Punters rush to bet on Betfair’s confusion
November 9th, 2006
-
The money is going on the independents being classified as Dems
As the argument goes on over how Betfair will settle the “Senate most seats market” we now have the extraordinary spectacle of much more money being gambled on this issue than the election itself.
Overnight a further £100,000 was traded in this market taking the total to nearly £240,000. Amazingly in all the months leading up to Tuesday election less than £50,000 had been bet.
With the Democrat victory in Virginia likely to go to a recount there are three possible outcomes:
This is how CNN is describing the situation “A victory by Webb (the Virginia Democrat candidate) would put the new Senate line up at 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and two independents — Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut — who have said they would caucus with the Democrats. That would give the Democrats the 51 votes they need to claim a majority for the first time since 2002.”
My guess, and it is only a guess, is that because this is being reported as a Democrat victory that Betfair would be influenced by the overall outcome and not the precise details of the affiliations of Sanders and Lieberman. Given the way the market has moved, as the chart above shows with the Democrats being BLUE, punters are taking this view too.
Having said that I got stung in 2003 when I tried to second guess how Betfair would settle a market in similar confusing circumstances.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Betfair rules say which party will “have” the most seats after the US Senate election? The word “won” is not used.
If i had to guess i would suggest that the price movement is based on the classification of Sanders. Until yesterday the market was fairly clear that both would be classified as independents - and reflected the fact that a dead heat would result. The market movement cannot be explained by the fact that the Democrats are now believed to have won Virginia - that was true yesterday.
I think it’s pretty clear that Lieberman is an Independent, but the situation with Sanders is less clear cut. Never the less i think he will probably be settled as an Independent as well. As Goupillon says who “won” the election or who has “control of the Senate” are irrelevant (if it had been 50-48-2) then it would have been a dead heat - the situation with the VP’s casting vote would have been similarly irrelevant).
People are reading things in Betfair’s market wording that simply aren’t there.
BTW Mike, pedantic point, but people are not really “betting on Betfair’s confusion”. If that was the case then the market would be hovering somewhere between the two extremes of Democrat victory and dead heat.
The market has come down strongly for the former.
Apologies, my last comment is out of date.
Sanders situation is pretty clear: he refused the Democratic nomination, and campaigned/will sit as an Independent.
AP have declared Webb (D) as the winner of the Virginia Senate seat after contacting all the election officials for voting updates. Webb remains over 7,000 ahead. Over to the GOP.
On reflection and a bit of sleep, it becomes even clearer to me that the right interpretation is that the two independents do not represent Democrat seats and the result for betting purposes is a tie. I suspect however that Betfair will not decide that way and follow the flow by calling it a Democrat win. Either way they will be facing complaints and are, I agree Mike, in a spot of bother.
Lack of clarity in the rules is bad enough but to keep the market open when such confusion reigns is inexcusable.
So too is their delay in issuing a statement.
7. Delaying a ruling and prolonging the confusion has had the happy side effect of leading to lots of extra business though, hasn’t it?
7 PtP. Perhaps we should have a market on whether you change your mind again before 9.00am !!
…… what are the rules for a tie ?? ….. plain, stripe or pattern ??
8. Could lead to lots of extras claims, Wag.
9. Any more smartarse remarks like that and you can get your coat and be str8 out of here, Jack W. Grrrr….:-(
In case anyone would like to see what a contract/market about control of the Senate looks like, they should read Tradesports.com’s Senate _Control_ contract. Here is the key part:
“For expiry purposes, winning control is defined as gaining a majority of seats in the election.
The Senate contract will expire once either the Republicans or the combination of Democrats and Independents gain 51 seats.”
Tradesports’ contract was explicitly about control of the Senate, not which party would have the most seats, like Betfair’s.
I will admit that I have a small sum at risk on this market and that my betting was based on the literal interpretation of “Which of these parties will have the most seats in the Senate after the election” The rules mention nothing of control of the Senate. The market itself is called Senate - Most Seats, not Senate - Control, as at Tradesports. There is no other logical or legal way that this market can be settled other than to rule this a dead heat. 49-49.
Most people seemed to have allowed (fooled?) themselves into believing that this market was about control of the Senate. I believe a fair amount of this stems from Nick Palmer’s infamous written correspondence from Betfair saying that they would count the Independents as Dems. Sorry to say this, but just because some yob at the customer service desk wrote that it would be interpreted that way, doesn’t mean it’s legally binding. In this case, Nick probably has a claim, but anyone else counting on this is on shaky ground. The market rules form a contract between the backer and the layer, and when someone goes to IBAS with their claim, the first thing they will look at is the bookmaker’s rules. I have lifted this from IBAS’s 2005 annual report:
“When a customer makes a bet in a betting shop, by telephone or on a website he or she is tacitly agreeing to be bound to settlement in accordance with the rules of the bookmaker/operator. Therefore, the first point of reference in the adjudication process is always the trading conditions/ rules of a registered bookmaker.”
Second, as to interpretation of the rules:
“The principles adopted are strictly objective and do not involve sentiment, hunches, or interpreting intention. Nor do they favour the party able to make the most effective presentation.”
Anyone who thinks that because everyone else is piling on the Dems makes their case stronger, should think again. Might does not make right, and I also suggest you re-read that bit about NOT INTERPRETING INTENTION. IBAS will not interpret this contract to be about control of the Senate, they will look at the party affiliation as listed at Senate.gov and come to the conclusion that there are 49 Dems and 49 GOP (barring any floor-crossing).
After all is said and done there will be many unhappy punters, no matter how this is settled, but at least we can agree that Betfair’s actions have been pathetic. Terrible choice of wording for the contract rules, terrible inconsistencies with customer service as to the interpretation of the rules (go to the BF forum and see their Senate thread for counter-claims to Nick Palmer’s assurance), and to top it all off they haven’t suspended the contract because the greedy bastards will get a commission no matter how this p(l)ays out. Somebody over there should get the boot for this.
12. Excellent synopsis, Sean. I agree absolutely and promise, Jack W, not to change my mind again.
The betting, which Betfair disgracefully continues to permit, seems to be reflecting your view, Sean. Republicans trade at 2.1. Since their backers can expect a tie at best, they are effectively trading at very small margins. Democrat backers at 1.6 have a bit more hope of a decent return but are running a correspondingly larger risk.
Has anybody rattled Betfair’s chain this morning?
Sean Smith’s argument above is more than very well made. If you do not take things ‘literally’ in contracts then where would you be?
If you could bet on what you ‘thought’ was happening, how would this pan out for elections in the UK? Goodness knows how the betting markets would treat a treble victory for a Labour Party headed-up by a Tory!
As for ‘Bbetfair’ (sic), perhaps someone could challenge them to change their name under the Trades Descriptions Act?
Maybe they should change their name to ’set fair’
I had a furious argument with Betfair in September 2003 on Alistair Campbell’s departure from Number 10. At the height of the Kelly suicide and Hutton inquiry Betfair ran a market on who would “still being in their job on September 30 2003″. At the end of August Campbell announced that he was going but it was made clear that he would stay on until after the Labour conference to tidy a few things up. That took it beyond the September 30th date.
Betfair settled on the basis that he had gone before although, clearly, he was still employed carrying out duties until after the due date.
I began a an IBAS action but then gave up because, frankly, I did not have the time and only had a small amount at risk.
What really annoyed me was that Betfair was still taking bets right up to the September 30th deadline.
17. On a similar point (and being deliberately pedantic), doesn’t the senate term run from January, so that in fact the Republicans will retain 55 senators until then? Another example of the poor wording of the bet - “after the elections” the Republicans were always going to have a majority - until January at least. It should have specified in the new term of congress.
Have stayed out of this because I thought I didnt have much to win or lose. But on checking I find I win £110 if the Democrats win and lose £40 if it is the Republicans.
I have no hestitation in supporting the thesis that the Democrats have won the Senate!
Test after major system rebuild!
I have just telephoned Betfair and They say to ring back at 11am to get their ruling on this issue. The chap I spoke to is of the opinion that the likely ruling is that only seats officially described as Democrat wii be counted as Democrat.
Ultimately this fiasco is bad for betting, and bad for betfair. With a bit of luck they will sort it sensibly though I can’t see a sensible solution that will not leave egg on their faces.
And to further confuse the issue, a number of blogs have speculation about either or both the Republican senators in Maine (a very blue, i.e. Democratic state) switching allegiances
RE 23, james, really? That would be interesting news.
I took a few late punts on betfair for the Dem’s when they went out over 3’s for the senate. I did this on the basis of the electoral site- http://www.electoral-vote.com:2006/, and Rasmussen polling. In the 2004 election the exit polls were wrong, but the opinion polls were extremely accurate- especially Rasmussen. Both these sites clearly called the 2 Independents as Democrats (and said the Democrats were on line for 51 seats).
Now I can tell you there would have been no way in the world I would have backed the Democrats if the counting rules excluded the 2 Independents, and the Democrats had to win 7 seats in their own right. That would have meant them taking an additional seat from one of Conneticut, Arizona, or Tennessee- all in my view highly unlikely. For the Democrats to win 7 seats outright, and keep all their own seats (including some brutually fought ones- i.e New Jersey)- the odds would have been much more favourable- possibly 10’s or even more.
I posted yesterday that if the House had tied at 50-50 I would fully have expected Betfair to pay out on the Republicans based on Cheney’s casting vote. I perceived the low market odds for GOP to reflect the overall balance in favour of them.
The spirit of this market was pretty obvious- who would win the House?? The odds clearly reflected this. I am sure most people who backed the Republicans initially would accept this. Although human nature is such that people can frequently change tack- and I am sure that some Republican backers are now disgruntled in a way they wouldn’t have been if this hadn’t been pointed out.
However, there has clearly been opportunistic betting expoiting the uncertainty. I hope that these people get their fingers burned, and ultimately Betfair pays out on the most Democrats.
On my own position, as a relatively risk averse better, I covered my bets once the Democrat positioned tightened. I still stand to win quite well on a Democrat win.
25 Tyson. As it happened the Democrats nearly nicked Tenneesse too. Ford only losing by 3 points. And for all the huff and puff the GOP never came close to either Maryland or New Jersey losing by 10 points plus in both cases.
This post is from someone who knows nothing about betting (but would like to) so is prepared to get shot down (or learn!).
I’m just trying to apply logic (this is where I might fall down!)
Some facts (please correct if I’ve misunderstood)
1. Betfair are still taking bets on either the republicans or democratic winning (whatever winning means)
2. The only issue in dispute is whether the Indies will be classified as Indies or Dems
If the Indies are classified as Indies the Dems can’t win (I’m correct aren’t I, the best they can do is draw). Therefore you shouldn’t be able to bet on them. Therefore the Indies must be calssified as Dems. If they are classified as Dems the Republicans can’t win ((I’m correct aren’t I, the best they can then do is draw). Therefore you shouldn’t be able to bet on them. Therefore the Indies must be classified as Indies.
Having now proved that the Indies must be classified as both Indies and Dems you have an impossible scenerio.
Not sure if Lieberman should be cast as a Dem, he after all beat the “official”Dem candidate in CT. Don’t think Sanders was opposed by Dems in VT though.
27 kjh. Betfair might argue that as Virginia hasn’t been officially called or conceded yet by Allen then a recount is possible etc … and thus a market remains.
29. Jack My arguement took that into account. I was assuming R 49, D 48, with additional 2 being either Indie or Dem and 1 undeclared.
Am I missing something. My logic of this being that it didn’t matter how betfair decided what the Inies were, either way it wasn’t possible for both to still win, therefore there shouldn’t be a market.
24 Maybe they have a few quid on it.
Market has now been suspended.
Email from Betfair this morning contains no substance, just -
Thank you for your e-mail.
A full announcement on the settlement of this market will be made today once all the facts of this market are known.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further enquiries.
My response -
Thank you for your email.
If you look at the Senate website (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm) you will see that caucusing with the Democrats does not affect your party affiliation. Jeffords is listed on the site as an independent even though he caucused with the Democrats because he didn’t take the Democratic whip.
In the UK Parliament all the minor parties (SNP, DUP, etc.) group together for such issues as committee places. The Lib Dems used to be part of the same group but after increasing their number of seats are dealt with separately. No-one would suggest the DUP and SNP are the same party!
Likewise, if the Lib Dems said they would vote to sustain a minority Tory (say) government after an election then you could say the Tories had control of Parliament but that wouldn’t make the Lib Dems Tories.
Let’s see what happens. I think at the very least given their misleading advice their commission should be used to part-compensate those who have lost out.
Well it was suspended. It’s now back with this statement -
For the purpose of this market, the following Senators will be treated as Independents and therefore will not be treated as either Democrats nor Republicans:
Joe Lieberman
Bernie Sanders
It’s a tie according to Betfair!!!!
Some very disgruntled customers no doubt. This will run and run.
30 kjh. If Betfair declare Inds not Dems then there is no market for a Dem win, only a tie or GOP win. If they declare Inds = Dems then only a tie or Dem win remains. The uncertainty allows the market remain. Betfair need to clarify or the apperance of sharp practice will gather pace.
My 35 now redundant !
Although the statement is at odds with the e-mail Nick Palmer received from Betfair inter alia that the Inds would be counted as Dems !!
It seems clear to me that whoever on Betfair made the market forgot (or never knew) that two of the front-runners were neither elephants nor donkeys. It’s often been said on here that (because of the low volume involved) the betting firms get the office junior to make the political markets…
Our Genial Host started this forum out of resentment that there wasn’t anything like it on the Web, and he knows full well that the people who really make money from betting are the bookies. Guess what his next move will be…
34. Doesn’t that now mean the Democrats should be laid, as it is now impossible for them to win?
RE 37, Now there is an idea for Mike
On a more serious note the Betfair confusion is very bad for them. I suspect they will have to eat lots of humble pie.
kjh- the market stays open as Jack W says because Virginia is yet to call, and the odds should reflect this.
jack W- 7 outright wins was still a big call for the Dem’s, and considering they have possibly won 2 races on less than 1% and Missouri on less than 2% showed how tight these contests were.
And quite frankly, even though I know little about betting, the people quibbling about classifications, and making opportunistic betting when the spirit of the market (and the prices) was who would win the house is all quite unseemly.
So if I pile on the republicans now will I be bound to win?
re 36 but I - and I suspect from market behaviour lots of either - have recent emails that state categorically that Lieberman and Sanders are Independents. We know only of Nick’s email to the contrary on Leiberman…I suspect that was the howler.
….and Nick is a Labour MP - they dont count!
35 Jack I really am missing something aren’t I?. Whichever way Betfair jumped they were allowing people to bet on an impossiblity.
One way meant Dems couldn’t win, BUT you could bet on them. The other way meant Rep couldn’t win, BUT you could bet on them.
Although at the time you/we didn’t know which way they would jump they should have had a predefined position and whichever it was a market that was being offered wasn’t actually achievable. True the full outcome wasn’t decided (ie the ‘other side’ could win or it be a draw), but they were allowing bets on one result that was never achievable.
Am I talking tosh? Wish I could express my thoughts better!
I think it’s over to Nick Palmer now…would he mind posting the copy of the email he received from Betfair on the website? In my opinion, in the absence of other official guidance, they should pay out everybody who backed the democrats as winners because this official advice was passed on by Nick elsewhere…
Also, if you are Nick Palmer you should be logging onto Betfair now and backing the Dems down to 1.01 even despite the new ruling from Betfair. He could just say he never saw the new announcement on the new forum and was continuing to bet on the basis of the written advice he had already received…
33- thanks-
Oh well. A bit like Clinton “I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman”
[43] The idea of a betting firm misleading a government backbencher has a certain piquancy, doesn’t it?
44. But now with Lieberman and Sanders being officially treated by Betfair as independents, the only possibilities are a dead heat or (unlikely) a GOP win if they overturn the preliminary result in VA on a recount. So how can the Democrats still be evens to win the most seats?
re 44 There lots of opportunities to bet on ‘impossibilities’ on Betfair. To be fair, they cannot tidy up all their markets instantly, though they could sometimes by quicker. This, though, is by far the worst botch I’ve known.
Looking at my betting on Betfair I have bet on both sides, happily and unusually, I covered my positions without doing any laying.
Republicans £321 staked @ average 1.62 profit £200
Democrats £198 staked @ average 2.99 profit £393
If it is dead heat do I win on both bets!!!?
because if it is a dead heat (which everybody assumes it will be) bets on the Dems will be settled at Evens under the dead heat rules.
re 50 You lose on Rep (160.50 lost; .62*160.50 won)
you win on Dem (149 lost; 149*1.99 won)
I am not entirely sure my post at 51 is totally accurate - here are the dead heat rules…50 - I think you will lose net on your Republican bet because it is staked at prices below Evens.
Here are BF DH rules:
For each matched bet on a winning selection, the stake money is first reduced in proportion by multiplying it by the sum of the number of winners expected (as set out in the Market Information) divided by the number of actual winners (i.e. stake multiplied by (number of winners expected/number of actual winners)). The winnings are then paid to the successful backers on this ‘reduced stake’ (reduced stake multiplied by traded price) and the remaining stake money is paid to the appropriate layers.
40 Tyson. 7 outrights was a big call, but the polls indicated that 5 - Ohio, Penn, Rhode Is, Missouri and Montana were in the Dem column. That Montana was so tight was something of a fright to the Dems. Effectively it all came down to Virginia and that was some fight and night. Ford was closing in Tenneesse but not quick enough.
In reality you couldn’t put a fag paper between some of the Dems and their GOP opponents - Montana, Virginia, Penn and Rhode Island with new conservative Dems off to the Senate.
A disappontment for the Dems was Arizona where the very well funded Dem campaign failed to make much headway and lost by 9 points.
OK but the Dem price is actually trading slightly inside the Republican price even though the only non dead heat possibility is a surprise Rep win via a VA recount…so the Dem price should be slightly above the Rep price given this clarification of the rules, shouldn’t it?
re 48 they cannot … but I wouldn’t take another punters money in these circumstances. Remember it’s not Betfair who pays out!
Jack - surely Peter The Punter should have changed his mind again by now?
44 kjh. No you are not talking tosh. It’s a mess !!
48 & 49 OK so I assume from these 2 posts my logic is sound and that I’m not barking! They were (and still are?) offering odds on impossible outcome.
I do recall a post sometime ago where someone got fantastic high odds on the result of a Wimbledon tennis match and posted here to find out if there was a catch, only to be told that the match was carried over from the previous day and the current state of the sets meant that the outcome backed was not possible.
55 — commission gums up the works a bit. Suppose we know it is a dead heat, so the fair price on each party is 2 (or evens). Owing to commission, which different people pay at different rates) we’d need either party (or both) to pay slightly above 2 before it became worthwhile getting involved. (Oh, and remember the same is true of the lay prices, mutatis mutandis, so they will not get too far out of kilter.)
57 Icarus. Yes, peter the punter has changed his mind 6 times since 8am but the spam filter gobbled all the expletives !!
btw Montana seemed to be heading to within 1000 votes, certainly less than 2000. But Tester got it by a nearly 3000. Were the projections here out (some had it going one way, some the other but all very close). Or was there another reason?
62 Martin. The reason in the end was pretty straight forward as Tester performed better in the latter reporting areas and edged to safety.
So on my reading of 53, If it is a dead heat.
I get back £296.52 winnings plus half my stake (£259.50) and lose half my stake (£259.50).
So I win £296.52, much more than I would if the Democrats win.
On that basis Betfair are absolutely correct.
re 64 no, no. You only get the winnings on half the stake!
59
It’s true that one result was impossible whichever interpretation is made. But we didn’t know what interpretation would be made. So the betting was essentially on which interpretation would be made, not on the result of the last few declarations.
Who knows; they might have made the decision on interpretation by tossing a coin :
This sort of mess — which Mike Smithson @ 17 notes is not umprecedented — will recur because there is no financial incentive for Betfair to get things right (in effect, what economists term: moral hazard). Betfair rakes off its commission whichever side wins.
This will continue until IBAS or the new Gambling Commission force Betfair to use their own funds to settle both contingencies as winners.
Sorry begining to see it now - my profit is £37.02 like many gamblers once my bet is made I tend to treat any return as a bonus!!!
re 63 Thanks…so we were not that well informed on the later reporting areas. It is very difficult to keep track of these accurately. It’s material to learn from this experience ’cause I recall at least one very confident prediction here that Burns would just nose in front from the final areas. This made the price on Rep Senate look attractive, though I did post that even if the analysis was broadly right (it wasn’t) the projected margin was far too tight to bet on.
63 Yes you can look at the outstanding counties and at the share of the vote in them from the precincts which have declared so far and draw the wrong conclusions because later reporting precincts from the same counties don’t go the way of earlier reporting ones. Counties aren’t always politically homogeneous although they usually are.
66 Thank you that makes sense.
What happens on the tennis one eg say offering 1000 - 1 on a 3-1 victory when it is already 2-2, so impossilbe. Is it just a case thast someone was canny enough to offer the bet and someone else daft enough (or not realising the game was carried over from the previous day) to take it, or the outside possiblity that something really wierd happens that makes them replay a set or match.
If nopthing else the posts on here were entertaining when it happened.
btw Mike it was well under £50k bet before the polls open. ARound 10k IIRC.
With 33% of Yellowstone counted, Burns was about 1,200 votes and 4-5% ahead in the country (Yellowstone was one of the few county’s outstanding and was by far the largest). Therefore you could maybe surmise that he’d pick up at least another 2,000 when all the votes came in – the same sort of projecting enabled some people to predict Virginia and Missouri before the pundits were picking it up. As it happened, Burns’s lead in Yellowstone didn’t hold up and he only won it by 2% and about 1,300 votes.
69/70 Martin/blue moon. I think in fairness when you come down to a thousand here or there then close analysis of counties is problematic especially as we don’t know which areas within some counties had reported. The more so when there were counting difficulties with some machines.
re 73, 74. Thanks…and exactly. I recall sensible analysis but far too strident interpretation and betting recommedation. A reasonable interpretation would have been to say here’s how Burns could win, perhaps you shouldn’t bet against it yet. Hopefully no-one followed the advice posted.
71 — when you see 1000 on an impossible contingency, there are a number of things going on.
One is, as you say, sharks hoping to catch people out. Another is people altruistically offering an information service: you offer 1000 Nick Palmer MP to be next Labour leader in order to let people know that he has officially ruled himself out of contention (they will see your price is too good to be true so will refrain from betting while they see what is up).
But it is generally because just before it became impossible, it was at a lower price with amounts queued to bet at different prices. As soon as the contingency does become impossible (say the horse falls or the boat sinks) then layers will want to lay all of the bets at any price, so they lay at 1000 to mop up ALL of the outstanding bets.
And occasionally they get caught out, as with Kicking King in the Gold Cup.
JackW exactly the point I was making. What I generally missed from the networks on Tuesday/wednesday was a sophisticated analysis of how the raw vote looked as the count proceeded. I wasn’t expecting dangerously early calls just remarks like GOP/Dems encouraged by voting so far on the basis of xyz areas. Missouri was a case in point. We got a general warning not to trust the early GOP lead but not whether the GOP were underperforming in the early declaring precincts or just how much of an advantage the Democrats could usually expect from say St Louis. That might have made the final result a lot less surprising than it really was given results from earlier reporting Regions. Equally there was an early warning in Virginia about democrat rich northern areas which hadn’t been counted which kept being repeated even when those areas were largely counted. Ironically it was inner Richmond which finally put the Dems over the top in the end as much as the last few precincts in the north. I wanted to know whether Allen was underperforming in the rural areas or whether an atypical Dem candidate had bitten into this vote. I never heard. In fairness Michael Barone on Fox did occasionally offer this analysis on some House races.
76 Thank you John. I’m learning. But I’ve a lot more to learn before I place my first bet!
My reply from Betfair (below and on my site) is absolutely terrible. You have to infer its meaning because the second sentence is so ambiguous.
Dear
Thank you for your e-mail.
All bets placed on the Number of seats for the senate, all unmatched
bets have been voided, due to some confusion around the market.
A new market has been formed and the following text has been added to
the market:
US mid-term elections 2006: Senate ? most seats
For the purpose of this market, the following Senators will be
treated as Independents and therefore will not be treated as either
Democrats nor Republicans:
Joe Lieberman
Bernie Sanders
I hope this clears up the matter for you.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further
enquiries.
Betfair
I think this is meant to mean that all past bets stand (else they don’t get their commission) but that any unmatched bets were voided (a miniscule percentage of the market) and they’ve now clarified the rules so that the Democrats are independents (they had to be). It’s a cop-out but at least there’s finally clarification. Betfair need to be far more careful in setting market rules - this has happened before.
re 76 what happened with Kicking King…did he get up to win?
45: I’ve posted Betfair’s email to me on a previous thread and I gather Betfair have been reminded of it. An important point was that it only refered to Lieberman, though I think it’s difficult to make a case for saying that Sanders is Independent although he ran officially backed by the Dems, while Lieberman is Democrat even though he ran officially opposed by the Dems.
Anyway, as I have only £2 at stake I shan’t make a fuss - too much else to do.
re 81 like a Private Members Bill for better regulation of the betting industry?!?!
80 — Kicking King was injured and ruled out for the rest of the season. In the ante-post betting for the Gold Cup, he went out to 1000. He recovered faster than expected, and went on to win the Gold Cup.
RE 83 but did anyone actually put a bet on at 1000-1!
84 — yes. We know this because the layers (at 1000) complained.
80. Kicking King suffered a minor injury a week or so before the Gold Cup. Trainer Tom Taafe announced the horse was unlikely to run but he was overreacting and when it transpired the horse recovered he confirmed its entry. It went on to win.
57 & 61 Icarus and Jack W
Any more lip from you two and it’s no more tips from me. Can it. Both of you.
re 85 I trust Betfair told ‘em where to go!
Re Kicking King, the reaction in the racing community was muted. Taafe is a well liked and respected trainer and it was readily accepted he was trying to do the right thing. It was the first time he had ever been in charge of such a high profile horse - heading the Gold Cup market and an Irish horse to boot - and he took his obligations seriously. When the horse got a knock, he felt obliged to report it when other trainers might have chosen to hush it up. He miscalculated the impact on the public and in particular the betting market but this arose from an excess of openness, not neglect and much less an attempt to deceive. Perhaps that explains why Ante Post punters who lost out took it on the chin without too much complaint.
CNN are reporting that a source close to Allen is hinting that their camp will concede today. On that basis they report Dems 49 GOP 49 and 2 Independents who will caucus with the Dems. That is the only correct interpretation IMHO.
Rates up to 5% as expected. Ominous comment in the statement viz. ‘other pricing pressures have picked up’ as well, so February hike looks a pretty decent bet too.
re 89 agreed…That’s half my modest winnings down the pan, but a small price to pay for the pleasure of these results!
Apropos Kicking King, and other huge long shots (I seem to recall Ben Curtis being 1000/1 to win the Open a while back), has anyone ever laid a bet at those odds before?
I have, on a rugby league outcome I judged to be as near to impossible as you can get, but the moment the bet was matched my traitorous mind began devising scenarios that would lead to (I think) Wakefield actually recovering to fatally drain my Betfair account. Moral of story - it often IS worth doing financially, but those anxious minutes/hours/days make it more trouble than it’s worth!
Andy D @ 92 — there is a subtle difference between laying one 1000 shot, and laying lots of them. The pro’s aim for the latter.
92. Andy D
There was an article in the Weekender recently about this. I only scanned it quickly but I’m pretty sure the conclusion was that in the long run such bets do not pay off. As if to demonstrate the point, a horse ridden by Richard Johnson last week slithered and fell a few yards short of the line with the race won.
This notice has appeared on the Betfair site clarifying this market.
For the purpose of this market, the following Senators will be treated as Independents and therefore will not be treated as either Democrats nor Republicans:
Joe Lieberman
Bernie Sanders
So my prediction of what they would do was wrong. Thankfully I did not have any money on it. This means, assuming Virginia stays Democrat, that this will be settled as a tie.
92,93 — actually, it is true of laying in general that pro layers aim not to lay just one contingency. The whole point of bookmaking is to make a book. The thing about laying at 1000 is that most of the lays will actually be at less than that.
95. And how will the market be settled in respect of the politicalbetting.com Prediction Competition?
Please do not be influenced by the views of Jack W and Icarus.
94 - Indeed - “The unlikely is more likely than you think”
95 Or those of Peter the Punter!. Betfair have finally got it right. The two independents rule should apply to the PBC competition as well IMHO.
97 PtP.
… it’s clear to me that we need some North Korean election officials to declare that Kim Il Jack W was the clear winner of the PB Competition.
Any attempt at a Yankee backed running dog lick spittle fraud will be met with a nuclear response involving Nick Soames naked mud wrestling Margaret Beckett. You have been warned !!
89 blue moon. Further to your post, the Beeb are also reporting that Allen will concede in Virginia latter this afternoon.
So 51/49 it is …. or is that 49/49/2.
On the other thread I was told I was wrong because I said US media were reporting it as 49-49-2
I am actually a Brit living in Minnesota, USA and so have access to all the US television networks!!!
MSNBC last night had a graphic on screen which said 49-49-2 and it is linked on there web site also
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14289273/
Senate control will be in the hands of the Democrats but the most seats will be a tie between the Democrats and GOP
It gets really confusing as a lot of networks and affiliates are showing it as 50-49, which is not correct - CBS also call it 49-49-2 with the 2 being called others
Here is the link to CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/
CNN on there website for some reason have not classified Virginia as Democrat yet so it is only - 50-49 and 1 to declare
100. PMSL!
As long as you and that other troublemaker Icarus are kept well clear, I don’t mind who does it!
Btw, my somewhat optimistic bet on Kilmarnock to win the Scottish League Cup is starting to look a whole lot less fanciful. I hear they are down to 7/4. You might recall that I was persuaded by an inebriated Scot (is there any other kind?) on Kings X station to invest a substantial proportion of my betting bank on the Killies at a very decent price. Against my better judgement, i took his advice. Are they really likely to win this cup? I thought the Scottish FA didn’t allow silverware out of Glasgow.
If it comes off I’ll have to buy the Celt a drink - if I can find him and if he’s sobered up enough by now to remember the event.
95 Mike- your prediction was wrong, but do you think what betfair has done is right??
I am disgruntled and unhappy. It seemd to me blindingly obvious from the start that you had to call the Independents to the Party they sided with. This hardly needed to be spelt out by Betfair.
You know the galling things about this bet is losing the pleasure of taking and spending the money off people who had backed the Republicans. Never would I have savoured the winnings more sweetly.
77. Agree entirely. What we needed during the counts were some figures for the swing in individual Counties which had finished counting. If they had given swing figures in say 5 Counties and these figures were consistent then they should have been able to project the final State results.
I didn’t hear any swing figures for Counties all night whilst watching MSNBC, CNN and Fox.
Compare this to a UK election where all we hear about is the swing.
re 97 and 101. I leave the running and operation of this PBC competition to Paul Maggs who kindly operates it for the site. Over to you Paul.
But looking at how Paul has devised the competition everything has been covered. Entrants were asked to
Senate (total seats 100)Predict the number of seats held after the election by:
Democrats
Republicans
Others
Unlike Betfair Paul had prepared for this contingency and the correct result must be - 49, 49. 2.
I’m still by the seaside in Suffolk working on my book on politics and betting (the prize!) and the events of the past 48 hours have provided lots of extra material - something I was not wanting at this stage.
104 PtP. I object most strongly to the question mark after :
“…. inebriated Scot (is there any other kind?) ….”
It’s clearly a case of national discrimination as there is no question at all !!
BTW I’m glad to see a pissed Scot gives better tipping advice than a sober Englishman !!
……………..
114/115 rej4sl. Good to see confusion reigns in the States too !!
re 105. If I was you Tyson I would got to IBAS - http://www.ibas-uk.com/ to appeal. The Betfair email to Nick Palmer which was published on the site would add a lot of weight to your case.
The problem is that 2006 will go down as the year the Democrats won both houses from the Republicans. That’s the big news and that is what I guess you thought you were betting on.
104 PtP - Evening Standard reports today that Cash for Honours charges (if brought) will not be until mid 2007 (after Blair is expected to have left no10) so unlikely to impact his leaving timetable and any bets you have on Q4/Q1/Q2.
Peter the Punter was bang on re the senate 49 - 49 - 2, his house figures were 232 - 203 (currently 229 - 199 with 7 undecided) are there no independents in the house?
He stands a good chance of winning Mike’s book, or at least coming second and winning 2 copies!
PMSL?
Thanks Mike- will do
Peter the Punter looked pretty much bang on yesterday morning. Nothing has really changed since.
Labour Party got loans, lenders got offered peerages. Why is it all taking so long?
The Standard headline is “Blair to escape indignity of first PM to be quizzed by police” - this is not backed up by their online story, which only talks about charges not being brought before next summer.
RE 115, RE Cash for peerages. having looked into Yates of the Yard, he is the sort of chap to line all his ducks up in a row before he moves. He may want the time. However I doubt he would do deals like that. if he wants to question Blair he will.
(See article on my blog for where we are at so far as well as Guido’s)
116. Also, is the Standard’s headline accurate? I have vague memories of Lloyd George being questioned while still PM, but I could be wrong.
Re 117, ACm, Lloyd George was a little before my time. No doubt JackW who would have been middle aged at the time can help!
I had no money on this race at all (luckily), but if I had I’d feel seriously aggrieved with Betfair. That a respected US polling site like http://www.electoral-vote.com regards Lieberman and Sanders as de facto Dems suggests to me that’s how they can fairly be regarded.
109. I backed the Dems mid-evening after I had forecast VA going for Webb. I then realised that the market was “which party would have most seats”, not control, and reversed my position.
MSNBC sums up the situation fairly clearly:
“The Senate had teetered at 50 Democrats and independents, 49 Republicans for most of Wednesday, with Virginia hanging in the balance. Webb’s victory ended Republican hopes of ekeing out a 50-50 split, with Vice President Dick Cheney wielding tie-breaking authority.
The presumed Democratic majority counts on the support of two newly elected independent senators, Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, who have declared that they will caucus with the Democrats.”
120. Yes Chrisco your analysis from yesterday has proved to be spot on..thanks because it made me a few quid.
118. Having consulted Matthew Parris’s book of scandals, it would seem that the police investigation didn’t start until 1933, as the earlier abuses were before the 1925 Act. So, L G was almost certainly not interviewed while PM, although he may have been in the 1933 investigation.
62-Perhaps they found a stash of (Dem) votes in a pick up in an Indian Reservation as happened in 2000 in SD!
Jim Webb, if he wins, will be an extremely conservative Dem. He used to be a Rep and only changed to contest the seat. He also used to be Secy of the Navy under Reagan!
Upshot, the Senate will still be a mainly coservative assembly.
Not political, but anyway:
“The Football Association is to investigate allegations that several Premiership managers have laid bets on top-flight matches.”
(Source)
I wonder if Lieberman will vote for all the slate of Democratic Senate Committee chairs. He is in a very powerful position.
And as Senators are by no means slaves to their own side in key floor votes, and as many of the Democrats newly elected seem very conservative, I also wonder what will really change.
Add to that the whole system being designed to avoid sudden and radical changes (and it has done pretty well in that respect overall) I can’t help but think the whole ’shock and awe’ thing may be overhyped.
It isnt about votes in the senate, it is about chairing the committees and setting agendas
RE 122 ACM, Ah yes. He was the reason for the act so could not have been done under it.
125 Blue2win. Lieberman has stated that he will caucus with the Democrats, so therefore he will support the Democrats for the Committe chairs, which when all is said and done is where the real power lies.
As to the balance in the Senate. I think most people here are looking at it in UK terms. American politics is not like that at all, especially in the Senate. Which is how you can have say, Olympia Snowe who is to the left of Webb on the Republican side. Issues and localism drives the politics of the Senate, not right or left.
In the UK we have managed to develop a presidential system but without the checks and balances that exist in the US of A.
If our MPs made their own minds up then things would become interesting!
Just to clarify the Evening standard headline is wrong (links on my blog) because it asserts that Tony will not be quizzed, which I take to mean questioned whilst PM as they will be handing over the file to the CPS in early 2007 and it will take the CPS ages to decide whether to charge or not. Thing is the Police need to question Tony before they hand over the file, I.E. by early 2007.
“I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started.”
I’ll miss Rumsfeld…
131. Has anyone seen whether the headline is the same in the print copy?
130. Correct - not only has the executive slowly become dominant over the legislature, but the power of the executive itself has become increasingly concentrated in the person of the PM. It is unhealthy, in a world of fallible individuals.
We have some lessons to learn from the US in this regard - although they might equally want to consider whether their system, which allows the partisan drawing of political boundaries and oversight of elections, might also have room for improvement.
Re 133 ACM, No I have not I am afraid.
RE 134, PM fair points.
134.”Correct - not only has the executive slowly become dominant over the legislature, but the power of the executive itself has become increasingly concentrated in the person of the PM. It is unhealthy, in a world of fallible individuals. ”
In the end Clare Short was right
110. Ted
Thank you very much for this vital information. If the report is well founded, it should lengthen the Q1 2007 odds considerably. They have in my view been depressed only by the outside possibility of charges being brought and a consequent sudden resignation. I suppose it is still possible that the investigation could have an effect on the timing of the resignation. Either TB or his Party may get fed up with the drip-drip of rumour and decide that enough is enough but I don’t reckon it’s likely. Blair doesn’t strike me as the type to quit under pressure and the Party would have very great difficulty forcing him out.
I have reviewed my betting position and decided to lay the said Q1 2007.
Thanks again. Now excuse me while I deal with some of the miscreants who habitually post on this site and have been sullying my good name recently.
I’ve been reflecting on the U.S. results.
Two events cost the GOP the Senate:
Allen on ‘macaca’
Limbaugh on Fox.
Discuss.
135. I’ve now been able to read the Standard E-Edition which claims to be precisely the same as the print edition. The headline is “Honours Inquiry Will Drag On Until Summer” and the story includes the paragraph “Mr Blair, however, look certain to be the first PM to be questioned by police since Lloyd George 70 years ago. … Mr Blair, however, has not been sent a letter, strongly suggesting he will be interviewed early.”
This is in direct contradiction to the online story.
O/T but I saw an item on the BBC website about a man who suffered severe internal injuries after trying to fire a rocket from his bottom.
It travelled in the opposite direction to the one intended.
Sky reporting Alan Johnson not to stand for leadership.
112. Tyson
That’s tough and I have every sympathy. I think Mike is right. An appeal would have a very good chance of success. I’d try it if I were you.
141. It was rumoured on various Lab blogs (and on the Telegraph and Tribune) that he would have announced today he won’t stand for leader, but for deputy leader.
143. Guido is expecting an announcement to that effect tomorrow.
140 - …But President Bush is expected to make a full recovery.
107 Mike S
I was only kidding! Nevertheless I am glad but not surprised to find politicalbetting.com got it right even if Betfair didn’t. My excitement at the thought of maybe winning the prize is dampened somewhat by the thought that if I do, Jack W and Icarus are almost certain to appeal, force a recount and take the matter to the highest court in the land in an attempt to thwart my success.
113. Ant
Thanks for that. I knew I was close. If I come second, would you like the spare copy?
140
145
I can’t believe that any of you haven’t now read the report, but if not you have to. Tears running down my face. The idea of having a Black Cat Thunderbolt lodged there oooh.
139. Oops Peter you may have to change your mind again…
108. Jack W
I trust you are not referring to this occasionally sober Englishman? I quote in evidence Fonthill Road (18-1), Rail Track (8-1) and Invasor (6-1), all publicised free of charge on this site. I can also obtain, if necessary, letters of support from any number of dodgy bookmakers AND the drunken Scot on Kings X station (if I can find him).
I rest my case.
144. Reid to tighten then, as the only credible challenger left?
145 and 148 - my secretary asked if it was Donald Rumsfeld, when I told her.
148 - The bit I thought was a particularly nice touch (if subtle) was that the chap was from Sunderland, and it was a Black Cat rocket. Perhaps Keane & the boys will go the same way… (Here’s hopeing anyway
)
111. Icarus
PMSL = p****d myself laughing.
Since you are more up to speed with these things than I am, do you happen to know whether, in the event that I come second, PB.com will finance my appeal and investigation into the result?
I merely enquire.
Re 138, ACM that was yesterdays story
149. Now don’t you start, PM. I have enough trouble with Jack and his cronies.
I specifically stated that TB and/or the Party might just get fed up with the whole thing and bring matters to a head one way or the other. I don’t think it will happen but it couldn’t be ruled out.
Now are you going to give me an even break or are you ganging up with our resident Scottish hooligan and his sidekick?
Re 155 ACM, Many thanks for the heads up, I have corrected my blog.
There is no guarantee that TB won’t end up being ofrced out early due to preasure over charges just as there is none that he will not be charged with anything.
Governor Tom Vilsack of IOWA is establishing a presidential committee to explore the possibility of a Presidential run for the Democrats.
If he runs his chances must be slim, but being from Iowa must be an advantage and if he is the only Governor in the Democrats field that might help him as well.
Sean@140
ouch. what a complete ar*e.
there’ll be probe into this, I’m sure…
A complete ars*e? Not anymore!
Most importantly in Betfair for dead heat rules to apply the Republicans must have been declared as ‘winners’ in the US senate race. They have in fact been declared as LOSERS in this race by the entire US media. Thus the dead heat rules CANNOT apply. Putting money on the Democrats for a Senate win must be a dead cert bet.
161 - Putting money on the Democrats for a Senate win must be a dead cert bet.
You first!
It has now been stated by betfair that they will refuse to recognise a Democrat majority in the Senate. This was announced at 10.21 am on Thursday 9th Novermber 2006. This is although the entire UK and US media has reported a Democrat majority win in the Senate the same day.
In this case there may now need to be a police investigation into Betfair action, which has caused large number of customers to be defrauded of £100,000’s. This internal action within Betfair has defrauded customers of a very large sum of money. This is clearly a criminal act.
Aren’t gambling debts debts of honour. Can you defraud somebody through gambling?
There is a well established precedent for criminal prosecutions in the domain of betting in the UK and the US. Witness all the UK betting executives that have been arrested in the US, for example.
bctimyagvs…
xsndevdagq dwkpsfq bjlmmrgo xyyedznleow …