Paddy Power, Mike Huckabee and a Voided Bet
March 11th, 2008
A cautionary tale from Peter the Punter
Take care, political punters. The bets you think you may have struck with bookmakers may not be as watertight as you think.
In the Republican Caucus for Kansas held on Feb 9th 2008, Mitt Romney was hot favorite to win ahead of his main rival, Mike Huckabee. The first indication on this Site of a possible upset came at 8.11pm (GMT) with Jfsl posting at 165 - “Fox predicting Huckabee will win Kansas.” At 8.22pm, Caveman posted that Paddy Power were still offering 6/1 Huckabee. At 8.28pm, I took £20 of that 6/1 and had a further £20 at 3/1 with the same firm at 8.35. A number of other PBers did something similar.
I believe Paddy Power took the market down around about 8.40pm, which was the time the result, proclaiming Huckabee the winner, was given on the official Republican website. Around 11pm I noticed my bet had been voided and when I spoke to PP about this they referred me to a Reuters report timed at 8.27pm stating that Huckabee had won.
In the debate with PP that continued the next day, they referred me to their rules concerning late bets and commented as follows:
Late Bets: Bets are accepted up to the off-time of the event or a pre-determined time whichever the earlier. Paddy Power reserves the right to void or stand any bet inadvertently accepted after the betting has closed or where the event was resolved or at a stage where the customer could have any indication of the outcome. Should there be a dispute over the off time of an event/market where an official starting time is not given by that sports governing body, then the time that Paddy Power determines the event to have started will govern settlement of all bets.
The customer most definitely could have had an indication of the outcome at 8.27 as that is the first report of when Huckabee was declared the winner.
Naturally I pointed out that my bet was not late. The result was not declared until 8.40pm and the Reuters report was no more that a reiteration of other reports in the media that Huckabee was the probable winner. PP were unmoved and I referred the matter to IBAS, the arbitration panel for disputes of this kind. Here is the IBAS response, verbatim.
“The Panel acknowledges the point made by Mr Smith that the official result was not given at 8.27 but much later. However, the information provided by Reuters and US Media were projected results and that in most cases would be an highly accurate prediction based, probably on exit polls.
“Hence, it would mean that the customer would have been given a significant pointer from authoritative sources as to the likely outcome, making any bet placed after that information was posted liable to being declared void under rule.
“The wording in the rules says: ‘Paddy Power reserves the right to void or stand any bet inadvertently accepted after the betting has closed or where the event was resolved or at a stage where the customer could have any indication of the outcome.
“On that basis, the Panel adjudicate in favour of the company who were within their rights to stand or declare the bets void.”
This answers a question which was not put. Of course Paddy Power were within their rights. The punter has few rights and even fewer practical resources if a bookmaker chooses not to pay, other than to avoid that bookmaker in future. The much more relevant questions are whether Paddy Power acted in a fair and reasonable manner and on what basis will they or other bookmakers settle bets of this kind in future.
The implications of the latter will be immediately obvious, especially to political punters. The bookmaker is the sole judge of when ‘…the customer could have any indication of the outcome’ and can judge retrospectively. Punters must be aware that bets they have placed in good faith on events where information is trickling out constantly may be voided at some later date. This is particularly relevant if they are laying off such bets. The lay part is unlikely to be voided, and the punter who thought he was hedging, may be left with an unexpected liability.
Political betting is relatively new. It therefore does not have the benefit of the same amount of precedent as more mature betting markets, such as horse racing or soccer. In addition, there are likely to be ambiguities and definitional problems which create a greater degree of uncertainty than is usual in more traditional sports betting. It is in the interests of punter and bookmaker alike that such uncertainty is reduced to a minimum. In this respect, Paddy Power’s decision and the IBAS ruling are extremely unhelpful.
Relevant Links:
PB thread covering the Kansas caucus
Reuters announcement timed at 8.27pm UK time.
Official announcement from KRP timed at 8.40pm. The site also explains arrangements for the announcement of the result – see Media and Press section.
Peter Smith
MessageSpace Advertising
There are two lessons here:
Betting exchanges don’t care who wins.
Spread firms are FSA regulated rather than IBAS.
yeah - this seems harsh - either you accept bets after polls close (with the not always accurate exit polls that go with them) or you don’t.
Good Layout and design. I like your blog. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. .
Jason Rakowski
This is disgraceful. They took the bet and must honour it. Did you check whether punters with losing bets on Romney got their stakes refunded?
205- Martin Day. I’ve never believed that racism was merely a Tory issue. I’m sure it applies to Labour and Lib Dem supporters aswell. However amongst people who are politicallly active, I’d say the Tories have the biggest problem. And they certainly acted shamefully during the 2005 election (who wrote the manifesto btw?).
Perhaps Britain has dealt with the race issue better than most countries, but IMO it is still a huge problem.
What’s PBC’s resident bookmaker got to say on this issue? - Can he offer anything more than the spineless IBAS verbage?
Also - what happened to Mike’s 500 bet with “obeserver” - I know mike said drop he dropped it but I was shocked by how many people posted in the comments apparently showing some level of support for Mr Observer. Shocking stuff.
Agree that the IBAS decision is lazy and incorrect.
Reposted from previous thread:
“As I said at (27) i reckon “sips of water” is a value bet.
Darling will be nervous and keen to make an impression. Nervousness = dry mouth. Dry mouth = sips of water.
Also, if there are a few interruptions (which there may be from the Tory side on non-doms, prudence etc.) he will take a sip.
3-4 sips is what I’m hoping for.”
Interestig story from the bbc on schools breaking the law to get the ‘right’ pupils.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7289642.stm
Wonder if they’ll be any condemnation from Cameron? Or if he’ll sympathize? ‘All teachers want the best for their schools’ etc.
8 - Indeed it is far too easy to see Cameron spouting some ‘All teachers want the best for their schools’ C***
5
Shameful to talk about immigration as an issue?
Surely the only shameful thing is the lefties that have repeatedly smeared anyone that wanted to talk about immigration as a racist, just another form of censorship from the left.
Consequently,we have ended up with failed multiculturalism,virtually no integration,government that has no idea of the levels of immigrants or who should or shouldn’t be in this country.
A mass boycott of Paddy Power might be in order. Money talks, and only money talks it would appear in the case of PP, so how about attempting to hit them where they will listen - in the wallet?
It might be a useful exercise in warning others not to take punters for granted too. The question is, do we have sufficient clout to make them pay attention…?
Who is the PR rep for Paddy Power? Regardless of the above I’d be trying to smooth this one out if I were him or her … this site takes a lot of hits. Doesn’t look too good really for them.
10. It wasn’t the talking about immigration, it was the dog-whistle rhetoric that went with it. Cameron has managed to talk about immigration in a much more measured way than Howard did.
PtP - you should remember yesterday’s opinion poll lesson - all publicity is good publicity - And you’ve now got the Paddy Power logo blazoned across the top of PBC!
On a similar note to this thread, I put a bet down with ladbrokes that last Tuesday, Hillary would win two states and Obama would win two at 11/4
At first, I thought I’d lost it but on closer inspection i’ve seen that the bet was done on who won the most delegates from the state and that means, although it stil hasn’t been decided, Obama probably will win Texas as he is beating Hillary by a significant margin in the Caucuses.
Anyone else bet on a similar event? Or on the Texas result?
John Wheatley @73 on the last thread:
“Throughout the 70’s Powell said that the trade unions were not the problem but an effect of poor money supply management. Not sure you right wingers would go along with that.”
Well, Thatcher did - she saw inflation as a monetary problem, not a trade union problem. That’s why she was able to leave her major moves against the trade unions until her second term. For Thatcherites (in contrast to ‘wets’ and indeed to Tory hardliners of the ’60s) the trade unions were a political obstacle, not really an economic one.
Objectionable and contemptible, but not all that surprising. Bookies often do this - see the Coral fiasco on each ways last year, and Blue Square’s outright fraud when they welched on their adverts last month.
Clearly ‘has an indication of the result’ should be read as meaning an indication not open to the general public. Anything else makes a mockery of providing a live betting facility.
‘Bookie Wriggles Out Of Paying Shock’
In other news -
Mrs Imelda Marcos concedes she owns the odd pair of shoes and Boris Johnson denies visiting a barber since puberty !!
…………………………
On the Clinton/Obama popular vote debate it looks like another avenue for a Hillary win is closing down faster than …. faster than …. tasty political bets with Paddy Power !!
http://www.dailykos.com/
………………….
On Mississippi - The delegate count for Obama/Clinton should be in the region of 20/13 if he’s in for the projected comfortable 15-20 point win. The margins for extra delegates are tight but a really outstanding Obama performance will see the count go up to 22/11.
I’m already boycotting PaddyPower, or to be more precise, they are for all practical purposes refusing my custom just because I’m better than them :-). After I took some money from them on the Irish election, the limits they offer me are so laughable that I can just forget it. (€ 0.10 on Gore winning the Nobel prize was my last try.)
Not a serious company IMO.
17 Only since puberty?!
re 6. Observer still owes me £500 - the slimey sh*t ball. He was a Clegg supporter which in retrospect says it all.
Is the ‘Freeze the Duty on Beer’ advert on this site by chance or have they indentified this as a target audience?
20 - Shit - sorry to bring up bad memories - it’s the comments that people were leaving that I truly could not understand - it’s understandably for slimey sh*t balls to walk away from 500 - some people seemed to think that 500 was too high a bet - but if you can’t get 500 together together in a couple of weeks then you’re not trying - it’s not exactly Lock, Stock & 2 Barrels level.
are the current IBAS shower still funded by the bookmakers? perhaps our ladbrokes’ man could advise?
O/T Could the Spitzer scandal have any blowback for the London race? It was on the front page of tonight’s London Lite. Will it remind Londoners of the Jasper scandal - or of Boris’ philandering? Or will no-one draw a comparison?
20 - Also, Mike, c’mon on - don’t let slimy boy taint the LD brand - show some Lib Dem solidarity, I think it’s time to get Clegg up there on the PBC banner.
It is a complete waste of time to look at bookies’ rules. You invariably lose—and if you read them, you’ll always lose.
A better approach may be to speak to someone senior, and try to make them assert that their firm has been ‘reasonable’. (And if nobody will claim that they have been ‘reasonable’, you are entitled to draw the obvious conclusion). You can’t win against one-sided rules. But since Denning, ‘reasonableness’ has legal standing, and the arse-ache of defending a case brought on those grounds may encourage the bookie to settle. They’ll close your account, but…
Similarly, you can ask them about their industry ‘best pracice’. If they keep referring you back to the rules, keep on about ‘best practice’. “But as customers, apart from knowing the rules, aren’t we entitled to know what is your industry ‘best practice’?”
Judges are keen on ‘written rules’, though they often don’t mind over-ruling unfair terms-and-conditions. And they love ‘best practice’. So a publicly-quoted bookmaker (and especially the IBAS) ought to be to supply fair, reasonable, and written, industry ‘best practice’. This is additional to their ‘rule-book’. If they can’t, in court, the large firm against the little man is on the wrong foot, to put it no more strongly.
26 - “It is a complete waste of time to look at bookies’ rules” - Indeed - it’s a bit like (well…maybe not very…but anyway)buying a Plane Ticket - if you look at the small print at no point do they say that you actually have a seat booked any one of their planes that may or may not be going.
24 - Front page of Evening Standard was about Jasper and the dodgy taxi school.
Interesting quote from Livingstone today: “It’s clearly going to be very dirty and very unpleasant. I’m sure we’ll move onto my private life at some point and the private life of some of my aides.”
Full article: http://tinyurl.com/3c68bf
I am sure it was accidental that Jack Peterson at 24 forgot to mention, whilst mentioning Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson, that Mr Paddick has had some controversies in his past. Therefore, the Spitzer story, in the very unlikley event that it affects London voters, might remind people of these as well
I would have thought that as a matter of principle, if the bookie is too slow to change or withdraw a price based on public information, it should be hard cheese for them. “Authoritative source” or not, the point is that it was public. You read the story on Reuters, it’s not as if it came from a secret source in Kansas!
17. If Clinton can’t the popular vote she’d have to rely on Obama converting to Scientology to win the nomination.
8.”Interestig story from the bbc on schools breaking the law to get the ‘right’ pupils.”
Apparently Balls in his usual subtle manner is letting everyone know who is charge, also think that its a clever bit of spin which points angry or disappointed parents away from the culprit!
29. It was accidental.
Though I think Mr Paddick is less vulnerable to these accusations than Mr Johnson. Especially since, as has often been mentioned on here, Boris seems to be relying on a strong turnout from the Tory base in the outer boroughs.
Also, Mr Paddick’s controversies are in his past and in his book. With Boris you never know what revelation is going to come out next.
“However, the information provided by Reuters and US Media were projected results and that in most cases would be an (sic) highly accurate prediction based, probably on exit polls.”
The above text from the IBAS finding demonstrates just how little they understand about political betting.
OF COURSE Reuters and others were basing their decision on exit polls, but this was simply not the point at issue. Since when have the publication of exit polls been the basis by which betting markets remain open or closed. Indeed throughout the primaries, we have seen such markets remain open for HOURS after exit polls have first been released, especially where the outcome was judged close. We have even seen the media incorrectly call a result
In totally failing to understand this basic concept, IBAS, IMHO are far more to blame than even Paddy Power in this very unfortunate episode.
But the bookmaker will ultimately pay a heavy price for this. Thousands of people visit this website and will be able to form their own opinion and decide whether they wish to invest their money with Paddy Power or perhaps with an alternative bookmaker in whom they might have greater confidence.
32.
Balls : “Schools cant be trusted - we need LEA’s and civil servants to run schools”
I’d leave the pb.com banner as it is; after all the next election is a 2 horse race and the LibDems can’t win here!
6 “I was shocked by how many people posted in the comments apparently showing some level of support for Mr Observer. Shocking stuff.”
Eh, is it me? I can’t actually remember a single word of support being uttered for “Observer”
Mike’s post at 20, together with his comments at the time suggest he has an inkling as to the identity of the indidual concerned.
The banner is being changed when we can get the time. We need the contenders in the White House race and I was sort of hoping that this would have been settled last week.
14 re the Ladbrokes markets from last Tuesday. Once the Texas Democratic Party get round to picking up their mail and counting the caucus returns, we will be able to settle those bets. If Obama ends up with the majority of primary/caucus delegates, as seems fairly likely, we’ll pay out anyone who backed 2-2 or Obama to win Texas.
Was Texas result declared too early? Clinton won Primary by 100,000 and Obama will probably win the caucus there by 120,000. Also he will have more delegates.
We have all been conned again…if its not the politicians its the bookies
What nonsense…
37 - Eh??? why do you think I would be accusing you? I don’t remember who it was but there was definately a couple of posters showing some shocking levels of ambivalence towards the issue.
40. Why did the Texas Democrats not put procedures in place to count the caucus results quickly. They knew the eyes of the nation were upon them. Was it another Clinton plot?
Anyone think there will be any movement on the exchanges after tonights primary or has a large Obama win already been factored into the price ? (1.35)
37 - oops, i’ve misread your post a bit. But my last sentence is still correct.
39 - Any comments on the thread topic?
44 OK Steven, pax on this - we both felt the same anyway.
43. Seems to me Obama has been underpriced for a long time. He’s going to win tonight and to continue to get superdelegates until Pennsylvania. Check the posting on the Daily Kos that Jack W linked to. She has to limit every loss and secure huge wins to catch up on the popular vote, as well as getting FL and MI counted, and even then its a big outside chance.
There is no way the superdelegates are going to overturn the candidate who has the most states, the most delegates and the most votes. Not only would the GOP crow about it for a long time, the Democrats would risk permanently alienating African Americans - who are an essential part of the coalition.
39. Shadsy, just checked and you’ve already settled my £50 bet for a 2-2 score as a losing bet. Can you confirm that you will pay out (at 3.75) when the caucus results are finally in (assuming obama wins the delegate count)
27: steven, what you need is this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7276717.stm
49 - Ha! touche, nice plug. (I was going to say something about your Speccie exploits history that you shared with us last night suggested you were a much more well rounded induvidual than your new labour drone postings suggest…
(really i’m joking))
Great to see the message space ad from the British Beer and Pub Association!
7 Casino - on reading your post above, I realise you were 16 minutes ahead of me on the last thread in terms of recommending a buy of “Darling’s sips of water” at a price of 1.1 - did you actually take this bet?
I haven’t checked the prices for the last couple of hours, but if anyone’s interested at around 6.30pm IG were offering the same bet at the same price.
51. “Beer drinking down one million pints a day”.
Surely that’s not a day-on-day figure?
45. I am going to stay out of it.
However I think it’s only fair to acknowledge that Powers are, in general, fairly well regarded in the industry (punters included) when it comes to resolving disputes. In addition, I know there are plenty of people on here who will have benefited from their decision to pay out on Obama as the Democratic nominee before New Hampshire.
That, of course, has no bearing on the particular issue that Peter raises here.
51 - it is indeed good to see - if only the anti-regressive taxation movement had any influence whatsoever…
49. Did it get passed?
Hi Gang - Just back from an extremely unprofitable day at Cheltenham but am heartened to read so many supportive posts. Thank you.
Not really too much one can do about it, despite David Kendrick’s helpful suggestions, but I guess Paddy Power won’t be winning PB’s Bookmaker of the Year Award.
That’ll teach them.
48. That was an error Alex, sorry. You will of course get paid if it turns out he’s won the most delegates.
49 - I still remember the small print on tuition fees and legislating to prevent their introduction.
Sorry - cheap shot! Nice plug for worthy issue, Nick!
54 - That is totally fair enough - (not sure why you’ve mentioned PP publicity seeking at all though…)
I’ve been listening to Obama’s shrill rebuttal of the prospect of being her VP today. Completely reasonable in the real world. Its not hers to offer as he’s ahead. However he looks a bit small saying he won’t consider her while she’ll consider him. Its a dog whistle to her existing Super delegates. Don’t jump ship yet because a buy one get one free offer might be available. on other topics.
- I’m not taking populus seriously until a trends is clear. It was also taken during LD spring conference when cable was all over the airwaves.
- My water tells me we might have a bit of red meat tommorrow. Windfall tax on Power companies, something on child poverty, plastic bags tax/legislation. something for the guardian and the mirror.
- LD defection in HULL. back ground discredits him I’m afraid.
57 “I guess Paddy Power won’t be winning PB’s Bookmaker of the Year Award”
PtP - When we come round to the PB.com annual awards ceremony, which surely justifies a party in itself, perhaps Mike will offer a “Worst Bookmaker of the year” nomination, just to get the point well and truly home. Of course, these are early days and there may be other contenders by then!
57 BTW - did you wear the red Fedora today?
Rather sensible documentary on immigration on BBC2 at the moment.
Interesting thread. Arguments on both sides. I’m surprised Paddy Power are pushing it to the letter - all the goodwill they gain for paying out on results that had not happened made me think those Irish boys were used their common sense and discretion to good effect. If nothing else the negative publicity from this thread will maybe make one or two scratch their heads and wonder if it was worth it.
P.S. Apologies to Peter from Putney for the losing tip on Sunday. Everything happened in reverse to my expectations and it was the more experienced player (Querrey) who showed the bigger nerves early on.
49 surely Lord Denning sorted all this out Nick; he made some fantastically worded judgements on consumer contracts.
Also consumer contracts are governed by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations so perhaps you could spend some time and effort helpng prevent the government’s slow motion destruction of the CAB rather than worrying about the font size in unenforceable contracts.
50/56/59: Thanks for the friendly notes! Who was it who was described as having “hidden shallows”?
It got its initial reading unopposed and has lots of NGO support plus Trading Standards, though the ASA dislike it as they say they’ve got the issue sorted already due to their firm overview of all advertising (yeah, right). As it’s a 10 Minute Rule Bill it will now die in limbo, but the government is just launching a consultation on new consumer protection legislation and I’m talking to the Minister about incorporating some of this. See the 4-minute slot on BBC 1 last Sunday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b009jcdr (about 40 minutes in)
66: Well, Trading Standards don’t think so, kingo, partly because of the interaction of advertising and contract law and the arrival of websites which weren’t really foreseen in earlier legislation. The problem is not whether contracts are enforceable or not, but whether people can read them in the first place - most people who lose out because of some fine print aren’t going to bother to go to court or even seek CAB advice.
63 PfP
I did.
It didn’t help.
54 Shadsy
Yes, I had a pretty good opinion of Paddy Power and I was really rather surprised by their attitude. In 50 or so years of dealings with bookmakers, this is the first time I have ever been dissatisfied with the way a disagrement was resolved. I am astonished that of all bookmakers it should be PP that tarnished that record.
49. Nick Palmer - very creditable but isn’t it a case that its not the size of the print that’s the real problem but the content of the agreement?
In an era when the consumer is constantly being bamboozled by reams of jargonistic legalese that allow businesses to avoid their responsibilities and misrepresent their products it should be the Governments responsibility to revisit contract law and the provision of services and set out some revised binding principles which stop companies from disassociating themselves from their responsibilities or misrepresents products and services.
Just saw Nancy Pelosi’s comment saying that an joint Obama-Clinton ticket was impossible. She certainly seems to be minded towards Obama:
In what appears to be a barb aimed at the Clinton camp, Pelosi, who has not publicly endorsed either candidate, told CNN: “I think that the Clinton administration has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better commander-in-chief than Obama.”
She explained her blunt assessment that a joint ticket would be impossible, by saying: “I wanted to be sure I didn’t leave any ambiguity.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/11/hillaryclinton.barackobama
65 No probs, Henry. In fact I was given £25 by Stan James when I placed this bet with them, plus I placed a win bet on Querrey, so I finished up on the night, as if by magic!
73. That’s good news.
I don’t know if anyone on PB has already mentioned this?
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/03/unfair_voting_system.html
A must read for all PB’rs.
72. Pelosi is one of many party grandees that has been very unhappy with the Clintons’ behaviour during this campaign.
72 After Wyoming, I felt the VP was hers for the asking (politely of course) and Bill appeared to be trying to steer things in that direction, but I guess her C-in-C comments blew it altogether.
Shame, I had a few quid on her at 9/1.
PtP. Sorry PP didn’t payout for you - I got my last bet on just before the cut. I’m suprised they didn’t as the tiny stake amounts they allow mean their liability should have been small, and to this point I’d been impressed by their willingness to run US primary markets in play on the night unlike most other traditional bookies.
To make up for it, now that Huck has overtaken Romney on delgates hopefully they should payout shortly on the 6/1 McCain - Huckabee 1-2 forecast that I flagged up which I think you got on as well
edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=R
72 it would be interesting if the party’s senior woman ( PelosI) came out against Clinton. I’m sure she’s holding fire to see wether party elders need to step in.
75. Based upon UNS those figures.
Coldstone, don’t all PBers already know this. The amazing thing is that the Tories are not crying foul already. Waiting until after the results are in will not impress anyone.
81. I think most of the effect is from Tory support being massed in fewer seats. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the job of the Conservative party to sort it out.
81
They probably do know it, but this collection of essays is probably the first time all of the evidence has been so expertly expressed.
You’d think even the Tories would have worked out than some sort of PR system might be to their advantage! A fourth defeat might convince them.
75. If you’re looking at hung parliament scenarios, including British experiences, Centre Forum published a volume last summer which I think is well worth a look:
http://www.centreforum.org/publications/in-the-balance.html
Though the Hansard Society book seems to have a wider range of contributors.
Caveman. Fuel duty increase looks to be off.
75, 80, 81, 82,
Detailed analysis of the “gap” is carried out by Martin Baxter at Con-Lab Gap Analysis
His conclusion is that there is a gap of 90 seats, which equates to a 4.9% advantage under UNS for Labour. Of this, his analysis can explain 4.5% of that 4.9%:
1 - Uneven seat sizes (Scotland and Wales): 0.7% (12 seats)
2 - Differential turnout: 1.8% (33 seats)
3 - Support distribution (marginals): 0.5% (10 seats)
4 - Tactical voting by Labour supporters: 0.5% (10 seats)
5 - Tactical voting by Lib Dem supporters:1.0% (16 seats)
9 seats unexplained.
So of that 90 seat advantage, about 45 seats can be relied upon by Labour (points 1 and 2). Points 3-5 could be retained - but they’d probably have to have a popularity advantage in any case. They could also melt away like yesterday’s snow. That about a third of the Labour advantage relies on retaining their accumulated tactical vote is one of the reasons that we often look at the “forced vote” and relative leader popularities to try and guess where those seats will go.
75 - “The Tories could win 40% of the vote, Labour 30% - and the Tories would still not have a majority (although they would only be seven seats short).”
Indeed, very unfair that the Tories could get as much as 49% of the seats with only 40% of the vote.
Would an accurate summary of the situation be that PP refuse to pay because a punter might have known more about what they were betting on than they did, simply by watching the freely available media (although in this case, that wasn’t the case)? In fact, given Jan’s comment, their approach looks to ban not only those who are alert to what’s going on, but those who are decent analysts.
Frankly, it’s a daft ruling and an extremely selfish one. Of course bookies stack odds in their favour, and limit bets to limit exposure (but £180 is hardly going to break their bank), but this is taking matters too far. I’ve always done most of my betting on the exchanges and that will only be reinforced by this episode.
78 Thanks Caveman. I didn’t know Huck had edged in front.
Yes, I did collar that 6/1, hat-tip to you. Let’s just hope PP don’t void the bets.
This is the one aspect of US elections I can never understand. It was these exit polls in 2004 that led people to suggest that Bush stole the election
86. That suggests that the only one that the tories could legitimately complain about/change is 1. which would amount to a 12 seat deficit. Interesting.
Re: The documentary. Very good, very persuasive. Made me lean more towards greater inside EU immigration controls, although there has to be a welfare to work push at the same time. To encourage unskilled workers to fix the gap in the labour market. However it was a bit out of date as some of the Poland -> England migration has begun to reverse, due to change of polish government as well as decrease in the strength of the pound against the eurozone and british economic slowdown.
Nick Palmer - just been reading last couple of day’s threads and very impressed with your pre-political experience.
86. Link doesn’t work.
” However amongst people who are politicallly active, I’d say the Tories have the biggest problem.And they certainly acted shamefully during the 2005 election (who wrote the manifesto btw?).”
Self righteous rubbish, IMHO. Our stance on immigration was entirely reasonable in 2005, as is the stance of the majority of party members.
CLINTON - OBAMA TICKET
This is total contrivance of the Clinton campaign (at least at this point in time which as per usual they’ve pushed to the limit . . . indeed right off the cliff.
Every voter who is thinking about the presidential race at all is asking the very same question that Obama himself raised: if he’s not qualified to be President, then why on earth does Hillary think he’s qualified to be Vice President?
And her mouthpiece Wolfson delivered one of the howlers of the decade, by saying that, well, Obmama wasn’t qualifed NOW . . . but he might be by the time the convention rolls around!
This is a strategy aimed at the uncommitted superdelegates, whom the Clinton camp believes tend to be personally favorable to her as a rule.
Believe it has backfired.
Sorry, try: Gap Analysis
89. How’d it go today?
One way with Binocular was about it out of 4 bets. If Thyne Again had got into a place it would have been different.
Like tomorrow: Horses on Yokel’s suicide nags possible betting list are:
2.00 Trafford Lad (money already on)
2.35 Pomme Tiepy (money already on), though looking at Silverburn
3.15 Mansony if the rains just kept falling and Fair Along is they relent and the ground firms up a touch. No bet yet
5.20 Cousin Vinny, risky but maybe. No bet yet
By the way my recent record on the nags is atrocious so no one should take these as tips.
94. I agree, in fact it has now become government policy and has been implemented.
However, it was the rhetoric and way it was presented, the “nudge, nudge” of the “are you thinking what we’re thinking?” campaign. Also, Howard rarely looks good when appearing tough on anything, the man could make a teddy bear appear creepy and sinister.
“You’d think even the Tories would have worked out than some sort of PR system might be to their advantage”
In what way? They can win an overall majority with first past the post, but they can’t with PR.
A 10% lead would certainly give the Conservatives an overall majority. A 12% lead would deliver a very hefty win.
This surprises me about Paddy Power. Usually the first to offer a concession. I can only think they don’t want the business from people on this site and don’t have politically knowledgable people in their trading room.
How was Cheltenham PTP? I struck in the first race with my ante post but went downhill from there. Just lost the will to live trying to work out the coral cup.
85. Yokel, bottled it didn’t he - now we’re well into 3 figures a couple of pence more per litre doesn’t seem too significant but he’s obviously very gun shy following Northern Rock. I had a few quid on it but nothing serious.
Anyone wanting to still use PP after PtP’s experience they’re offering 8/13 on a new plastic bag levy being announced tomorrow, but its not 100% clear whether they will payout if the announcement is a per the story below…
In his “Green Budget”, Darling will tell MPs: “We will introduce legislation to impose a charge on single-use carrier bags if voluntary action is not seen.”
http://tinyurl.com/35ks4r
98 I thought “it’s not racist to want to control immigration” was far too defensive. Of course it isn’t, and one shouldn’t even be raising the possibility.
68
Nick - I really think the problem is quite clearly not going to be solved by forcing standardisation of background colour font size and colour and typeface. Most people don’t read the contracts they enter into - ask any government minister as s/he blithely signs another treaty. That was the point of caveat emptor and it’s erosion, as with many things, has the opposite effect to that intended.
contracts entered into electronically though could easily provide better information about the terms - why not a video podcast of a person explaining the terms of the agreement - we still use a model predicated on printed matter but there’s no need to be so restricted.
98. Rory Bremner’s ‘Don’t worry, I’m not going to hurt you’ captured the aura of Micheal Howard superbly. Shame as I think he’s a decent bloke all told.
Icarus et al. The point is, is that whilst the Tories still get approximately proportional seats to votes(more so than either Labour who obviously benefit considerably, and the LDs who suffer badly) they have 2 carrots to keeping FPTP. 1. That whilst a hung parliament may be a likely outcome this time round, it will be the only probable outcome with PR, leading to point 2. that the Tories think that it is better to have the prospect of an overall majority - maybe not this time, maybe not even next time, but a prospect none-the-less.
Ultimately, the article was stupid. It seemed to bemoan that the Tories wouldn’t take an overall majority with 39% of the vote. IMO that is a bloody good thing. What would be better is that Labour did not either. At the last election, just over two-thirds of those who voted (just over 40% of the adult population) voted for one of the two ‘big’ parties yet they still hold 85% of the seats in parliament. Whichever way you cut it, neither the Tories nor Labour speak for the vast majority of Britons. What both the Tories and Labour should face up to is that their successive ’strong’ governments have led to is disillusionment in politics as a whole in this country - and hence a weakening of democracy.
It is not, therefore, a bad thing that there is a prospect of a hung parliament, but something that should be welcomed as a reflection of democratic reality. Perhaps the Tories, before they are pushed, will jump willingly into line with the democratic will of the British people which is to not have one party dominating Parliament, but points one and two above - the ‘realpolitik’ of hope of untethered power - will inevitably prevent them from acting honourably, as it will Labour.
96 - “Gap Analysis” - Isn’t that what Elliot Spitzer was engaged in?
101. Wouldn’t surprise me if he did. Thats the story that the Beeb have anyway. I believe the government gains the higher the oil price is anyway as far as I know.
What is deeply annoying as a joe public person is that a least $10 a barrel is possibly pure speculation money. When oil started its upward movement some big financial institutions caught on and started to form larger teams concentrating on oil and oil related speculation which gives you an idea of well the speculators are doing out of the rises.
the Baxter link doesn’t seem to work. Does differential turnout mean that apparently close number of votes disguise strong tory turnouts in tory seats but low labour ones in safe labour seats? If so, there’s at least an argument that this unfairness is more apparent than real - labour just may have larger reserves of supporters who will turn out if they have to, but can’t be bothered generally. Something similar has happened for years in Northern Ireland between Nationalist and Unionist voters. The nationalist share of the total vote has generally been higher than their share of the population, because turnout in catholic areas has been high, while turnout in Unionist seats in Antrim and Down has been extremely low. Unionists appeared to have more seats than their national share of the vote would justify, but I don’t think anyone doubts the non-voting unionists would turn out en masse if really needed.
102. Sean. Why do you want to ‘control immigration’?
88 My own reading of it, David, is that somebody fell asleep at their post. They had no excuse for not picking up the same signals the punters did, especially once punters had started to take an interest in their generous prices.
The rule under which they voided the bets is so widely framed that it could be applied to just about any winning bet. I can see that bookmakers need a rule like this to protect them from innocent error and sharp practice, but neither were present in this case.
I am left with the feeling that they invoked the rule inappropriately, just to cover their own sloppiness, but of course I can only surmise. Only PP would know what really happened.
O/T. Mayoralty
I don’t know if anyone’s seen this from yesterday’s Standard, but it’s quite interesting on the Paddick campaign (and a reasonably favourable write-up). Also gives the source of the Livingstone bus fares ad which came out earlier this week.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23450911-details/Clinton+campaign+manager+joins+the+Paddick+team/article.do
109. The programme on BBC2 abour Peterborough should explain
109 Because uncontrolled immigration works against the interests of the country.
109.”102. Sean. Why do you want to ‘control immigration’?”
What a daft question! Why does any country control immigration???
106 Well he allegedly favours activities that are both “basic” and “unsafe”.
113. Assertion. Not an argument. Try harder Sean.
97 Hi Yokel
If Grand Schlem hadn’t scraped a place in the last I’d have had a 100% record of failure on the day.
I have no views on tomorrow, having decided that horses are very unreliable animals.
Unlike politicians.
What’s the point? You favour an open door, and nothing I might say would alter your view. I’ve expressed my views on immigration often enough on this (and other) forums.
117. Spoilt a 100% record…for goodness sake man.
110. I don’t raise this example as an analogy, I’m just curious to know what the consensus on here would be.
Let’s say Candidate A is assassinated. There is only one other possible winner of the race that the candidate is involved in. What should a bookmaker do with bets taken on Candidate B in the three minutes it takes them to realise what has happened?
111
Good article, I like Cohen’s writing,usually v. good.
Interesting to note that Operation Black Vote has become a Trot vehicle polluted by Grasper.
I would really love a fresh poll with good sample size.
If Obama wins the delegate count (primary+caucus) from Texas, I’m definitely going to challenge Betfair for not clarifying the rules, when they had ample opportunity to do so. Wasn’t as if they weren’t told.
100 It surprised me too, Woody. I don’t know what the problem was really. The amounts in question were trivial, and whatever the technicalities, they had a moral obligation to pay. The bets were struck in good faith. They should have honored them.
I have to admit I will be very reluctant to use PP again for any type of bet, and I certainly won’t be having any more political bets with them.
Had a shocker at Cheltenham today. Banking on Voy Por Ustedes to bail me out tomorrow.
91, Yup. Number 2 is differential turnout - which is effectively due to the fact that Labour’s support is a bit higher than shown at the ballot box. That could be dealt with by compulsory voting (which I personally dislike in any case - the right to vote should include the right not to vote), which would fix the gap by increasing the Labour vote to adjust for it - not really the ideal result for the Conservatives
Number 3 is pretty much luck/campaigning/maximizing vote share and is most likely to evaporate or reverse next time around (reversion to the mean). Numbers 4 and 5 - well, the tactical vote question is crucial there. What it does imply is that the tactical vote can change the size of the gap by at least up to 26 seats either way - so in future elections with no other change, that could operate the other way (as it arguably did in at least one election in the eighties). And of course, 9 seats seem almost random (which marches with the “MoE” figures that both Rod and I have independently sourced; that’s within the scale of random variation around the UNS mean.
So the gap could be 81 seats again. Or, bearing in mind that 3-5 could work the other way, it could be as little as 9 seats under exactly the same framework (very unlikely for all tactical voting to reverse at the same scale, however).
Actually, with random variation as before, that would imply a potential gap ranging from 0-18 seats at the best assumptions for the Tories (highly unlikely) to 72-81 seats at the best assumptions for Labour (which is fairly optimistic for Labour as well, I’d say).
The seemingly unstated assumptions by many that Labour can rely unswervingly on a 90+ seat advantage in an open ended fashion is not really valid, in my opinion.
OT. Romney says he’d take Veep, calls McCain “Big Dog”
http://tinyurl.com/ypur22
121 OBV is typical of the type of state-subsidised pressure group that claims to be non-party political but is actually extremely partisan.
Jack W to be McCain’s VP? Would emphasise how youthful McCain is…
Kingbongo - there are further arguments on the interaction between small print and voluminous text (which has brought the Plain English Campaign into supporting my proposal) but I’ve probably nattered enough about it here.
The ‘unfairness’ debate is partly the other side of the coin of Labour complaining that we can’t get all our supporters to vote. What happens is that in safe Labour seats lots of our people don’t bother, so we underperform nationally compared with the polls, yet manage to get seats in line with the polls. I don’t think this part of the explanation can really be called unfair. For whatever reason, Tories seem to be better at turning out in their safe seats so the same pattern doesn’t happen for them.
If the Tories have a big following wind, it might be associated with tactical voting support, i.e. LD voters preferring them in Tory-Lab marginals. But as we’ve discussed recently, the current Tory strategy seems to be to rubbish the LDs at every opportunity, which seems unlikely to endear them to LD voters.
90. No it was the conservative Supreme Court preventing recounts in Florida that caused people to say Bush stole the election. Especially as one of those Justices was waiting for a GOP President to retire.
105. “What both the Tories and Labour should face up to is that their successive ’strong’ governments have led to is disillusionment in politics as a whole in this country - and hence a weakening of democracy.”
There is no evidence to support this. I’ve actually studies popular perceptions to this and findings suggest the opposite: that constant coalition building, break-ups and bickerings lead to greater disillusionment. A FPTP system actually encourages both major parties to appeal to the average centrist voter, where PR makes parties worry about losing support off their more extremist flanks. AV would be even better, but there you go.
“Tory strategy seems to be to rubbish the LDs at every opportunity, which seems unlikely to endear them to LD voters.”
Well the Conservatives might start rubbishing them less if they started acting like an independent opposition party rather than propping up Labour.
120 Shadsy
We can all dream up any number of difficult scenarios but what is the point? Much would turn on the specific circumstances and even then it is likely it would be difficult to decide. What I would stress though is that the relationship between punter and layer thrives only if BOTH sides play fair and exercise a certain amount of reason, tolerance and fair play.
I don’t think PP’s attitude passed muster on these scores, in these specific circumstances.
125. He’s getting more attention but surely to god McCain;s animosity towards him is a killer.
Also what would be bring to the party?
Ladbrokes have cut Chris Cox to 4s whils PP’s have him a 8’s. I’m delighted to say that I got him at 12s in a couple of locations and 14’s with one generous bookie who I asked. Lay off coming soon hopefully.
With Huck long layed off, Crist layed off and Sanford not quite layed off but neutral this American election mullarky just keeps on giving….
132 Romney as VP? Zero chance.
108. True, except that elections are supposed to be determined by votes in ballot-boxes, not by counting passive supporters, and the outcome is supposed to (broadly) reflect those votes.
99. “A 10% lead would certainly give the Conservatives an overall majority.” No it wouldn’t, for certain, although it *might* produce one, if the LibDems put in a poor performance..
128.”But as we’ve discussed recently, the current Tory strategy seems to be to rubbish the LDs at every opportunity, which seems unlikely to endear them to LD voters.”
I thought that rubbishing your opponents was a strategy used by all parties?
The rule itself is very untidy - “have any indication of the outcome” is a pretty meaningless phrase since all bets are based on our interpretation of the likelihood of various outcomes.
I am unsurprised that IBAS found in favour of Paddy Power given the rules; they do not make a judgement on “fairness” but on whether the bookmaker’s rules have been followed.
Naturally it is often up to the bookmaker to determine to what degree they follow their rules in cases such as this, as opposed to settling in the customer’s favour.
Obviously they took the view in this case that you were trying it on; you can obviously take whatever view of them you like as a consequence.
133. Hopefully you took a small punt on Cox as I mentioned on here the other day.
Romney doesnt make sense but amazingly he’s being touted. I expect McCain to have sense.
Romney would practically hand the Democrats the election. He was running terribly against Obama; it’s hard to believe he wouldn’t be a massive drag on any ticket he was a part of.
I agree that he has no chance, though. Even Bush can’t make McCain do it.
131. It genuinely wasn’t meant to be an analogy Peter.
It’s an interesting debate. If somebody laid a bet of mine on the exchanges on a horse which turned out to have been injured (or died) in the meantime, I personally would just shrug my shoulders and accept my fate. Wouldn’t think they’d done anything immoral. Others feel differently.
CNN Mississippi
65 years of age and older: Clinton 56% Obama 44%
17-29 years of age: Obama 67% Clinton 32%
132. Yokel, having beaten him in a hard fight for the nomination Reagan didn’t have a problem picking Bush Snr as his Veep. I think it was Bush who famously called Reagan’s economic policy “voodoo economics”.
I guess the main thing Romney brings is cash/fundraising, more credibility on economics (crucial this year I think) and with the right wingers, plus instant name recognition.
I got a lump on Chris Cox at 25/1 when Ladbrokes put him up at my request but he’s just a strong outsider in my book, mostly because as with most of the other candidates mentioned the low name recognition factor.
128. “…the current Tory strategy seems to be to rubbish the LDs at every opportunity, which seems unlikely to endear them to LD voters.”
This is little more than wishful thinking.
Cameron’s strategy from Day One has been to love-bomb LD voters. Sure, he’s put the boot into Kennedy, Ming and Clegg, and quite right too.
But what Cameron has done is to move onto the ground that middle class LD voters occupy - environment, liberalism, fairness.
Liberal Conservatism, Social Responsibility, etc. etc.
Who give a monkey’s about being nice to LD MPs and acitivist? It’s the voters that count, and Cameron’s strategy has been to flatter, cajole and caress them at every opportunity.
25s? Christ..or Crist..depending….I was well asleep that day.
Bush was had credibility though which is why Ronnie picked him. Ronnie picked him as sfa eand steady. Romney? Too much of a loser. Peopel felt Bush coudl handle it it Ronnie got ill.
123 PtP I have to tell you that no one on last Thurdsday’s LRC panel fancied your oft mentioned Voy Por Ustedes. I instead they went for Twist Magic and, on soft going, Tamarinbleu (if running).
In the Ballymore, they liked the favourite, Aigle D’or, Forpadydeplasterer and Breedsbreeze.
In the Royal & SunAlliance, their favoured pick was Oscar Park (E.W.), being a course winner.
Great blog entry on the Ferraro comments: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/mar08/geraldine-ferraro-only-because.htm
142.”Who give a monkey’s about being nice to LD MPs and acitivist?”
Still think that Osborne needs to soften his love bombing approach to Libdems MP’s though, invite them out to lunch/dinner at least!
Mike’s Budget speech tip of “Prudent” mentions now priced at 1.75-2.25 with Sporting.
136 Aaron - “Obviously they took the view in this case that you were trying it on.”
No, I honestly don’t think they did. I had a number of perfectly amicable discussions with them and there was never any suggestion that anybody was acting in anything other than good faith. In fact there was no reason for anybody to think there was a try on. It’s interesting to note that if you look back at the PB discussion for that period, nobody mentioned Reuters and it was plain that PB punters were acting on information freely available through the main media, notably Fox, but certainly not Reuters.
No, Aaron, I think PP just stuffed up. They then decided to use the rule, which you rightly describe as vague to the point of being meaningless, to wriggle out of the wagers. Why? One can only guess.
140. Interesting. What will the relative turnout be? How will the 30-64 break? If those two figures are indicative of the rest of the population (and indeed accurate for their own), this could be quite a bit closer than I thought it would be. I’d have thought Obama ought to be winning there by 20%+.