Latest Polls and Latest Odds

[ayrmad]

Only among those certain to vote (733 out of the 1003 people polled). Be interesting to see exactly what they mean by that (i.e. are they excluding those who said they were very likely to vote and only including the 10/10 certainties).

Among the full 1003, it's 32(-)/45(+4)/23(-4).

All this taken from the Herald website btw, which doesn't present the data in a table.

As far as I know that's the norm now, I think it might be 8 out 10 and higher.

[H_B]

No-one voted for a Conservative/Lib Dem governement as it wasn't an option on the ballot paper.

Neither was a Conservative government on its own.

You elect an MP. MPs are members of parties. Parties, singular or plural, form a government.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Given the reduction in representation that was implemented as part of devolution, Scotland is treated as a bloc. Not one single person in the UK voted for the current government. Your fail here is as big as your assertion that the majority of Scots voted against the SNP.

They did though.

The SNP gained 45.6% of the popular vote in 2011.

54.4% didn't get the government they wanted .

Edited August 12, 2014 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Lex]

Only among those certain to vote (733 out of the 1003 people polled). Be interesting to see exactly what they mean by that (i.e. are they excluding those who said they were very likely to vote and only including the 10/10 certainties).

Among the full 1003, it's 32(-)/45(+4)/23(-4).

All this taken from the Herald website btw, which doesn't present the data in a table.

So, yet more good news for our union?

[ayrmad]

They did though.

The SNP gained 45.6% of the popular vote in 2011.

54.4% didn't get the government they wanted .

When you go down that route you're only highlighting how shite both systems are.

[H_B]

When you go down that route you're only highlighting how shite both systems are.

I thought Scotland was a collective bloc vote?

Surely we all voted for the same party?

[ayrmad]

I thought Scotland was a collective bloc vote?

Surely we all voted for the same party?

I certainly didn't vote the same way as you up here and Reynard was the only other voice I recall voting my way at Westminster.

[git-intae-thum]

http://willhillbet.tumblr.com/post/94438394233/79-of-scots-backing-yes

Interesting.

Rich London Tory donors altering the odds?

[joozy]

http://willhillbet.tumblr.com/post/94438394233/79-of-scots-backing-yes

Interesting.

Rich London Tory donors altering the odds?

It's really not interesting in the slightest. The fact you think it is - and that rich London Tory donors are altering the odds - demonstrates that you don't really understand betting.

The odds on a No vote have been, at their longest, around 1/4. There are very few punters who have the funds to justify putting a bet on at those prohibitive odds. To take it to an even more extreme example, let's say the odds were 1/100 and 100/1 respectively. I'm sure you'd get a few punters sticking a speculative couple of quid on 100/1 for a bit of fun. Pretty much nobody would stick cash on the 1/100 shot. Therefore you'd end up with a similar situation whereby close to 100% of punters had stuck money on the long shot. This doesn't mean that the odds are incorrect.

[git-intae-thum]

It's really not interesting in the slightest. The fact you think it is - and that rich London Tory donors are altering the odds - demonstrates that you don't really understand betting.

The odds on a No vote have been, at their longest, around 1/4. There are very few punters who have the funds to justify putting a bet on at those prohibitive odds. To take it to an even more extreme example, let's say the odds were 1/100 and 100/1 respectively. I'm sure you'd get a few punters sticking a speculative couple of quid on 100/1 for a bit of fun. Pretty much nobody would stick cash on the 1/100 shot. Therefore you'd end up with a similar situation whereby close to 100% of punters had stuck money on the long shot. This doesn't mean that the odds are incorrect.

????

I have no doubt that there is a bit of the chancer punter angle to the yes betting, however at odds of 5/1 etc I don't think its that speculative. Also I think you might find betting limits kick in at around £100 for yes.

No betting limits on a no punt obviously. £600,000 ????. Seriously!!

If you don't think such large bets can influence the market, then really its a bit insulting to say anyone else doesn't understand how bookmakers odds work.

[joozy]

I have no doubt that there is a bit of the chancer punter angle to the yes betting, however at odds of 5/1 etc I don't think its that speculative. Also I think you might find betting limits kick in at around £100 for yes.

No betting limits on a no punt obviously. £600,000 . Seriously!!

If you don't think such large bets can influence the market, then really its a bit insulting to say anyone else doesn't understand how bookmakers odds work.

I understand plenty how bookies work, thanks very much. The William Hill analysis relates to the number of bets, it doesn't refer to the total volume (in £ terms) of bets put on either side. Given the odds, it will only really be high-rollers sticking bets on 'no'. Do you believe that they are much greater or fewer in number than the punter who might look to bet somewhere between £10-100?

Even the regional analysis backs this up to an extent - it's no surprise that there have been zero no votes in Dundee or Motherwell because let's be honest...how many high-rollers are there going to be in either of those places?

Edited August 12, 2014 by joozy

[git-intae-thum]

I understand plenty how bookies work, thanks very much. The William Hill analysis relates to the number of bets, it doesn't refer to the total volume (in £ terms) of bets put on either side. Given the odds, it will only really be high-rollers sticking bets on 'no'. Do you believe that they are much greater or fewer in number than the punter who might look to bet somewhere between £10-100?

Even the regional analysis backs this up to an extent - it's no surprise that there have been zero yes votes in Dundee or Motherwell because let's be honest...how many high-rollers are there going to be in either of those places?

I take it you meant "zero no votes." in Dundee and Motherwell. Not sure about the no high rollers bit????

I think my point still stands. The current odds have been heavily manipulated due to a few high value punts on no in London.

The bookies have adjusted their prices to cover the loss potential accordingly.

Its possible that this has made more small punters back yes but that is inconclusive.

What can be concluded is that the vast majority of bets in Scotland have backed yes.

Take out those few high value bets and the odds would be much tighter.

[joozy]

I take it you meant "zero no votes." in Dundee and Motherwell. Not sure about the no high rollers bit

I think my point still stands. The current odds have been heavily manipulated due to a few high value punts on no in London.

The bookies have adjusted their prices to cover the loss potential accordingly.

Its possible that this has made more small punters back yes but that is inconclusive.

What can be concluded is that the vast majority of bets in Scotland have backed yes.

Take out those few high value bets and the odds would be much tighter.

Yup. Edited my post accordingly now - ta.

The current odds accurately reflect the likelihood of a yes vote. The big bookies will have their risk limits admittedly on either side, but bear in mind the liability for them in the grand scheme of things isn't that dramatic. They'll also be hedging their exposure on the exchanges - if they still have a license to do so.

Go on Betfair, it's more useful as you can see total betting volumes on either side and track the odds over time to see if there really has been a shift around the time of these massive bets.

Given that no has got a significant lead in all polls, the Commonwealth Games and first debate have passed without any noticeable swing towards yes, it's hardly surprising that the current odds reflect this. It's not to say that 'yes' has no chance, but the current implied probability of around 15% seems about fair to me.

Edited August 12, 2014 by joozy

[ayrmad]

It's really not interesting in the slightest. The fact you think it is - and that rich London Tory donors are altering the odds - demonstrates that you don't really understand betting.

The odds on a No vote have been, at their longest, around 1/4. There are very few punters who have the funds to justify putting a bet on at those prohibitive odds. To take it to an even more extreme example, let's say the odds were 1/100 and 100/1 respectively. I'm sure you'd get a few punters sticking a speculative couple of quid on 100/1 for a bit of fun. Pretty much nobody would stick cash on the 1/100 shot. Therefore you'd end up with a similar situation whereby close to 100% of punters had stuck money on the long shot. This doesn't mean that the odds are incorrect.

Go and look at a game of tennis on betfair, tomorrow Novak is trading at 1.08 against Gilles Simon and Novak has attracted £4795 out of £4861 already bet.

[joozy]

Go and look at a game of tennis on betfair, tomorrow Novak is trading at 1.08 against Gilles Simon and Novak has attracted £4795 out of £4861 already bet.

Uh huh....and your point is what exactly? Betfair attracts more professional gamblers than a betting shop in Motherwell. In fact, that's one of the problems Betfair has had historically - failing to attract the casual punter. It's impossible to tell, but that £4,795 will probably just be a handful of big punters looking to pick up a quick 8%.

Edited August 12, 2014 by joozy

[ayrmad]

Uh huh....and your point is what exactly? Betfair attracts more professional gamblers than a betting shop in Motherwell. In fact, that's one of the problems Betfair has had historically - failing to attract the casual punter. It's impossible to tell, but that £4,795 will probably just be a handful of big punters looking to pick up a quick 8%.

This happens many times a day on Betfair, the shorter the odds the more money it attracts that's why betting the home "certainties" in the EPL returns a profit long term, the bookies are only looking to balance the books not tell you what they're probability of particular outcome is, perhaps they shortened their odds to attract the big wedges so their exposure wasn't so dire in the event of a YES vote, who knows, it certainly wasn't done because of anything that was happening in the independence debate as far as I can see.

Edited August 12, 2014 by ayrmad

[joozy]

This happens many times a day on Betfair, the shorter the odds the more money it attracts that's why betting the home "certainties" in the EPL returns a profit long term, the bookies are only looking to balance the books not tell you what they're probability of particular outcome is, perhaps they shortened their odds to attract the big wedges so their exposure wasn't so dire in the event of a YES vote, who knows, it certainly wasn't done because of anything that was happening in the independence debate as far as I can see.

Shortening odds is a tactic to avoid taking more bets on a particular outcome. If you think bookies shorten their odds to attract large bets then you clearly have no understanding of gambling.

[ayrmad]

Shortening odds is a tactic to avoid taking more bets on a particular outcome. If you think bookies shorten their odds to attract large bets then you clearly have no understanding of gambling.

I suggested it as a reason in this case, I'm not Willie Hill so I've no idea what their exposure is.

Why is it on tennis that almost every time there's a player at 1.1 or thereabouts that that player attracts almost all the cash, this is something that happens thousands of times a year not occasionally, you can have a player that started at 1.1 getting absolutely scudded and yet they have still attracted most of the cash.

Real Madrid trading at ~1.42 tonight, 89% of cash.

Edited August 12, 2014 by ayrmad

[joozy]

I suggested it as a reason in this case, I'm not Willie Hill so I've no idea what their exposure is.

Why is it on tennis that almost every time there's a player at 1.1 or thereabouts that that player attracts almost all the cash, this is something that happens thousands of times a year not occasionally, you can have a player that started at 1.1 getting absolutely scudded and yet they have still attracted most of the cash.

Real Madrid trading at ~1.42 tonight, 89% of cash.

I'll tell you what, you try and find me a tennis player that is a set down and a double break down (in a 3-set match) that is trading at 1.1. The fact they attracted most of the bets prior to the match is neither here nor there. If you were to look at a breakdown of matches which started with one participant priced at 1.1, I'd wager they'd win 10 times out of 11 as the odds suggest.

Betfair is a market. The market tends to settle at an equilibrium where layers and backers are happy to trade. When something happens to disturb that equilibrium then the price will move up or down to find the new equilibrium. It's economics 101.

The reason why most money is on the player at 1.1 is that he is most likely to win - therefore the punters with the big rolls will lump on him/her in an attempt to make a quick 10%. For the majority of us mere mortals, risking £10,000 to win £1,000 is not something we either have the means or balls to attempt. The risk is, of course, that they're wrong. Look at the Liverpool v AC Milan Champions League final - at half-time AC Milan traded at 1/100 and £2.5m was matched on Betfair at that price. A lot of the high-rollers got massively burned there trying to pick up some free cash - it's like trying to pick up pennies in front of a steamroller.

The equilibrium price right now on Betfair is around 13/2 for a yes victory. The market thinks there's a c. 15% chance of 'yes' winning - if you disagree, stick a bet on. The market isn't always right....although it usually is.

[ayrmad]

I'll tell you what, you try and find me a tennis player that is a set down and a double break down (in a 3-set match) that is trading at 1.1.

I don't think that's what I posted, I posted that in matches where someone starts the match at 1.1 the most cash is still on them by the end of the match even when they are getting scudded, most of the cash bet on the matches is usually in play by the way.