Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister
Discussion
Elysium said:
Bizarre argument. Bookmakers don’t set the odds based on the level of bets placed. They set them based on the likelihood of the event happening. If they didn’t they would all go out of business very quickly.
On your second point, it’s really easy to argue that he could ‘throw’ the election. It’s in his direct control.
You are absolutely right that this candidate is an idiot that is unworthy of your vote. Which is a why it’s a bit jarring that you feel the need to play down the impact. It obviously does matter for the voters in this constituency, whose ability to freely cast their vote for the party they choose has been needlessly removed by actions of this very foolish man.
On the Conservatives it is interesting that of the many people who had placed bets only two are being investigated. So there does not seem to have been a widespread abuse of privileged information. We don’t know yet if the two that are being looked at did anything materially wrong. However, they have all misled the bookmakers by not revealing their links to the Conservative Party and should be roundly condemned for doing so.
Of course bookmakers set odds based on data and form, but the clue is in the word ‘bookmaker’, they balance their book based on the money laid and they hedge accordingly, as the son of a bookie I think I’ve a reasonable grasp.On your second point, it’s really easy to argue that he could ‘throw’ the election. It’s in his direct control.
You are absolutely right that this candidate is an idiot that is unworthy of your vote. Which is a why it’s a bit jarring that you feel the need to play down the impact. It obviously does matter for the voters in this constituency, whose ability to freely cast their vote for the party they choose has been needlessly removed by actions of this very foolish man.
On the Conservatives it is interesting that of the many people who had placed bets only two are being investigated. So there does not seem to have been a widespread abuse of privileged information. We don’t know yet if the two that are being looked at did anything materially wrong. However, they have all misled the bookmakers by not revealing their links to the Conservative Party and should be roundly condemned for doing so.
I’m not downplaying Kevin Craig’s actions, but I don’t think what he has done is equivalent to those who obviously and openly acted on inside information, you disagree for the reasons stated and I respect that, just disagree. It’s difficult to reasonably argue that the election was totally within his control, in the same way that say a jockey might have control of a horse, yet that seems to be the cornerstone of your argument.
I said earlier that we will have to wait and see, at the moment I’m not hearing too much more about Kevin Craig, but it’s early days I suppose.
Elysium said:
Bizarre argument. Bookmakers don’t set the odds based on the level of bets placed. They set them based on the likelihood of the event happening. If they didn’t they would all go out of business very quickly.
I have long understood that you you are not correct. I thought they have to take into account where people are placing their bets because their objective in "making a book" is to come out on top whatever the result. If nearly everyone is betting on X happening then even if it is unlikely, they have to make the odds very short because in the event it does actually happen, they could end up losing a lot. For instance, gambling odds will vary from place to place because locals will bet on "their team" because they want it to win. That's just my understanding though - happy to be shown to be wrong. I'm no expert.Randy Winkman said:
I have long understood that you you are not correct. I thought they have to take into account where people are placing their bets because their objective in "making a book" is to come out on top whatever the result. If nearly everyone is betting on X happening then even if it is unlikely, they have to make the odds very short because in the event it does actually happen, they could end up losing a lot. For instance, gambling odds will vary from place to place because locals will bet on "their team" because they want it to win. That's just my understanding though - happy to be shown to be wrong. I'm no expert.
You’re right about the fundamentals of bookmaking, which is why you see odds changing constantly when you go to a meeting, the price is driven by the market. The football analogy is a good one and one reason why some international betting markets have been suspended, you could have the same bet on the same match in two different locations and get different odds, thereby beating the bookie, for once. Way off topic sorry, it just fascinates me. Elysium said:
For me the Labour situation is worse because there is no obvious defence and because the ‘victims’ are the electorate.
He has put himself in a position, probably through deception, where he has bet on an event where the outcome that pays out (losing) is in his direct control.
In contrast it has yet to be proven that the two conservatives under investigation were actually in possession of inside information. They are also less directly connected with the event and not in direct control of the outcome.
The bigger issue for me though is that the Labour candidates actions impact the voters. So it goes beyond a simple gambling offence and potentially interferes with the election.
Will be interesting to see what comes of it.
That is ludicrous. You cannot seriously think the Labour candidate would prefer to lose the election and win the bet. That is utterly ridiculous.He has put himself in a position, probably through deception, where he has bet on an event where the outcome that pays out (losing) is in his direct control.
In contrast it has yet to be proven that the two conservatives under investigation were actually in possession of inside information. They are also less directly connected with the event and not in direct control of the outcome.
The bigger issue for me though is that the Labour candidates actions impact the voters. So it goes beyond a simple gambling offence and potentially interferes with the election.
Will be interesting to see what comes of it.
The Tories, and there are 15 of them under investigation, not 2 of them, were placing bets on a decision that they may have had inside information about. The Labour candidate cannot know the outcome of his own election and it is silly to pretend he might throw the election to win the bet.
They are all pillocks. I know two of them and I have to say I feel considerable sympathy for them. They are pillocks but not bad human beings and they are reaping the whirlwind over a pretty trivial matter.
Randy Winkman said:
Elysium said:
Bizarre argument. Bookmakers don’t set the odds based on the level of bets placed. They set them based on the likelihood of the event happening. If they didn’t they would all go out of business very quickly.
I have long understood that you you are not correct. I thought they have to take into account where people are placing their bets because their objective in "making a book" is to come out on top whatever the result. If nearly everyone is betting on X happening then even if it is unlikely, they have to make the odds very short because in the event it does actually happen, they could end up losing a lot. For instance, gambling odds will vary from place to place because locals will bet on "their team" because they want it to win. That's just my understanding though - happy to be shown to be wrong. I'm no expert.I want them to win but if they do happen to lose then winning a few quid softens the blow.
Blue62 said:
Elysium said:
Bizarre argument. Bookmakers don’t set the odds based on the level of bets placed. They set them based on the likelihood of the event happening. If they didn’t they would all go out of business very quickly.
On your second point, it’s really easy to argue that he could ‘throw’ the election. It’s in his direct control.
You are absolutely right that this candidate is an idiot that is unworthy of your vote. Which is a why it’s a bit jarring that you feel the need to play down the impact. It obviously does matter for the voters in this constituency, whose ability to freely cast their vote for the party they choose has been needlessly removed by actions of this very foolish man.
On the Conservatives it is interesting that of the many people who had placed bets only two are being investigated. So there does not seem to have been a widespread abuse of privileged information. We don’t know yet if the two that are being looked at did anything materially wrong. However, they have all misled the bookmakers by not revealing their links to the Conservative Party and should be roundly condemned for doing so.
Of course bookmakers set odds based on data and form, but the clue is in the word ‘bookmaker’, they balance their book based on the money laid and they hedge accordingly, as the son of a bookie I think I’ve a reasonable grasp.On your second point, it’s really easy to argue that he could ‘throw’ the election. It’s in his direct control.
You are absolutely right that this candidate is an idiot that is unworthy of your vote. Which is a why it’s a bit jarring that you feel the need to play down the impact. It obviously does matter for the voters in this constituency, whose ability to freely cast their vote for the party they choose has been needlessly removed by actions of this very foolish man.
On the Conservatives it is interesting that of the many people who had placed bets only two are being investigated. So there does not seem to have been a widespread abuse of privileged information. We don’t know yet if the two that are being looked at did anything materially wrong. However, they have all misled the bookmakers by not revealing their links to the Conservative Party and should be roundly condemned for doing so.
I’m not downplaying Kevin Craig’s actions, but I don’t think what he has done is equivalent to those who obviously and openly acted on inside information, you disagree for the reasons stated and I respect that, just disagree. It’s difficult to reasonably argue that the election was totally within his control, in the same way that say a jockey might have control of a horse, yet that seems to be the cornerstone of your argument.
I said earlier that we will have to wait and see, at the moment I’m not hearing too much more about Kevin Craig, but it’s early days I suppose.
Taking a step back you justified your statement to Eddie that this chap had no chance of winning by saying that the odds the bookmakers offer don’t reflect the probability of the event happening. However they obviously do set odds based on data and form as you have now clarified.
I fully agree that the odds are then adjusted so that the bookies position is protected no matter what happens. But at the heart of it, they do still have to allow for the chances of that event.
My first proper job was with a national bookmaker. I didn’t set the odds, but I knew people who did.
Elysium said:
This is what I love about pistonheads. I’m suddenly having an argument about bookmaking
Taking a step back you justified your statement to Eddie that this chap had no chance of winning by saying that the odds the bookmakers offer don’t reflect the probability of the event happening. However they obviously do set odds based on data and form as you have now clarified.
I fully agree that the odds are then adjusted so that the bookies position is protected no matter what happens. But at the heart of it, they do still have to allow for the chances of that event.
My first proper job was with a national bookmaker. I didn’t set the odds, but I knew people who did.
In the nicest possible way you honestly don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to the betting industry, you called my argument bizarre which unfortunately belies your ignorance on the subject. The irony is that if bookmakers did as you suggest they would go out of business, as their model would be no different to the punters they service. Taking a step back you justified your statement to Eddie that this chap had no chance of winning by saying that the odds the bookmakers offer don’t reflect the probability of the event happening. However they obviously do set odds based on data and form as you have now clarified.
I fully agree that the odds are then adjusted so that the bookies position is protected no matter what happens. But at the heart of it, they do still have to allow for the chances of that event.
My first proper job was with a national bookmaker. I didn’t set the odds, but I knew people who did.
I sincerely doubt that very much money had or has been laid on the candidates in the Central Suffolk constituency, so any movement would have consequences. I’d back off now.
S600BSB said:
15 Conservative candidates and officials now being investigated. Looks like the Sunday Times was right.
Innocent until guilty and all that, of course, but in the context of a political party not known of late as being angels, this can't look anything other than bad. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/ge...
turbobloke said:
Innocent until guilty and all that, of course, but in the context of a political party not known of late as being angels, this can't look anything other than bad.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/ge...
Tricky for Sunak if most are candidates. Does he withdraw support as with the other 2? If the worst of the polls are to be believed (not by me!) then that could be 10% plus of his MPs. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/ge...
S600BSB said:
turbobloke said:
Innocent until guilty and all that, of course, but in the context of a political party not known of late as being angels, this can't look anything other than bad.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/ge...
Tricky for Sunak if most are candidates. Does he withdraw support as with the other 2? If the worst of the polls are to be believed (not by me!) then that could be 10% plus of his MPs. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/ge...
EddieSteadyGo said:
deadslow said:
there's a difference between poor judgement and attempting to commit fraud.
Two sides of the same coin. It's poor judgement which leads to an awful lot of illegal, fraudulent, immoral etc etc behaviour.Thank god those who cannot tell the difference are about to be consigned to political wilderness.
Blue62 said:
Elysium said:
This is what I love about pistonheads. I’m suddenly having an argument about bookmaking
Taking a step back you justified your statement to Eddie that this chap had no chance of winning by saying that the odds the bookmakers offer don’t reflect the probability of the event happening. However they obviously do set odds based on data and form as you have now clarified.
I fully agree that the odds are then adjusted so that the bookies position is protected no matter what happens. But at the heart of it, they do still have to allow for the chances of that event.
My first proper job was with a national bookmaker. I didn’t set the odds, but I knew people who did.
In the nicest possible way you honestly don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to the betting industry, you called my argument bizarre which unfortunately belies your ignorance on the subject. The irony is that if bookmakers did as you suggest they would go out of business, as their model would be no different to the punters they service. Taking a step back you justified your statement to Eddie that this chap had no chance of winning by saying that the odds the bookmakers offer don’t reflect the probability of the event happening. However they obviously do set odds based on data and form as you have now clarified.
I fully agree that the odds are then adjusted so that the bookies position is protected no matter what happens. But at the heart of it, they do still have to allow for the chances of that event.
My first proper job was with a national bookmaker. I didn’t set the odds, but I knew people who did.
I sincerely doubt that very much money had or has been laid on the candidates in the Central Suffolk constituency, so any movement would have consequences. I’d back off now.
Blue62 said:
S600BSB said:
Tricky for Sunak if most are candidates. Does he withdraw support as with the other 2? If the worst of the polls are to be believed (not by me!) then that could be 10% plus of his MPs.
He’s in an invidious position and this time not one of his making.
t leader and this is an outcome of st leadership. It reeks of people thinking nothing's changed since Boris left and this is just continuity Johnson govt. Not so much "fk business" as "fk everything and everyone that aren't us".hidetheelephants said:
I'd argue that it is, he's a st leader and this is an outcome of st leadership. It reeks of people thinking nothing's changed since Boris left and this is just continuity Johnson govt. Not so much "fk business" as "fk everything and everyone that aren't us".
ISWYM but in an uncharacteristic outbreak of even handedness, I don't think even he could have foreseen the hill the Tories were ready to die on was William Hill.t leader and this is an outcome of st leadership. It reeks of people thinking nothing's changed since Boris left and this is just continuity Johnson govt. Not so much "fk business" as "fk everything and everyone that aren't us".S600BSB said:
turbobloke said:
Innocent until guilty and all that, of course, but in the context of a political party not known of late as being angels, this can't look anything other than bad.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/ge...
Tricky for Sunak if most are candidates. Does he withdraw support as with the other 2? If the worst of the polls are to be believed (not by me!) then that could be 10% plus of his MPs. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/ge...
It’s really unlikely they will end up being part of whatever the Tory party becomes.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff