Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister
Discussion
Elysium said:
You have already agreed with me. It is obviously true that the likelihood of an outcome happening is part of the bookmakers process in setting the odds.
I really haven’t agreed with you and the fact you thought my argument was ‘bizarre’ highlights your complete lack of understanding on the subject. There has to be a starting point, but in the context of the Alex Craig situation it’s irrelevant, the odds shortened because a bet or bets were placed on a race that few would’ve bothered with in the first place.
President Merkin said:
hidetheelephants said:
I'd argue that it is, he's a s
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".
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".
You win today's internet. Blue62 said:
Elysium said:
You have already agreed with me. It is obviously true that the likelihood of an outcome happening is part of the bookmakers process in setting the odds.
I really haven’t agreed with you and the fact you thought my argument was ‘bizarre’ highlights your complete lack of understanding on the subject. There has to be a starting point, but in the context of the Alex Craig situation it’s irrelevant, the odds shortened because a bet or bets were placed on a race that few would’ve bothered with in the first place.
You initially appeared to be arguing otherwise, which I described as ‘bizarre’, but then you went on to write this:
Blue62 said:
Of course bookmakers set odds based on data and form
You are right that the bookmakers engineer odds so that they profit regardless of who wins, but the starting point for that has to be an assessment of what is likely to happen. It’s a long time ago, but I recall that the ideal outcome for the bookies was for the favourite to win, then the longshot. The worst outcome was if a near favourite won. Because you had narrow odds, but significant volumes of winners to pay.
Rusty Old-Banger said:
bhstewie said:
Stay classy, lefties hstewie said:
hidetheelephants said:
President Merkin said:
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". You win today's internet. John Oliver's call to arms https://x.com/supertanskiii/status/180553402568929... (NSFW, sweary)
ATG said:
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.
It doesn't matter what I think about the prospect of the labour candidate throwing the election to win the bet. The fact is that he can deliberately. Betting on himself in these circumstances requires deception and is totally unacceptable. Particularly as voters in his constituency are affected by his stupidity.
Elysium said:
The breaking news section of the Telegraph said only 2 conservatives were under active investigation as of last night. Obviously there is still also a bunch from the Met police.
It doesn't matter what I think about the prospect of the labour candidate throwing the election to win the bet. The fact is that he can deliberately. Betting on himself in these circumstances requires deception and is totally unacceptable. Particularly as voters in his constituency are affected by his stupidity.
Would it make a difference if he knew that his own party had an agreement with the lib dems not to support him so as to beat the tory?It doesn't matter what I think about the prospect of the labour candidate throwing the election to win the bet. The fact is that he can deliberately. Betting on himself in these circumstances requires deception and is totally unacceptable. Particularly as voters in his constituency are affected by his stupidity.
Vanden Saab said:
Elysium said:
The breaking news section of the Telegraph said only 2 conservatives were under active investigation as of last night. Obviously there is still also a bunch from the Met police.
It doesn't matter what I think about the prospect of the labour candidate throwing the election to win the bet. The fact is that he can deliberately. Betting on himself in these circumstances requires deception and is totally unacceptable. Particularly as voters in his constituency are affected by his stupidity.
Would it make a difference if he knew that his own party had an agreement with the lib dems not to support him so as to beat the tory?It doesn't matter what I think about the prospect of the labour candidate throwing the election to win the bet. The fact is that he can deliberately. Betting on himself in these circumstances requires deception and is totally unacceptable. Particularly as voters in his constituency are affected by his stupidity.
Is this being suggested or is it a purely hypothetical question?
Elysium said:
Vanden Saab said:
Elysium said:
The breaking news section of the Telegraph said only 2 conservatives were under active investigation as of last night. Obviously there is still also a bunch from the Met police.
It doesn't matter what I think about the prospect of the labour candidate throwing the election to win the bet. The fact is that he can deliberately. Betting on himself in these circumstances requires deception and is totally unacceptable. Particularly as voters in his constituency are affected by his stupidity.
Would it make a difference if he knew that his own party had an agreement with the lib dems not to support him so as to beat the tory?It doesn't matter what I think about the prospect of the labour candidate throwing the election to win the bet. The fact is that he can deliberately. Betting on himself in these circumstances requires deception and is totally unacceptable. Particularly as voters in his constituency are affected by his stupidity.
Is this being suggested or is it a purely hypothetical question?
Now this is a proper bet - £8k. At least he didn't try to deflect using the word "flutter" as though a flutter is worse than a bet. It's quickly becoming my least favourite word in politics, just as journos stopped saying "psychodrama" they spring this one on me.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-...
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-...
Mr Penguin said:
Now this is a proper bet - £8k. At least he didn't try to deflect using the word "flutter" as though a flutter is worse than a bet. It's quickly becoming my least favourite word in politics, just as journos stopped saying "psychodrama" they spring this one on me.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-...
This has to be the winner surely. Non paywalled story here:https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-...
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/philip-davies-ac...
Police investigating as potentially other offences beyond gambling act.
Elysium said:
Mr Penguin said:
Now this is a proper bet - £8k. At least he didn't try to deflect using the word "flutter" as though a flutter is worse than a bet. It's quickly becoming my least favourite word in politics, just as journos stopped saying "psychodrama" they spring this one on me.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-...
This has to be the winner surely. Non paywalled story here:https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-...
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/philip-davies-ac...
Police investigating as potentially other offences beyond gambling act.
If the former, how much would he have won?
jdw100 said:
Elysium said:
Mr Penguin said:
Now this is a proper bet - £8k. At least he didn't try to deflect using the word "flutter" as though a flutter is worse than a bet. It's quickly becoming my least favourite word in politics, just as journos stopped saying "psychodrama" they spring this one on me.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-...
This has to be the winner surely. Non paywalled story here:https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-...
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/philip-davies-ac...
Police investigating as potentially other offences beyond gambling act.
If the former, how much would he have won?
https://news.bet365.com/en-gb/article/politics-odd...
If he put £8k down he would win around £1140
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff