• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Implications of Scottish Independence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread reopened. Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite. Don't make me come back in here. The consequences of that will be worse than haggis. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163
 
Francesca R said:
Do you have any evidence (not hearsay) that bets on the referendum vote are being asymmetrically restricted (in favour of No), and that this is distorting the odds?
Click to expand...


I wasn't even making that claim. I thought it was standard practice to refuse huge bets on an outcome with relatively long odds. Isn't there a limit on payouts, so that a big stake on a long-priced outcome is pointless?

It was reported in the press some time ago that someone had placed a bet of £100,000 on No. This was widely regarded as bizarre, because the odds were so poor and the time-scale so long that it would have been possible to get a better return with no risk simply by banking the money for the requisite period. Obviously there was no risk whatsoever to a bookie who took that bet. Even if the punter won, his winnings could just be paid out of the interest accruing on his stake!

At the same time a number of people wanting to take a bit of a punt on Yes were reporting that bookies wouldn't accept the bets they wanted to place. There was some online discussion of who had managed to get how much on with which bookie, and people were asking where to go to find someone who would take a serious bet. The odds for Yes were about 11 to 1 at the time.

I'm no expert, but obviously that would represent a significant risk to a bookie who accepted such a bet. Perhaps he wouldn't be able to balance his book and so refused it. Perhaps the potential payout would exceed the allowed maximum, so the bet couldn't be placed. I don't know. I thought it was normal behaviour, I was only wondering whether it would affect the odds.

I'm sure someone who knows more about bookmaking than I do will be able to explain this. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the people who were comparing notes about how much they'd managed to get on with which bookie. It's commonplace for bookies to decline to take bets over a certain sum, isn't it?

Just - nobody's going to decline to take a 6-figure bet at odds where the payoff is less than the interest the stake will accrue. Of course not. They'd be nuts. And it was reported in the press that such a bet was made. The refusals would obviously all be on the other side.

I'm sure there's an explanation, but if you don't believe me I really don't care. I only remarked on what had happened and wondered if it affected the odds.

Rolfe.

ETA: It was £200,000, last June. Put on in aliquots, resulting in the odds getting worse for each bet. Really strange. Looks as if he'd make more than his interest if he won though.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/gambler-stakes-record-200000-scottish-1988684
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I wasn't even making that claim.
Click to expand...
OK never mind.

I thought it was standard practice to refuse huge bets on an outcome with relatively long odds. Isn't there a limit on payouts, so that a big stake on a long-priced outcome is pointless?
Click to expand...
I don't know but it seemed like you were stating this, not asking it before. I would expect bookies to shorten the odds before taking the bet but still take it. (I don't think there is any rule preventing the odds one is quoted, after showing the size of the bet, being adjusted)

It was reported in the press some time ago that someone had placed a bet of £100,000 on No. This was widely regarded as bizarre, because the odds were so poor and the time-scale so long that it would have been possible to get a better return with no risk simply by banking the money for the requisite period.
Click to expand...
That would have needed odds extremely close to one I would think.

I only remarked on what had happened and wondered if it affected the odds.
Click to expand...
I doubt it, not now anyway, and not for one bet. It would need a deliberate systematic policy of turning away yes bets all the time across all the bookmakers everywhere (a big money-losing policy I might add). Odds may have been questionable in the past when the market was perhaps less liquid but I think we should assume that they reflect the true marginal views of everyone today. The differences compared to polls is that the market place is wider (not just citizens of Scotland), and that it is about the expected outcome, not about individual punters own voting preference.
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course. I was just wondering whether accepting mega-bets on No (there was another article that suggested there had been multiple six-figure bets on No) while restricting the size of bets accepted on Yes (which I only know about because I've seen several conversations where people were bitching about it) had any effect. You suggest not, which is what I asked.

There really isn't a precedent for this referendum so I don't think anyone's powers of clairvoyance can be accepted as reliable. I know the odds thing is supposed to be about the wisdom of crowds, but I'm not convinced that really applies here when the media are giving a very one-sided view of the situation.

The odds for Yes have certainly shortened a lot over the past year, sitting at about 2 to 1 now, when it was 7 or 8 to 1. I seem to remember 11 to 1 back at the start.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I wasn't even making that claim. I thought it was standard practice to refuse huge bets on an outcome with relatively long odds. Isn't there a limit on payouts, so that a big stake on a long-priced outcome is pointless?
Click to expand...

I dunno about that. There was a big news story here a few years ago about a bloke who won $500,000 betting on Bangladesh to beat Australia in a ODI at odds of something like 250-1.
 
I don't really know. I read something somewhere about there being payout limits, and I think that the limits were lower in non-sport betting.

I was toying with the idea of putting a hunk of cash on Yes back when the odds were pretty long, but as I know absolutely nothing about betting (you can tell!) I didn't.

Rolfe.
 
It's nothing more than a bet: if you think the implied probability of yes is too low, then the expected value of placing the bet on yes is greater to you than not placing the bet. But there is risk to it as well.

Also, unless you can later "lay off" the bet (which you can, I believe, at Betfair) then only the payout at expiry matters.

If you placed a yes bet at 5/2 and the odds shortened to 3/2, then you could unwind the bet before the referendum happened and take out a gain from that. But if you have to hold it until expiry, then it is the binary outcome only that triggers a payout or not.
 
Last edited:
I once read someone's opinion that betting on UK general elections was a no-brainer money-spinner, because you had "five years to back either horse in a two horse race". The implication was that the odds for Labour / Tory would almost undoubtedly fluctuate either side of even, so all you had to do was wait for sure-to-arrive points in time when Labour had longer odds and then when Conservative had longer odds and you'd be highly likely to be able to lock in a risk free payout.

2010 would have killed that one off though.
 
I'm surprised by the reports of several people punting huge 6-figure sums on No. Anyone who thinks No is a sure thing really isn't paying attention. Why risk such large amounts for a relatively small payout?

If you fancy the chances of a Yes majority then I can see the rationale for having a bet with a stake you can afford to lose. The potential win makes it attractive. But even for the mega-rich, where's the fun in betting vast sums of money for a relatively small payout?

Rolfe.
 
It's the payout adjusted for the gambler's perceived uncertainty of it that is all-important. If for example you thought No was an absolute slam dunk then even a 10% profit on your stake might seem juicy enough to bet a small farm.

Also if you did bet on Yes when the odds were a lot longer, then betting on No now would lock in your winnings since it is equivalent to laying off
 
I do follow that. I think. I merely comment that anyone who thinks No is a slam-dunk, or even who thought that last year or the year before, really wasn't paying attention. Your point about betting on both sides and laying off and guaranteed profits under certain circumstances is a good one.

Rolfe.
 
Given that
Rolfe said:
The BBC is running the No campaign........Rolfe.
Click to expand...
could someone explain the piece on Radio 4's flagship Today Programme this morning in which James Naughtie spelt out why the Better Together campaign are supposed to be worried, despite really healthy polling figures (as they see it)? Prime time, just before the 7.00 news, a long and involved piece on Scottish Independance, looking at the possibility of a Yes vote. How does this fit with Rolfe's conspiracy theory?
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Given that could someone explain the piece on Radio 4's flagship Today Programme this morning in which James Naughtie spelt out why the Better Together campaign are supposed to be worried, despite really healthy polling figures (as they see it)? Prime time, just before the 7.00 news, a long and involved piece on Scottish Independance, looking at the possibility of a Yes vote. How does this fit with Rolfe's conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...
If it's inexplicable, long and involved, it could very easily fit into a conspiracy theory, couldn't it?
 
No, Rolfe's conspiracy theory was very straightforward and simple: the BBC are running the No campaign. Here was a piece on the BBC which seemed to undermine the No campaign. Is Rolfe wrong, purchance?
 
MikeG said:
No, Rolfe's conspiracy theory was very straightforward and simple: the BBC are running the No campaign. Here was a piece on the BBC which seemed to undermine the No campaign. Is Rolfe wrong, purchance?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, it could be the exception that proves the rule. It could be the one piece that maintains the illusion of balance while the BBC continues to front the 'NO' campaign.
 
The Don said:
Not necessarily, it could be the exception that proves the rule. It could be the one piece that maintains the illusion of balance while the BBC continues to front the 'NO' campaign.
Click to expand...

Not just to front it, The Don...............to lead the campaign. Actually be in charge of it, running it. Apparently they are just using the reporting of the campaign as a front to cover their true role.

Francesca R said:
The accusation of bias is a bit broader than that.
Click to expand...

All of them presumably reporting to the BBC. I see. It's starting to make sense now..........
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom