Politics
When will B/f settle presidency market?
|
By:
Corals have now paid out on Biden
|
|
By:
Lucky if Corals would have taken a fiver each way - their liability probably only about 3 grand
|
|
By:
feedthepony • November 10, 2020 11:03 AM GMT
And you can be sure all those cases were on significantly smaller markets where a single individual is making a decision without a legal eye on it I think I made the position clear small claims have been successful large cases settled before the case goes to court - obviously court action was necessary to concentrate minds. Case going to court are where the books have a strong defence. |
|
By:
Toby Young
@toadmeister · 23m Just put £100 on Kamala Harris becoming the next President of the US. Not likely, obviously, but Betfair is offering 460 to one. That seriously underestimates the risk of a 78 year-old male dying between now and Jan 20th (assuming Trump loses), based on the actuarial tables. |
|
By:
Just a dose of Chinese flu would scare the market to death
|
|
By:
Tells you all you need to know about Toby Young.....
|
|
By:
I am not sure it is a next President Market
It is the winner of the Presidential Election which is / will be Joe Biden |
|
By:
Yes, think he is prob quite close on the actuarial, but hasn't read the rules which start "who will be elected to be" and not "who will be"
|
|
By:
dave, it is the "elected to be" that is important. however, the rules continue to give many scenarios that could apply to how they conclude who is "elected to be".
|
|
By:
kamala becomes the candidate with most votes if it's still open and Biden becomes incapacitated.
Trump wins if he achieves a legal miracle. Biden wins if it's on most votes and he doesn't have a health scare. a 3 runner field |
|
By:
illegal miracle (better phrase?)
 |
|
By:
Has nobody just asked betfair for basic clarification if joe dies and trumps legal challenge fails. Does camel toe win?
|
|
By:
From the WaPo
“What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time? No one seriously thinks the results will change,” said one senior Republican official. “He went golfing this weekend. It’s not like he’s plotting how to prevent Joe Biden from taking power on Jan. 20. He’s tweeting about filing some lawsuits, those lawsuits will fail, then he’ll tweet some more about how the election was stolen, and then he’ll leave.” |
|
By:
I've read all the comments here and asked many very informed people and they say with exception that Biden is far higher than 99% likely to win in the Electoral College system, so if you want, have at the (nearly) free money
|
|
By:
*without*
|
|
By:
The Betting but Better Betfair podcast had one of their traders on pre election talking about the scenarios for settling and he did say something like:
Trump contesting the election is quite likely, with the kind of man he is. If he does this would delay settling the market significantly. They’d make absolutely sure of things before pushing the button. He didn’t say much about the actual market rules! Problem of course is that Trump is quite likely never to concede and to continue to claim that some mystical sh1t is going to happen to restore his rightful victory. When do they cut this off? Have to imagine that they can let it run past certification of results by states but that’s into December. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
The other thing I've learned from being here a long time is that the value is always highest when the markets get uncertainty - they just lose all acuracy
|
|
By:
And, finally, where some mainstream GOP (Graham, McConnell) are giving Trump cover they are doing so on the basis not in any expectation that he will overturn any results, but that he may lay the foundation for their favourite tactic of disenfranchising voters - this time by undermining mail-in ballots for future elections.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
who the fk is backing Trump at 10.5/1 - that's utterly crazy
|
|
By:
 Trump's legal team put on a news conference that was bizarrely held at a landscaping company next to a sex shop and across from a crematorium, and one of their witnesses was a convicted sex offender. |
|
By:
Was the last one Trump... no wait
|
|
By:
It doesn't really matter what the optics are.
They either have the numbers or they don't. There is all sorts of stuff floating around about glitches, software malfunctions that transferred swathes of blue votes to red. My assumption would have been that these were accounted for, save for the fact that in Michigan there was a 6,000 vote glitch that really did need to be adjusted. They say they have an 18k glitch and a 9k glitch in Wisconsin. + 27k and -27k = nearly three times more than they need, to flip Wisconsin. Trump seems confident about Wisconsin. And it's curious it doesn't feature in any of their litigation rants. If the Wisconsin glitches are bona fide then Wisconsin is won by Trump. Irrespective of Four Seasons Landscaping etcetera. It's an if that's not yet expired. If they have Wisconsin then they need Georgia, through a vote by vote dismissal of c10k ballots that are ineligible. They say they have a few ks worth of glitches in Georgia too. And if they have Wisconsin and Georgia, then either one of Arizona or Pennsylvania will do. I have read some contrasting things about whether or not a Supreme Court order was disregarded in Pennsylvania. If it was, then all bets are off as far as blue Pennslyvania is concerned. And they say they have a 19k glitch there too, which when transferred (+19 and -19) would reduce the gap to below 10k. And we wait to see how close Arizona lands in the end. I wouldn't say that all of these things transpiring is likely, although the scale of mail-in voting and general confusion suggests it's possible. But what I would say is that initially, and generally, one would think that being behind in one state is one thing, but being behind in three is terminal. That's what I thought. But there is an argument that it could lend a hand, in this sense: if in one of these states, eg Wisconsin, a clear and massive glitch does materialise, and flips the state to red overnight, then at that point the paradigm is no longer, "an implausible three state catchup", it's "game on, here's the precedent, and now let's dig in and do the same by hook or by crook in the others too." It would condition the state Republicans to be more amenable to rising to the challenge than if it were just one state and they had a standing start. This is more an exercise in thinking about how Trump could turn it around, rather than whether he will. One thing's for sure. Their anecdotal stories of malfeasance are a waste of time, unless you think the Supreme Court will step in after hearing a mere fistful of sob stories. I don't. It's about numbers. It's about events and actions, glitches and the like, that will eat up the gap. |
|
By:
Ah, now it becomes clear that you are interpreting the rules, incorrectly, from the perspective of a Trump conspiracy nut.
There was no glitch in Michigan, you'd have known this if you'd done your research instead of taking right-wing nonsense at face value. There was a user error but this was not due to the software. It was spotted and fixed. There is clearly no evidence of the same in Wisconsin, because Eric Trump is tweeting links to articles on far-right sites about it, as opposed to taking it to court. There is, of course, no evidence in the article apart from someone who "saw it", and instead of bringing it up at the time or testifying under oath they decided to go to a right-wing news site instead! Laughable. |
|
By:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/
That's his source. You gullible fool. |
|
By:
FXDUX
In your last post you kept referring to "they", who are they? |
|
By:
Right, well, I deliberately mentioned these things as things which are being aired, rather than things which have definitive substance.
It's difficult to drill down into every rumour to see whether or it might have substance. On the internet, the correct and credible are routinely defamed and the baseless is often pumped up with seeming credibility. I did hear that the 6k was a human error. It doesn't really matter if it was a human glitch or a software glitch. It was something that caused 6k votes to be shifted when it was spotted. Whatever it was, if more of the same exists in the Wisconsin 19k etc, then - without knowing or offering any opinion on whether any of those things have any substance - that's the kind of thing that would be needed. There are some videos on CNN where votes totals suddenly adjust in an odd way. If they are things which have been spotted and dealt with, or which there is an explanation for, then all well and good. I'm not going to delve through Twitter to assess which 25k blip was coherently explained away and which wasn't. I'm just going to wait to see if any of them materialise into the kind of spotted-and-to-be-corrected error that the MI 6k was. |
|
By:
Charlie, they as in the GOP/ Trump etc. The Republicans.
As for the rules, I've interpreted the rules utterly correctly. Before election night, half the people on here told me the market was going to be settled the moment someone got to 270, and I pointed out that that was unlikely to happen because of what Betfair's rules said. And everything else rulewise I have likewise interpreted correctly. From Betfair to election procedure. The question of what is out there to be audited is not a legal matter. It's a question of facts and incidents. Some of them will be nonsense, and maybe one or two will have legs. The fact that I am observing them, with engagement but scepticism, doesn't make any difference to my competence where analysing rules and procedure are concerned. |
|
By:
I think it's a good idea to actually look into these conspiracy theories if:
a) you're basing your bets off them b) you're basing your assessment of the rules off them c) you go around spouting them as fact on here d) you make yourself look like a far-right lunatic by doing so Just a thought. To save you the time, below is a thread where all of these conspiracy theories are collated and debunked in one place: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1324435797374808066.html Should save you the time you would be required to "delve through Twitter". |
|
By:
Lol, Michigan. That's desperation
|
|
By:
I'm not basing my assessment of the rules off them. Had you an IQ above five, you could perceive the distinction.
As for your friend who would be unlikely to register any IQ score at all, I mentioned the 6k in Michigan only as an example of what they may or may not unearth elsewhere. |
|
By:
Hey, why don't they just give Trump 50K votes in Michigan? There, that's better. Now Trump is only 50K behind instead of 150K behind
|
|
By:
I thought you'd blocked me, maths genius.
Please reblock me. The odds of you drooling anything worthwhile are beyond the abilities of Betfair's supercomputers to tabulate. |
|
By:
FXDUX - are you a billionaire backing Trump? .. if not, then I want to know who the fk is !?!?!? (make it a priority to know a man before taking his money)
|
|
By:
"There was no glitch in Michigan, you'd have known this if you'd done your research instead of taking right-wing nonsense at face value. There was a user error but this was not due to the software. It was spotted and fixed."
Beyond belief how desperate some folks on here have become |
|
By:
d) you make yourself look like a far-right lunatic by doing so
Isn't the user name a bit of a give away.. F x dux Hitler and mussolini |
|
By:
Yeah, you got me. My Betfair posts are a preliminary part of my plan to re-invade Abyssinia.
|
|
By:
For what it's worth, I think it's pretty obvious why one or two vegetables on this forum have been so negatively animated by what I - and Chemosabe - have posted.
They have their bets arranged, they have their understanding of the risks and possibilities in this market, and then I come along and point out that (a) the market's not going to be settled on 3rd November, and (b) Pence and Pelosi and Harris (not so much Harris now) could win it. This is disturbing to how they've arranged their thinking and their bets, and the easiest way to not deal it sensibly is just to attack me as posting rubbish. Whereas, the alternative is to say, well, let's allocate ten minutes to see whether what he's saying holds water. The first of the two things I said is exactly transpiring, which is that we've entered into a period of audit and litigation where Betfair are on hold and not settling the market. And it remains to be seen whether the second thing will unfold. Which is, the Twelfth Amendment being activated and what that would mean in terms of Pence and the others. |
|
By:
|