The rules should state settlement as per
actual outcome if that's what they intend
to settle upon. With proviso that
they will settle earlier if projections
allow and candidate concedes.

Let's get a bet on and know the
rules and stick to them is
the main thing.

I fully expect the Popular Vote Winner to be settled in accordance with the stated rules, kevinglass.

As they didn't put a date on it, I suspect that they will settle based on CNN's figures as they stand upon all states certifying their popular vote counts or possibly on 14 December. I know that it took a long time to settle that market in 2016 too. As I was a little lax with my spreadsheet in 2016, I can't state exactly when it was settled but I think it wasn't until December.

I certainly agree that the rules should be clear, yhtl.

The rules for 'Next Manager' markets were made clear over time, having previously been open to interpretation. Hopefully, forum contributors and bettors may be of assistance to Betfair's 'highly paid US Lawyers' in drafting clear rules for future US Presidential Election markets.

For the umpteenth time, if you want crystal clear rules, you say "who will be inaugurated etc", if you want to settle quickly you use Betfair's rules. trump even flipped his lid when Fox "projected" Biden winning Arizona. The phrase was widely used in the election process. BF could easily have settled the market.

most on here still not getting it. incredible.

even if the AP had been mentioned as the sole source of the result, given that that result can change, there would also be a requirement for a cut off time at which their result was final. if they report a result, the so called projection (although they do not term them projections in the literal sense), and then say, ooops we made a mistake, this is actually the result, which one counts? the first, second, third, a day later a week later, a month later? Given that none of this (not the source of the results, nor the time point at which they are valid) is defined and given that it is clearly possible for several reasons for results, i.e. projections, to change, the implied definition that has to be used (that most judges would accept) is one that allows for the fact that these results can change until they cannot. This is lfc's point. Any other definition is plain wrong. Only dave and one or two others seem to get it. the rest of you need to take some higher maths/logic courses.

sorry, I meant Dave

Indeed, PP. If only there was also a clause in the rules which states that subsequent events will not impact the settlement of the market, which means the first projection is final...

Dave23
02 Dec 20 14:19
Joined: 17 Jun 10 | Topic/replies: 177 | Blogger: Dave23's blog
Fellow forum contributors,

How do you consider Betfair should best word the rules for the ‘Next President’ market in future?

In my opinion, overall, the best option would be to state that the market will be settled based on the Electoral College Vote projections of two named US Networks. It could be stated that it will be settled based on those projections as they stand at 12.00 EST, 7 days after the date of the election.

in the absence of the above (and it IS absent), lfc's rules/definitions apply

That’s also a bad idea from dave23

Don't respond to the forum troll who doesn't vote or bet and is only here to be abusive daily to forum members.

There’s politics punter the stalker back again.

Betfair are abiding by their own rules , and they are good rules

Not amended , clarified due to some not understanding the rules

Let me know if someone who didn’t understand the rules  wins their court case

I’m waiting to be paid out on a Biden win
I also understand the rules

Presumably the original point of the rules was to avoid contingency about the winning candidate dying before 20 Jan, or getting involved in whether Trump resigns for Pence so that Pence is "next President".

I'd personally have no problem with the rules being defined by ref either to the states' certifications. In principle, you could also define with reference to the electoral college's actual vote, but there's no real point to that. Either way, there could also be a rule that for the outright winner market, if the EC were to tie, the market is then decided on who the House chooses. The "faithless elector" question is entirely moot this time with a clear outcome, but one can imagine in a tied or very close college it could become real; I'd probably define it then on the basis of how the College itself voted.

The lack of pay out is a little frustrating, but you have to accept that while ordinary bookmakers could settle on Sat 7 November (frankly this was all cut and dried by tea time on the Wednesday before), but it is different on an Exchange.

That said, I can't see why the individual states' markets can't be settled at certification.

A wider and cheery reflection is that with Brexit, Johnson, Trump, with rather being taken over the cliff by cretins in recent years, and in the time - almost a month - since we knew that Biden had won, it's been agreeable to think that some of the money available to hoover up has been provided by them...

Betfair have settled 44 states, certified or not. They refuse to pay out on the others.

It’s a good piece. Nothing we’ve not hashed and rehashed on here an awful lot but you put it cogently.

Seems pretty clear now why BF won't call trump a loser

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/flutter-enlists-fox-help-control-151337636.html

The deal also leaves the door open to further involvement by U.S.-based FOX Sports, owned by Fox Corporation, giving it the option to buy 18.5% of FanDuel in July next year.

"Maintaining our ownership stake in Flutter signifies our long-term commitment to Flutter, and ongoing confidence in management’s ability to execute against the fast growing US opportunity," Lachlan Murdoch, Executive Chairman and CEO of Fox Corporation said in a statement.

"FOX’s audiences have proven to be highly engaged with free to play and wagering content, and we are excited to offer them access to products from Flutter’s market leading stable of US brands," Murdoch added.

yeah but I would think that most that Fox sports bettors are 100% behind team conspiracy.