Latest Polls and Latest Odds

[FlyerTon]

With weighting applied No are in the lead by 8 points.

Good Morning Britain had a graphic on screen this morning with:

GMB Poll - No 54% Yes 46%

[FlyerTon]

I think it's the women that could decide it either way.

If it was purely a vote amongst men, I think it would be a yes.

[FlyerTon]

Are there any polls with:

a) Male vote

b) Female vote

?

[Ross.]

You also have to factor in that the bookies might see one outcome as being more likely, but feel they can make more money by offering the alternative as a sure thing, expecting that they could take several very high stake bets on the perceived low risk certainty, which would more than cover their pay out in the event of the other result coming in.

I'm not saying that punter who staked £800k on odds averaging 1/6 is a mug, but I think the bookies have taken him(and some others) as one.

[H_B]

Sigh. This is my last contribution because I have no patience for idiots as I've explained before.

Bookies follow the money.

If everyone bets on No then the odds on No will simply reflect that.

No is at 1-4 on or whatever it is now because that's what people are gambling on.

If 500 of us walk in tomorrow and place £2 million on Yes the odds on Yes will move from 3-1 to 1-2 and No odds will lengthen to 2-1.

It would be financial suicide for the bookies to keep Yes at 3-1 and No at 1-4 because a Yes vote would then bankrupt them.

Your logic says that means Yes is now more likely to win compared to when the odds were 3-1.

Clearly this is bollox.

Bookies odds follow the bets placed on outcomes.

If bookies change the odds on No from 1-4 to 1-10 it's not because they think "f**k me, Darling did well today. No are more likely to win now".

They change the odds because some twat has decided to place £800,000 on No.

Now stop wasting everyone's time with your stupidity.

Your understanding of odds matches your understanding of everything else.

What utter garbage.

Edited September 15, 2014 by H_B

[renton]

Are there any polls with:

a) Male vote

b) Female vote

?

Every poll going breaks down the data by gender, as well as post voting behavoiour and social group. Yeah, women do tend to lag behind men but the gap has closed to a degree.

[forever_blue]

to be fair I think the yesser had a hope that the appearance of farage and saturdays orange walk were going to create a reaction which they could have spun in their favour , however bioh have seemed to blow over with very little impact or controversy coming from them.

[John Lambies Doos]

to be fair I think the yesser had a hope that the appearance of farage and saturdays orange walk were going to create a reaction which they could have spun in their favour , however bioh have seemed to blow over with very little impact or controversy coming from them.

As a Yes voter, I am glad it all blew over peacefully.

What was more striking to me and probably most people, was that while some bigoted 300 yrs in the past scumbags were marching. Many other Scots were taking to the steets in a wave of hope and the future

[LinkinFighter]

to be fair I think the yesser had a hope that the appearance of farage and saturdays orange walk were going to create a reaction which they could have spun in their favour , however bioh have seemed to blow over with very little impact or controversy coming from them.

The yes side deliberately ignored them and rightly so. Edited September 15, 2014 by LinkinFighter

[John Lambies Doos]

Any idea when next official Poll comes out?

[RedRob72]

Sigh. This is my last contribution because I have no patience for idiots as I've explained before.

Bookies follow the money.

If everyone bets on No then the odds on No will simply reflect that.

No is at 1-4 on or whatever it is now because that's what people are gambling on.

If 500 of us walk in tomorrow and place £2 million on Yes the odds on Yes will move from 3-1 to 1-2 and No odds will lengthen to 2-1.

It would be financial suicide for the bookies to keep Yes at 3-1 and No at 1-4 because a Yes vote would then bankrupt them.

Your logic says that means Yes is now more likely to win compared to when the odds were 3-1.

Clearly this is bollox.

Bookies odds follow the bets placed on outcomes.

If bookies change the odds on No from 1-4 to 1-10 it's not because they think "f**k me, Darling did well today. No are more likely to win now".

They change the odds because some twat has decided to place £800,000 on No.

Now stop wasting everyone's time with your stupidity.

An absolute crock of Sh*te, you have no idea have you, stick to your coin tossing mate!

[Ando]

I genuinely don't know how odds are produced, there must be some balancing though with stakes to give the bookies a small profit whatever the outcome, in most cases?

I do bet a lot, and hot favourite's do lose, quite often.

Take the horse Australia this weekend for example, "unbeatable" and heavily backed with odds of 1/4 on.

It came second to the 7/1 2nd favourite.

Second fav had the best jockey and won the race by a neck.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Ando

[Loki]

When a bookmaker decides it's odds it will first adjust any probabilities on how much money is anticipated to be gambled. In the instance of that horse race they would have anticipated that Australia with it's wonderful form and getting tipped by lots of tipsters that a lot of money would be placed on it. So it's odds would be significantly below the % chance of the probability occurring. They are trying to limit their liabilities so ideally no matter what horse wins, they make a % of the total money gambled.

In Tennis if Tomas Berdych was to play Andy Murray, the British bookmakers would anticipate more money going on Andy and adjust his odds accordingly. He would be favourite to win. However Berdych has a better head to head record against Murray, and beats him more often than Andy Murray beats Tomas. So now you have Murray as odds on favourite but he wins 40% of the time.

Bookmakers odds don't always reflect actual probabilities of occurrence. You can get 7/2 on Yes winning the referendum which represents a 22% occurrence. I think both sides would both agree that the yes side has a better than 22% chance of it occurring. The value is certainly on Yes.

[Kyle]

I wish the poster Fudge would enter the odds debate here. His knowledge of odds and how the bookies work them out is unbelievable. What Loki says looks about right to me to be honest.

[Blaven]

to be fair I think the yesser had a hope that the appearance of farage and saturdays orange walk were going to create a reaction which they could have spun in their favour , however bioh have seemed to blow over with very little impact or controversy coming from them.

That's because our delightful MSM decided not to give them any coverage. Why would that be?

It can't be pride in the kind of values they represent. Yet they will be championing them at the next GE.

[RockyDale]

Earlier this week myself and a few of my friends had fun with McBookie in regards to the next Ross County manager. We picked four candidates, we then asked for a price and backed each person from 33/1 to odds on. Butcher, Hartson, Lennon and Malpas were odds on at some point but at no point were they likely to get the job. This forced McIntyre's price out.

At no point did these odds ever reflect the probability of an outcome occurring.

The odds on a no vote (from Ladbrokes) are currently 1/4, applying probability this equates to an 80% chance of it occurring. Yes is 3/1 which is a 25% chance of it occurring. If you add these up you get a probability of 105%. This is where the bookies make their money in the over round.

Personally I think anyone that has backed No at odds like 1/4 is a mug.

Do you think anyone who lays No odds at 1/4 are mugs?

[Lex]

Found that table interesting. No surprise Dundee is out and out favourite, surprised Glasgow is as high up though. North and East Ayrshire seems more pro Yes than Glasgow in my experience.

[Confidemus]

ImageUploadedByPie & Bovril1410780287.558253.jpg

Found that table interesting. No surprise Dundee is out and out favourite, surprised Glasgow is as high up though. North and East Ayrshire seems more pro Yes than Glasgow in my experience.

Glasgow's a shoe in for Yes.

[Ludo*1]

Mate works in the bookies in Dundee, bear in mind that Dundee is the 'Yes' city but he said that if a 'No' vote comes in, with his branch at least, the bookies will lose much more than if it were a 'Yes'. He said that despite the odds for 'Yes' being much higher, the majority of bets on a 'Yes' are in the range of £10-£20. Whereas people are putting fortunes on a 'No' vote. He said he's seen a couple of £3-4k bets on 'No' and heard of bets much higher.

[Ando]

When a bookmaker decides it's odds it will first adjust any probabilities on how much money is anticipated to be gambled. In the instance of that horse race they would have anticipated that Australia with it's wonderful form and getting tipped by lots of tipsters that a lot of money would be placed on it. So it's odds would be significantly below the % chance of the probability occurring. They are trying to limit their liabilities so ideally no matter what horse wins, they make a % of the total money gambled.

In Tennis if Tomas Berdych was to play Andy Murray, the British bookmakers would anticipate more money going on Andy and adjust his odds accordingly. He would be favourite to win. However Berdych has a better head to head record against Murray, and beats him more often than Andy Murray beats Tomas. So now you have Murray as odds on favourite but he wins 40% of the time.

Bookmakers odds don't always reflect actual probabilities of occurrence. You can get 7/2 on Yes winning the referendum which represents a 22% occurrence. I think both sides would both agree that the yes side has a better than 22% chance of it occurring. The value is certainly on Yes.

Makes sense, cheers.