Stoke-on-Trent Central > Betfair Community

Betfair Community

Home › Other › Politics Forum › Stoke-on-Trent Central

Switch to Community Classic App Directory

Politics

‹ back to topics

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.

These 503 comments are related to the topic:
Stoke-on-Trent Central

Switch to Live View refresh Post Reply

Post your reply

Page 13 of 13 • Previous | 1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | Next

sort by:

Show per page

Replies: 503

By:

Meadow X1 When: 24 Feb 17 10:07

Sorry, I also had a tenner on lab, Con, UKIp Stoke tricast at 11/4 with Skybet which was down (just!).

By:

Dotchinite When: 24 Feb 17 10:07

Well done Meadow. You had clearly done your homework.

By:

berti When: 24 Feb 17 10:52

I would like to know what percentage of the postal votes were labour

By:

anxious When: 24 Feb 17 10:56

Yes well done meadow , one more thing about the result in Stoke a few weeks ago ukip were shouting that this was the Brexit capital of England and that this where ukip would attack Labour in its working class heartlands, no such thing happened even with their leader standing they were defeated , never in a million years will a Johnny come lately mob replace the Labour Party as the only true alternative to the true enemy of the working class in One Nation Theresa and her ilk.

By:

xmoneyx When: 24 Feb 17 11:08

dimbleby meant stoke

w/d meadow

By:

Meadow X1 When: 24 Feb 17 12:05

Feb 24, 2017 -- 10:52AM, berti wrote:

I would like to know what percentage of the postal votes were labour

Postal vote breakdown was...

Labour 31%
Conservative 29%
UKIP 29%

on the samples that were published by the returning officer.

By:

berti When: 24 Feb 17 12:20

Thanks Meadow, expected Labour percentage to be bigger than that, so no complaints from me just disappointment that the so called forgotten people keep the same old problems. Tories running down the NHS and Labour welcoming as many foreigners as is possible.

By:

InsiderTrader When: 24 Feb 17 12:27

Those are extraordinary results. What was the sample size? When will the full figures be out?

By:

Meadow X1 When: 24 Feb 17 12:35

I am not certain exactly how it works but I understand the postal votes number are counted, then there is a verification process that basically checks that what it says on the envelope matches the voting slip inside. Next a sample is taken (don't know size) to give a guide as to the percentage breakdown then the postal votes are effectively mixed in with the ordinary ones from the polling stations for final counting.
I believe if you contact the council responsible for the count they can give a more detailed breakdown upon request.

By:

InsiderTrader When: 24 Feb 17 12:40

Thanks for the info. Snell won by so many votes it is not like the postal votes made a difference.

By:

jed.davison When: 24 Feb 17 12:46

Well done Meadow, called it right from the start. Hats off, hope you made a few quid.

By:

Meadow X1 When: 24 Feb 17 12:53

Feb 24, 2017 -- 12:46PM, jed.davison wrote:

Well done Meadow, called it right from the start. Hats off, hope you made a few quid.

Thanks jed, dosh stuff from last night up the thread a wee bit.

By:

jed.davison When: 24 Feb 17 13:02

Although I went off them as soon as Nuttall was declared, I don't think it would have made much difference if any.

By:

wildmanfromborneo When: 24 Feb 17 13:11

Neither by election were close yet both winning candidates could be backed just a few minutes before declaration.

In Copeland the betting was sevens on when it was suspended as the returns were just being announced.

By:

treetop When: 24 Feb 17 15:45

Good calls meadow, throughout you explained your reasoning and deserved to show a profit. We may differ at times but credit where credit is due.

By:

Meadow X1 When: 24 Feb 17 17:43

thanks treetop, much appreciated.

By:

Des Pond When: 24 Feb 17 17:51

Feb 24, 2017 -- 11:08AM, xmoneyx wrote:

dimbleby meant stoke w/d meadow

On Question Time Dimbelby wrongly announced that Labour had held Copeland.

Did he actually say "Copeland"? I wasn't listening all that closely. Fortunately for me, I automatically assumed that he meant Stoke, as that's where the debate was broadcast from.

Dimbleby said on QT that he had heard that Labour had teken the Seat. (I assume he was talking about Stoke)

Could this have been a factor in the price for Stoke holding up for quite a long time, after it became clear that labour were very confident? If he did say Copeland, intead of Stoke, maybe some punters will have assumed wrongly, that the outcome was still more uncertain than it really was!

By:

Des Pond When: 24 Feb 17 17:51

well done, Meadow, btw.

By:

Meadow X1 When: 24 Feb 17 17:58

https://order-order.com/2017/02/24/dimbleby-calls-copeland-wrong/

Hope this helps.

By:

Des Pond When: 24 Feb 17 18:12

Good job I wasn't listening very closely, I assumed he meant Stoke. LOL. I wonder if this was the reason for the confusion in the Copeland market: I noticed that it suspended when some punters were still laying at as high as 1.14. Normally, you would exect the the price to be down to 1.03/1.04, at least, at the moment of suspension.

By:

Injera When: 25 Feb 17 16:42

Nice work Meadow! You did your research and it paid off.

I came out of Stoke with a small loss. Backed UKIP when the Labour remain candidate was announced but took the hit out when the wheels started to come off their campaign.

Didn't touch Copeland which I regret. On C4 news 2 weeks ago Crick was chasing (literally) the Labour candidate for an interview. She scurried away from him, not wanting to address the nuclear issue. Pretty massive clue there! Unattractive odds though..

By:

Meadow X1 When: 25 Feb 17 17:30

Thanks Injera. Yes, saw that Crick clip and it didn't look good but the odds I felt were so good on the Labour candidate in what many folks (me included) considered a very close two horse race that I stuck with it.

By:

ufcdan When: 25 Feb 17 18:51

I backed Labour for both seats hoping to put the mockers on them........oh well one out of two ain't bad !

By:

CJ70 When: 28 Feb 17 11:53

Haven't done the work to look into the postal voting percentages, but I'd be very surprised if it was a three-way tie on postal votes.

On the ground I have people saying that Lab were comfortably third on the day, granted that is anecdotal and probably in areas that don't suit Labour. If postal votes were as reported above, Lab must have been piling votes up in certain areas.

What amazes me here is the LD and Con prices, Con did far better than expected but were never in the race. Odds on both parties were bizarre from start to finish and anybody trading the prices actively would have stocked up big green books. The Con candidate can probably look forward to getting a push for a more winnable seat in 2020.