RedRob72 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Still not much movement at the Bookies, Sky Bet have No at 1/6 and Yes at 7/2 and that's about the most 'middle of the road odds' you'll get on line. http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I don't have a choice where my tax goes, I work in England and live in Scotland like a good few others around Dumfries, Annan, Gretna and other border towns. My company is registered in England so my tax will probably go to the treasury down south no matter what way I vote. If anyone can clarify this type of situation that myself and others in the same position find themselves, then please do. Income tax is based on your place of residence, which is why Pink Floyd and the like popped off to France, etc. during the seventies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Roughly the same odds as Brazil to win the WC then. If your Bookie is offering Brazil at 1/6 then he wont have many takers mate! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joozy Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Roughly the same odds as Brazil to win the WC then. Still not much movement at the Bookies, Sky Bet have No at 1/6 and Yes at 7/2 and that's about the most 'middle of the road odds' you'll get on line. http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome Betfair has yes at a fraction over 5/1 with no at 2/11. Pretty much equates to an 85% probability of a no victory in September. As for the Brazil reference, that's an 8 horse race....this field only has 2 contenders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Because you've never reached the tax threshold. Eric always does a fine job of camouflaging his pay grade. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) Still not much movement at the Bookies, Sky Bet have No at 1/6 and Yes at 7/2 Ladbrokes were going 4/1 YES and 1/6 NO on Tuesday. Two days later they changed to 9/2 YES and 1/7 NO. Whether someone has lumped on strongly in two days or Ladbrokes are pulling up the ladder, I do not know. Edited July 4, 2014 by Tryfield 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Ladbrokes were going 4/1 YES and 1/6 NO on Tuesday. Two days later they changed to 9/2 YES and 1/7 NO. Whether someone has lumped on strongly in two days or Ladbrokes are pulling up the ladder, I do not know. They know the way its gonna go! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 And to think they had labour ahead a scant six or seven Weeks earlier, eh? Still got the gap between snp and labour wrong by about 7% too. As I've said in the past, there is nothing "wrong" about a polling company showing a Labour lead in, say, late February 2011. Because had the election been held then, Labour would probably have been the largest party. What pollsters should be compared on is the accuracy of their final poll in each election. In the European elections all of the pollsters very badly overestimated the SNP by around 6-8% and all of them underestimated the Tories by around 4%, except yougov who "only" overestimated the SNP by 4% but at the same time they overestimated Labour by 5%. The survation/daily record poll was probably the best one overall, because they pretty much nailed Labour, the Lib Dems and UKIP. Their only errors were apportioning some of the Tory vote and some of the minor party votes to the SNP. In 2011 TNS were the best of the "final polls" (yougov had the closest overall poll, but conducted two polls after is showing a drop in SNP support), yet as late as the 27th March they were projecting a Labour lead, and according to them Labour were 15 points ahead in early March. Does this mean there was anything wrong with the March poll? Of course not, all it says is that had the election been held in early March Labour would almost certainly have won it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted July 4, 2014 Author Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) There's two options, Brazil win the World Cup or they don't. A 3/1 shot is a 3/1 shot regardless of the field size. Jesus wept. If a horse was 3/1 in a 2 horse race, or 3/1 in a 8 horse race, which would you rather bet on? Edited July 4, 2014 by Lex 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted July 4, 2014 Author Share Posted July 4, 2014 It would depend on which one I thought was the better value and which one had more than the 1 in 4 chance the bookies gave it... That would be nothing to do with the field size. You really shouldn't say Jesus Wept about something if you don't know what you are talking about. What's your opinion on this matter young Lex? Think of it this way.., there's 7 ways Brazil won't win the cup. There's 1 way to lose a 2 horse race.. For example in the games tonight you'll get odds on a team to win, and odds on a team to progess. The first is a 3 event outcome (win lose or draw) the second is a 2 event outcome. Look at the difference between the odds to win the game and to progress. Look at how much taking away an outcome knocks off the price. If you really still can't see the difference there then I'm sorry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joozy Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 There's two options, Brazil win the World Cup or they don't. A 3/1 shot is a 3/1 shot regardless of the field size. While you are of course correct that a 3/1 returns the same regardless of the field size, there are differences that you have to take into consideration. Brazil are the likeliest winners of the World Cup, 3/1 would imply they have a 25% chance of success. They have a 75% chance of failure - with that spread among the 7 remaining contenders. In the referendum, that 75% chance of failure for the yes campaign(using the 3/1 as an example, when in fact you can get 5/1) simply means that the no campaign have a 75% CoS. In the Brazil case they're 3/1 and the likeliest winner....in the referendum campaign yes can be 3/1 and are nowhere near the likeliest winner. I take your point, and I suppose a lot of this is semantics, but people will view a 3/1 shot differently depending on the field size. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Jesus wept. If a horse was 3/1 in a 2 horse race, or 3/1 in a 8 horse race, which would you rather bet on? ^^^ idiot found 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I think people are rather tying themselves in knots over this. Being the favourite to win doesn't mean that your outcome is necessarily even remotely likely. Imagine there are 10 tickets in a lottery, and 1 winning ticket. Four people hold tickets. A has 1 ticket, B have 2, C has 3 and D (you) has 4. You have a 40% chance of winning. Imagine that instead A holds all of the tickets that B and C had instead. A has 6 tickets, D (you) has 4. You are no more or less likely to win in either scenario, yet you have gone from being the favourite (i.e. most likely individual to win) to being the outsider. Behavioural psychologists have noticed that people are less likely to participate in the second scenario as person B, even though their chances of winning haven't changed. Just because Brazil are the hottest tipped to win the World Cup, doesn't mean that they are likely to win the World Cup. A 25% probability is still very unlikely. It suggests that there is a 75% chance that Brazil will not win the World Cup. Similarly, just because a Yes vote has odds comparable to Brazil winning the World Cup, doesn't mean they're even remotely likely to win. It doesn't mean a bet on Brazil winning the World Cup is any more or less absurd than a bet on Yes winning, but it is not perceived by either the bookies or the betting community as a likely outcome and probability suggests you will be less likely to lose your money if you bet against them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) Nice attempt at obfuscation over Lex's now routine humiliation, but even your scenario doesn't account for market liquidity. Wherever the money is on an outcome in such a niche betting market, the odds tip to reflect that. Not that this implies a conspiracy with Yes being more likely to win - I don't think that's the case. Edited July 4, 2014 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Think of it this way.., there's 7 ways Brazil won't win the cup. There's 1 way to lose a 2 horse race.. For example in the games tonight you'll get odds on a team to win, and odds on a team to progess. The first is a 3 event outcome (win lose or draw) the second is a 2 event outcome. Look at the difference between the odds to win the game and to progress. Look at how much taking away an outcome knocks off the price. If you really still can't see the difference there then I'm sorry. No, you're making a mistake. 3/1 means 3/1 irrespective of how many competitors there are. The difference in the Brazil context is that 3/1 at QF stage means they are thought to be about 62% likely to win each of their games individually. But the risk of losing any one of those games flips their probability of winning the World Cup to "unlikely" whereas each given game's result is "likely". It doesn't mean that it makes any more sense to bet on Brazil to win the World Cup if the odds at QF stage are 3/1 as set against if they are 3/1 at the final stage, assuming the odds are actually reliable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 No, you're making a mistake. 3/1 means 3/1 irrespective of how many competitors there are. The difference in the Brazil context is that 3/1 at QF stage means they are thought to be about 62% likely to win each of their games individually. But the risk of losing any one of those games flips their probability of winning the World Cup to "unlikely" whereas each given game's result is "likely". It doesn't mean that it makes any more sense to bet on Brazil to win the World Cup if the odds at QF stage are 3/1 as set against if they are 3/1 at the final stage, assuming the odds are actually reliable. awww ffs ad lib can even make gambling boring 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Can't make pointing and laughing at Lex boring though - I suspect a disappearance is in the offing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Jesus wept. If a horse was 3/1 in a 2 horse race, or 3/1 in a 8 horse race, which would you rather bet on? You've a cheek to run around this thread slagging people when your brain can produce shite like that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 awww ffs ad lib can even make gambling boring He really is a jack of all trades oor Ad Lib I've never seen a scrounging student with such a level of life experience before 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.