46th President of the United States, Joe Biden

[Bonefish Blues]

Yes, that.

[TonyToniTone]

Mortarboard said:

Odds are based entirely on monies wagered.

Nothing else.

M.

lol, nothing to do with probability then?

[dudleybloke]

The pair of them are almost too old to sort it out in the thunderdome.
Almost.

[hidetheelephants]

dudleybloke said:

The pair of them are almost too old to sort it out in the thunderdome.
Almost.

Only one way to settle it.

[dudleybloke]

hidetheelephants said:

dudleybloke said:

The pair of them are almost too old to sort it out in the thunderdome.
Almost.

Only one way to settle it.

I'll allow it!

[Random Account No6]

paulguitar said:

Skeptisk said:

Biden is too old. But Trump is pretty much the same age. All the “sleepy Joe” insults from Trump but he is now the same age as Biden was at the last election. Just feels bizarre that they are using age as an issue.

Maybe Joe should get a bit more punchy, be less of a gentleman, and start referring to his opponent as 'rapey Donald'.

Allegedly the following might work

Rapey Donald
Bankrupt Donald
Adulterer Donald
Orange-Wotsit-tt Donald
Traitor Donald

Then I suppose he’d hit back with the mighty… sleepy Joe

[XCP]

TonyToniTone said:

lol, nothing to do with probability then?

More to do with the amount wagered. That's why horse racing odds change by the minute.

[TonyToniTone]

XCP said:

TonyToniTone said:

lol, nothing to do with probability then?

More to do with the amount wagered. That's why horse racing odds change by the minute.

so not based entirely on monies wagered and 'nothing else'.

[Mortarboard]

TonyToniTone said:

Mortarboard said:

Odds are based entirely on monies wagered.

Nothing else.

M.

lol, nothing to do with probability then?

Nope. That would make bookies gamblers. And I can assure you, gamblers they are not.

M.

[105.4]

XCP said:

More to do with the amount wagered. That's why horse racing odds change by the minute.

Speaking as someone involved in the gambling industry for more than a decade, your comment isn’t correct.

Bookies odds are based on a far, far more complicated system than simply “the amount of monies waged”.

The very first thing that a bookmaker will look at is the probability of an event happening / not happening. That’s why as soon as the books open, there will be favourites and no-hopers, your 5/4’s and your 500-1’s.

[deeps]

105.4 said:

Speaking as someone involved in the gambling industry for more than a decade, your comment isn’t correct.

Bookies odds are based on a far, far more complicated system than simply “the amount of monies waged”.

The very first thing that a bookmaker will look at is the probability of an event happening / not happening. That’s why as soon as the books open, there will be favourites and no-hopers, your 5/4’s and your 500-1’s.

Basic knowledge but the punters here seem to know better. WOM (weight of money) and nothing else, and declared with such arrogance

[Mortarboard]

And as soon as there is money down what happens?



M.

[deeps]

LF5335 said:

deeps said:

Don't take up gambling for a living LF

For anyone interested, bookies obviously offer negative value (don't use bookies, you can't win long term).

Trump is still available to back (as I type) at 2.16 on Betfair Exchange (not Betfair Sportsbook, the Exchange is punter versus punter - no bookie overrounds here).

In the Democratic Nominee market, Biden has drifted from 1.17 to 1.5 following his latest memory incidents. Michelle Obama is trading at 9.0, Newsom 12.0.

Eta: Biden is available to back at 3.75 on BF Exchange.

Edited by deeps on Saturday 10th February 14:47

I’ve no idea what much of that means. My point is that bookies will reduce odds when money starts flowing towards one of the two potential winners. If you don’t think that happens then explain why. If I walked into a bookies and said I wanted to put £1m on a horse I’m damn sure they wouldn’t give me the current advertised odds and I’m damn sure they would reduce the odds on that horse winning too. The same would apply for them dropping the odds as a whole if they got 100,000 £10 bets or saw a trend of lots of money going towards one horse.

Weight of money is a factor, but it doesn't set the odds. Bookies will offer you 1.9 for 'heads' on a coin toss, the more money they take at those odds the better, they won't need to cut the price to 1.8, they will make 5% on turnover. They do this all day and night and there is no shortage of recreational punters that take the negative value.

The punters believe they can make successful predictions and that the price doesn't matter. In reality the prediction doesn't matter, the price does. If you can't identify and place bets at positive expected value you will lose long term, hence why it's impossible to win if you use a high street bookie. It's not even complicated, but recreational punters cannot see it.

In the case of Trump, if he was cut due to weight of money, that means the other runners including Biden would drift to balance the book and keep the overround at perhaps 105%. Would you want to be offering Biden at 3.75 when you believe he has a 50/50 chance and hence should be evens (2.0)?

Eta: I'm not suggesting don't gamble, just don't use a bookie. Betfair Exchange gives a level playing field, no bookies overrounds there.

Edited by deeps on Saturday 10th February 23:21

[105.4]

Mortarboard said:

And as soon as there is money down what happens?



M.

Then it’s just one very small factor that is taken into consideration when determining the prices (odds) offered.

For proof of this look what happens to the odds offered in individual countries on big international football matches, (England vs Germany and the odds offered in each country).

In England the vast amount of money is going to be placed on England getting a result. In Germany the punters will be backing Germany, but the odds offered in each country aren’t particularly swayed by such factors.

Money placed doesn’t really alter the mathematical probability of something happening. How odds are calculated by massive bookmakers is far more complex than that and something that world renowned experts spend a huge amount of resources making sure that they, (more often than not) get correct.

[Mortarboard]

105.4 said:

Then it’s just one very small factor that is taken into consideration when determining the prices (odds) offered.

For proof of this look what happens to the odds offered in individual countries on big international football matches, (England vs Germany and the odds offered in each country).

In England the vast amount of money is going to be placed on England getting a result. In Germany the punters will be backing Germany, but the odds offered in each country aren’t particularly swayed by such factors.

Money placed doesn’t really alter the mathematical probability of something happening. How odds are calculated by massive bookmakers is far more complex than that and something that world renowned experts spend a huge amount of resources making sure that they, (more often than not) get correct.

Amd in your examples listed, the bookie would be laying off to reduce exposure.
Money wagered is a far, far bigger impact on an individual bookies odds than probability.

Bookies that take on risk go broke.

They are not actuaries. They would be a fat better example of probability. Using bookies odds to show one person more likely to win an election than another is asinine.

M.

[105.4]

deeps said:

In the Democratic Nominee market, Biden has drifted from 1.17 to 1.5 following his latest memory incidents. Michelle Obama is trading at 9.0, Newsom 12.0.

Eta: Biden is available to back at 3.75 on BF Exchange.

Gavin Newsom will be the Democratic nominee, although I’ve no idea who is running mate will be, but it certainly won’t be Harris.

As for the GOP, I predict a Trump / Ramaswamy ticket, with Ramaswamy running for President in 2028.

[deeps]

105.4 said:

deeps said:

In the Democratic Nominee market, Biden has drifted from 1.17 to 1.5 following his latest memory incidents. Michelle Obama is trading at 9.0, Newsom 12.0.

Eta: Biden is available to back at 3.75 on BF Exchange.

Gavin Newsom will be the Democratic nominee, although I’ve no idea who is running mate will be, but it certainly won’t be Harris.

As for the GOP, I predict a Trump / Ramaswamy ticket, with Ramaswamy running for President in 2028.

This is weird

Exactly agreed again.

[105.4]

deeps said:

105.4 said:

deeps said:

In the Democratic Nominee market, Biden has drifted from 1.17 to 1.5 following his latest memory incidents. Michelle Obama is trading at 9.0, Newsom 12.0.

Eta: Biden is available to back at 3.75 on BF Exchange.

Gavin Newsom will be the Democratic nominee, although I’ve no idea who is running mate will be, but it certainly won’t be Harris.

As for the GOP, I predict a Trump / Ramaswamy ticket, with Ramaswamy running for President in 2028.

This is weird

Exactly agreed again.

Do we usually disagree?

Genuine question, as I’ve really no idea? I certainly wouldn’t place you in the category as some whose names I won’t mention, (as it would be unfair to single them out).

Nor would I place you in the same category as bhStewie or PaulGuitar, both of whom I can often disagree with, whilst at the same time understanding, appreciating and respecting the point which they are trying to make.

Edited by 105.4 on Saturday 10th February 23:52

[deeps]

105.4 said:

deeps said:

105.4 said:

deeps said:

In the Democratic Nominee market, Biden has drifted from 1.17 to 1.5 following his latest memory incidents. Michelle Obama is trading at 9.0, Newsom 12.0.

Eta: Biden is available to back at 3.75 on BF Exchange.

Gavin Newsom will be the Democratic nominee, although I’ve no idea who is running mate will be, but it certainly won’t be Harris.

As for the GOP, I predict a Trump / Ramaswamy ticket, with Ramaswamy running for President in 2028.

This is weird

Exactly agreed again.

Do we usually disagree?

Genuine question, as I’ve really no idea? I certainly wouldn’t place you in the category as some whose names I won’t mention, (as it would be unfair to single them out).

Nor would I place you in the same category as bhStewie or PaulGuitar, both of whom I can often disagree with, whilst at the same time understanding, appreciating and respecting the point which they are trying to make.

Edited by 105.4 on Saturday 10th February 23:52

Not at all. I read what you wrote in the 'Putin interview' thread and replied on page 5. I agreed with everything you said and could have written the same myself.

Ps. thank you for not placing me in their catagory

[hidetheelephants]

Trump/Ramaswamy? Step away from the crack pipe. The former prefers dumb, subservient blondes and the latter is more interested in making money.