the changing odds are having a strange effect on poor Alistair
link to theguardian.com
Borderline weird in my book
Just had another thought, which may be more pertinent in another couple of months.
The guy in the bookies’ shop sees a horse coming in from 25/1 to 16/1 and thinks there’s a gamble on, because that looks like a big move. The bookies think its chance of winning has gone from 4% to 6% (roughly).
The favourite goes from 2/1 to 6/4. Its chance of winning has gone from 33% to 40% so the increase is more significant than the previous one.
The guy looking for the gamble sees a horse coming in by 9 points or a third, but the professional sees a far more significant increase in the actual likelihood of the favourite winning.
The latter situation is what we should be looking for; getting to short odds or odds-on is great, but even before that, parity of odds between Yes and No tells us that we are winning, not so much because of where we then are, but by dint of from where we have come.
O/T how about crowdfunding a holiday in Scotland for the
Artist Taxi Driver?
Aaargghh!
Too many posts and comments…
Can someone please tell me where the comments re Matt Frei saying to Alex Salmond, ‘You can’t have your haggis and eat it’ are located?
Let’s not forget – Matt Frei was the BBC’s (Washington?) correspondent when Hurricane Katrina happened and Dubya was caught sitting on his hands. Frei was openly critical of FEMA response in his reports, and got his arse well-booted by BBC when he got home.
And now he’s having to interview Salmond about a piffling referendum when, by rights, he should be CH4’s man in Somerset, on the trail of the beleaguered PM?
‘You can’t have your haggis and eat it?’
He really said that?
Ian try this.
link to channel4.com
link to youtube.com at 03:34 on
He really did say it. He sort of hesitated, as if he was jut going to say “have your cake and eat it”, but then had this spiffy good idea to Jockify it. Alex looked as if he was about to have a stroke, but controlled himself admirably.
I read on Twitter that they’ve edited it out of the online version. If true, that’s a shame. Like to see that on YouTube.
I still think his suggestion that the entire independence movement is for no other reason than that Alex wants the title of “Prime Minister” was even more crass though.
Ah, ninjaed by David!
I think Alec Salmond will have his haggis and eat it…and enjoy it!
The Haggis jibe is still in the link just above.
Yes, I see that. No idea why twitterer thought it had been edited out.
O/T, did anyone see Channel 5 news tonight?
My wife was going on about it when I came home but all i can find is a short clip. She thought Alex Salmond was on fire, which is saying something coming from someone who is not politically interested. AS has been really busy today.
There is a danger that this could be seen as framing, so I have listed the bets I have on for a no vote over the last year (paddy power) A trend towards yes currently, but still a bit back from a year ago.
Jan 1/6
Dec 1/7
Nov 1/8
Nov 1/9
Nov 1/8
Oct 1/7
Oct 1/7
Sept 1/7
Aug 1/7
July 1/6
July 1/6
May 2/9
Feb 1/4
Worth remembering that bookies represent where the money is going rather than likelihood, but always an interesting baromaeter.
@Mogabee & Morag,
Thanks, just watched it. (It’s at 3.36)
Couldn’t help feeling a bit embarrassed for Matt Frei when AS responded as graciously as he did. He must surely be regretting it now. Horrible to see such a cheap shot coming from a veteran journalist.
With all these clips/interviews on BBC, CH4, SKY, elsewhere, it seems the FM must’ve spent a fair bit of today in the studio, probably ‘waiting’ most of the time. And Cameron spent, what 30 mins on that nonsense this morning?
Not hard to work out who gained most from their respective efforts today. I really believe that AS is into Buddhism of some form – he’s preternaturally unflappable, and what some perceive as ‘smugness’ may just be the look of a man who is at peace with himself, knows what he’s doing, and won’t be deflected by anything, no matter how personally offensive.
It’s not so surprising that there are ignorant members of the public out there who just fall for this “it’s only Alex Salmond’s vanity project” schtick. It’s shameful, coming from an actual journalist.
trying embedding this to see if it works:
link to youtu.be
I’m in awe of that diet.
Somebody needs to have a wee word with Brian Taylor. He’s not doing himself any favours.
I’m beginning to wonder if there might just be a bit of fraud going on, with the bookies as victims.
Can it be that some pollsters are using weighting, as well as dodgy preambles to questions to make sure they supress the Yes numbers, while they and their friends lump lots of medium sized bets on?
Look at Scot goes Pop and you will see this very thing mentioned.
Remember how we all felt a positive veibe a few months ago, like things were turning in our favour and all of a sudden some (unnamed person) lumped £200,000 followed by another £100,000 a couple of weeks later.
We all wondered why someone wanted to throw their money away, but could it have been a ploy to make sure the bookies didn’t start to shorten their odds?
I also wondered why the bookies stoped taking bets on yes a few weeks back? is this because they had noticed strange betting paters with a lot of money going on Yes from perhaps London or America suggesting that the word was ‘out’
It might just be that one of the biggest betting scams is about to take place due to our referendum, with certain polling companies and journalists enjoying a very very healthy pension pot.
Don’t see how it would work really. I mean, when we win, the bookies get to keep that £300,000.
But even at today’s interest rates, I think that sort of money would earn more in interest if it was sensibly invested for the same length of time. So why would anyone put it on such a short-odds bet?
If they want to make a killing on Yes, there’s no need to run a scam. Just put the money on, last year. And No isn’t worth more than a flutter for fun, and won’t be until and unless Yes is a long way out in front.
On the other hand I know nothing about betting. Maybe I’m missing something really obvious.
@Morag, I’m no expert Morag, but I think the bookies set odds based on the amount of money put on the other side. in the referendum there’s only two results possible… Yes or No, so if a lot of money goes on No then the odds on ‘No’ shorten and yes gets more generous. yes the bookies keep the £300,000, but at odds of say 2/1 for ‘Yes’ the punters only need to put £30,000 to be in £60,000 profit!
However I believe that they would have put a lot more of this on but not in one bet, more like a number of smaller bets, so as not to alert the bookies.
You can begin to see just how much money they can make.
We know that there’s people looking to make money from these scams and no one is better placed to dictate the odds that bookies offer than the polling companies.
James Kelly mentions that one pollster had been saying he does this kind of thing, it was this that got me wondering if this is why some of the polls are not reflecting our feeling about the way the campaign is going.
Well you know what they say:
When something strange is happening that doesn’t add up, Follow the Money! 😉
oddschecker even better now!
Any chance of a total ripping apart of the disgusting Herald article this morning in the Herald “Fresh blow to Salmond plans for pound and pensions”, which is either totally incompetent journalism by Marcus Gardham, or they published a Better Together press release by mistake.
The Herald should print a retraction on Monday on the front page, and hang its head in shame. Marcus should be sent on a journalism course.
Not been a Gambler for a few years now but come June these odds will look more like No 1/2 YES 1/1 the bookies always cover their arse
It’s not true to say this proves nothing. I used to work at Betfair and I followed betting markets on a series of domestic and international elections over a period of years. They are far better at predicting the result than opinion polls. This is a well-documented phenomenon in the betting industry and supported by academic research.
The falling odds for YES are telling us that the trend we have seen in the opinions polls is real, and not a statistical blip. When the price on Betfair for YES drops below 2 (equivalent to even odds), it will be game on.