ayrmad Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joozy Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joozy Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 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. But they won't be 1.1 when they're getting demolished will they. Besides, we're getting a bit waylaid from the point here that bookies definitely don't shorten odds to attract bets and the William Hill PR piece doesn't really tell us anything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) They did though. The SNP gained 45.6% of the popular vote in 2011. 54.4% didn't get the government they wanted . Defend Westminster? It gets less democratic, with lower turnouts! Edited August 12, 2014 by HaikuHibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) Defend Westminster? It gets less democratic, with lower turnouts!Someone claimed the SNP got a majority of votes - those figures show they didn't. Edited August 12, 2014 by DeeTillEhDeh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) Someone claimed the SNP got a majority of votes - those figures show they didn't. Labour designed it. Just to cling on to power. All they care about.. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/new-rules-would-stop-majority-at-holyrood.15810730 Edited August 12, 2014 by HaikuHibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Labour designed it. Just to cling on to power. All they care about.. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/new-rules-would-stop-majority-at-holyrood.15810730 Do other parties not want power then ? Are they in it just to make the numbers up ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) Do other parties not want power then ? Are they in it just to make the numbers up ? Well that is one thing. Passing laws to ensure it. That's Westminster's way. Edited August 12, 2014 by HaikuHibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Well that is one thing. Passing laws to ensure it. That's Westminster's way. That article said Glasgow academics came up with it. You're paranoid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 That article said Glasgow academics came up with it. You're paranoid. Not the point I made. Read it again carefully. The last paragraph. The report concluded: "Such a step would require politicians in larger parties to be willing to help those in smaller ones, and perhaps that will still seem like a step too far." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Labour designed it. Just to cling on to power. All they care about.. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/new-rules-would-stop-majority-at-holyrood.15810730 We're watching you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Not the point I made. Read it again carefully. The last paragraph. The report concluded: "Such a step would require politicians in larger parties to be willing to help those in smaller ones, and perhaps that will still seem like a step too far." You're going to have to enlighten me how this is anything to do with Westminster. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) The report concluded: "Such a step would require politicians in larger parties to be willing to help those in smaller ones, and perhaps that will still seem like a step too far." You're going to have to enlighten me how this is anything to do with Westminster. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/contents They decide system. Meant to benefit Labour. That's not paranoid. Edited August 12, 2014 by HaikuHibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/contents They decide system. Meant to benefit Labour. That's not paranoid. You've posted a link to the UK government, last time I checked Labour weren't calling the shots and that was waaaaaaay to long to read to try and pick up what your point was. Your initial link said the Electoral Reform Society came up with this suggestion. They're a sort of cross party/no party bunch and they've got an Edinburgh office so I fail to see your Westminster or Labour connections. I'm going to stick with paranoid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 You've posted a link to the UK government, I fail to see your Westminster connections. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Someone claimed the SNP got a majority of votes - those figures show they didn't. Proof? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 You vote for an MP, not a government. Maybe unionists should get your stories straight. Almost as many people in Scotland voted for the current Westminster government as voted for the current Holyrood administration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Similarly you vote for constituency MSPs and a party to elect a regional list MSP, you do not vote for the Scottish government. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Similarly you vote for constituency MSPs and a party to elect a regional list MSP, you do not vote for the Scottish government. I can't be arsed going back to all the previous posts on this subject. This simplistic view of both WG and SG elections is to ignore the existence of political parties and the affiliation of the candidates to such parties. Voters in Glasgow North East would vote Labour regardless of the MP and a similar pattern can be found in vast swathes of the country. In fact it is quite surprising that people are ignoring this given that they themselves have often posted on which party they voted for. 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.