I never really look at match odds markets in football, but did this week and think Everton and West Ham look nice bets
Is that to win?
Yeah... Don't go mad I am just trying out a new little system... But West Ham have won at Arsenal, Liverpool and Man City and are 3/1 to win at Palace who don't traditionally have a good home record
I think it's fair to say that watching a whole load of maiden overs in a hot and sunny stadium is not exactly Mrs. Sandpit's perfect idea of a day out. Oh well, maybe I should have introduced her to the shorter forms of the game first!
I never really look at match odds markets in football, but did this week and think Everton and West Ham look nice bets
Is that to win?
Yeah... Don't go mad I am just trying out a new little system... But West Ham have won at Arsenal, Liverpool and Man City and are 3/1 to win at Palace who don't traditionally have a good home record
Don't worry, I only ever bet small stakes. Cheers Sam
Backed New Zealand, Australia and South Africa to all win by 10 points or more at 4.5, with Ladbrokes.
Australia should beat Scotland. France historically beat New Zealand in World Cup quarter finals though and Wales will fancy their chances against South Africa. I have bets on them both
I never really look at match odds markets in football, but did this week and think Everton and West Ham look nice bets
Is that to win?
Yeah... Don't go mad I am just trying out a new little system... But West Ham have won at Arsenal, Liverpool and Man City and are 3/1 to win at Palace who don't traditionally have a good home record
Agree Sam, Everton and West Ham are too long.
I had a look at Division 1 and for the life of me I cannot understand why Bury are 1.95 draw no bet
Mr. HYUFD, not convinced by France. Historically, England do well at World Cups.
Wales scraped a victory against England, which wasn't that impressive. South Africa have been a bit off but I think they stand a decent chance of the winning margin.
It wouldn't be a staggering result if France or Wales won, but I'd be a little surprised. If Scotland win, I'd be shocked [and, money aside, delighted].
I never really look at match odds markets in football, but did this week and think Everton and West Ham look nice bets
Is that to win?
Yeah... Don't go mad I am just trying out a new little system... But West Ham have won at Arsenal, Liverpool and Man City and are 3/1 to win at Palace who don't traditionally have a good home record
Agree Sam, Everton and West Ham are too long.
I had a look at Division 1 and for the life of me I cannot understand why Bury are 1.95 draw no bet
Cool.. I also backed the draw in WBA vs Sunderland, and Leicester at Southampton
My mate does both teams to score betting and I thought YES in Spurs and Everton matches, NO in west brom
Mr. HYUFD, not convinced by France. Historically, England do well at World Cups.
Wales scraped a victory against England, which wasn't that impressive. South Africa have been a bit off but I think they stand a decent chance of the winning margin.
It wouldn't be a staggering result if France or Wales won, but I'd be a little surprised. If Scotland win, I'd be shocked [and, money aside, delighted].
Anyway, we shall soon see.
France play best as underdogs with nothing to lose and New Zealand seem to be like rabbits in the headlights against France at this stage which was where the French beat them in 1999 and 2007. Remember too New Zealand's win over France in the 2011 final was not by much. The All Blacks are strong favourites but we shall see.
South Africa lost to Japan and are the weakest of the Southern Hemisphere three
Soon as I saw her on QT I knew something wasn't right.
She fooled Mike though.
To be fair, she may well just be poorly informed as to how the changes would affect her. The Tax Credit system is famously complex. Shroud waving over cuts often makes people fear the worst.
Another cracker by DavidH - it's a very good guide.
I'd add
11. The US media likes change and drama, just like our media. Be prepared for the position to change radically, as one or another story is blown up as the new highlight. We are more than 3 months away from a single votes being cast. In betting terms, that means don't stake the house on anyone right now.
With regard to Biden, the general view has been that he's had a family tragedy and he needs to be cut some slack to decide in his own time. But I wonder if the chronic indecision is not starting to do real damage to his prospects. It's not so much that it's taking him forever to decide, as that a series of "he will decide by..." deadlines have slid by without a decision. He might be best off saying that at present that for all the familiar reasons he doesn't feel able to plunge himself into the primary battle. That leaves open the possibility that if Clinton implodes he could be the rescue candidate for the Democrats.
Top pollster Zogby tells US newspaper that Biden has to decide this weekend:
Watching HIGNFY, Sadiq Khan is a bit lacking in charisma, even when making a potentially funny quip. I assume Goldsmith will probably be on at some point, and we'll see if he's any better in that sense. Not that charisma is the be all and end all, but still, very cold performance.
PS _ I hope someone knows the answers to peterelectionfollowr's questions, as I have no the slightest idea and they seem pretty intriguing.
I never really look at match odds markets in football, but did this week and think Everton and West Ham look nice bets
Is that to win?
Yeah... Don't go mad I am just trying out a new little system... But West Ham have won at Arsenal, Liverpool and Man City and are 3/1 to win at Palace who don't traditionally have a good home record
Agree Sam, Everton and West Ham are too long.
I had a look at Division 1 and for the life of me I cannot understand why Bury are 1.95 draw no bet
Cool.. I also backed the draw in WBA vs Sunderland, and Leicester at Southampton
My mate does both teams to score betting and I thought YES in Spurs and Everton matches, NO in west brom
Big Sam has usually done well in his first game at a new club. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mackems get their first win.
Watching HIGNFY, Sadiq Khan is a bit lacking in charisma, even when making a potentially funny quip. I assume Goldsmith will probably be on at some point, and we'll see if he's any better in that sense. Not that charisma is the be all and end all, but still, very cold performance.
PS _ I hope someone knows the answers to peterelectionfollowr's questions, as I have no the slightest idea and they seem pretty intriguing.
My other half was very unimpressed by Sadiq, and picked up on his habit of poking his tongue out of the corner of his mouth.
Another cracker by DavidH - it's a very good guide.
I'd add
11. The US media likes change and drama, just like our media. Be prepared for the position to change radically, as one or another story is blown up as the new highlight. We are more than 3 months away from a single votes being cast. In betting terms, that means don't stake the house on anyone right now.
With regard to Biden, the general view has been that he's had a family tragedy and he needs to be cut some slack to decide in his own time. But I wonder if the chronic indecision is not starting to do real damage to his prospects. It's not so much that it's taking him forever to decide, as that a series of "he will decide by..." deadlines have slid by without a decision. He might be best off saying that at present that for all the familiar reasons he doesn't feel able to plunge himself into the primary battle. That leaves open the possibility that if Clinton implodes he could be the rescue candidate for the Democrats.
Top pollster Zogby tells US newspaper that Biden has to decide this weekend:
Theoretically he could decide only at the convention if Hillary won most delegates but was forced to pull out just before due to charges over her emails and her delegates switched to Biden
Watching HIGNFY, Sadiq Khan is a bit lacking in charisma, even when making a potentially funny quip. I assume Goldsmith will probably be on at some point, and we'll see if he's any better in that sense. Not that charisma is the be all and end all, but still, very cold performance.
PS _ I hope someone knows the answers to peterelectionfollowr's questions, as I have no the slightest idea and they seem pretty intriguing.
Goldsmith is better looking than Boris but less charismatic and sharp. Khan is not charismatic but is ruthless
Watching HIGNFY, Sadiq Khan is a bit lacking in charisma, even when making a potentially funny quip. I assume Goldsmith will probably be on at some point, and we'll see if he's any better in that sense. Not that charisma is the be all and end all, but still, very cold performance.
PS _ I hope someone knows the answers to peterelectionfollowr's questions, as I have no the slightest idea and they seem pretty intriguing.
Goldsmith is better looking than Boris but less charismatic and sharp. Khan is not charismatic but is ruthless
London going for a dull mayor after the first four terms I guess. Unless they go crazy and elect Galloway I suppose.
I follow lower league football as well as politics. I fancy Rochdale to bounce back from 2 defeats for draw at Bury. In my opinion 4 possible draws at Southampton, Birmingham, Bury and Scunthorpe.
May I aska few questions on US elections please which I do follow but still need further guidance please.
1. Do both major parties now consider make up of votes in Electoral College fair or is it perhaps slightly biased to Democrats? Was last change to EC 2012? 2. Do Republicans still consider Precinct (constituency) boundaries favour Democrats for the General Election also in November 2016? 3.Approximately how many primaries are Winner Takes All. I know key one is California. 4. Does each state set its own rules for the state legislature and governors elections and timing or are they also in November of years with even number?
Thanking you
1. The EC allocations change according to the US census, though not directly due to the +2 each state receives. I don't know whether the parties consider it fair but there's no meaningful effort something that's Constitutionally defined. The winner-take-all aspect of virtually all states is probably less 'fair' but again, neither party in any state seems much inclined to change it.
2. I doubt it. The Republicans have done well out of the current congressional districts, winning a comfortable majority in the House in 2012 on fewer votes than the Democrats.
3. The best resource here is (IMO) The Green Papers. To be honest, I've not been through the schedules (the details differ between Dem and Rep), with enough thoroughness yet. I usually create a spreadsheet with the relevant details on but haven't got round to it yet. California will probably not be that key though. The race is usually over by the time it gets there and there'll probably only be one candidate standing by that point.
4. Yes, they set their own rules. Election day nearly always coincides with the November Tuesday rule, though there are some run-off elections held later, and not all states hold all elections in even-numbered years.
Just another question if I may please ( I posted at 9.04 below):
Do you know why first Caucus at Iowa and first Primary at New Hampshire are later this time round?
Surely Iowa was Dec 2011 and NH Jan 2012?
Thank you
There's always a push between the party organisations, which don't like the primaries and caucuses too early, and the states, some of which like to up their prominence by moving earlier in the schedule. As Iowa and NH jealously guard their 'first in the nation' role, that can - and has - pushed them earlier and earlier. I've not followed the process this time but presumably there's been less (or none) of that kind of queue-jumping this time round, allowing a later start.
I follow lower league football as well as politics. I fancy Rochdale to bounce back from 2 defeats for draw at Bury. In my opinion 4 possible draws at Southampton, Birmingham, Bury and Scunthorpe.
Watching HIGNFY, Sadiq Khan is a bit lacking in charisma, even when making a potentially funny quip. I assume Goldsmith will probably be on at some point, and we'll see if he's any better in that sense. Not that charisma is the be all and end all, but still, very cold performance.
PS _ I hope someone knows the answers to peterelectionfollowr's questions, as I have no the slightest idea and they seem pretty intriguing.
Goldsmith is better looking than Boris but less charismatic and sharp. Khan is not charismatic but is ruthless
London going for a dull mayor after the first four terms I guess. Unless they go crazy and elect Galloway I suppose.
Indeed a narrow win for Khan is my best bet helped by the fact London is probably the most pro Corbyn region in the country
Another cracker by DavidH - it's a very good guide.
I'd add
11. The US media likes change and drama, just like our media. Be prepared for the position to change radically, as one or another story is blown up as the new highlight. We are more than 3 months away from a single votes being cast. In betting terms, that means don't stake the house on anyone right now.
With regard to Biden, the general view has been that he's had a family tragedy and he needs to be cut some slack to decide in his own time. But I wonder if the chronic indecision is not starting to do real damage to his prospects. It's not so much that it's taking him forever to decide, as that a series of "he will decide by..." deadlines have slid by without a decision. He might be best off saying that at present that for all the familiar reasons he doesn't feel able to plunge himself into the primary battle. That leaves open the possibility that if Clinton implodes he could be the rescue candidate for the Democrats.
Top pollster Zogby tells US newspaper that Biden has to decide this weekend:
Or perhaps, Biden will only run if Hillary pulls out or is so seriously damaged that the party turns to him anyway. The only person who can defeat Hillary is herself at the moment and while the e-mail issue may blow up again, it seems that Sanders doesn't intend to make much of it and no-one else is in the game. All of which means I really can't see Hillary falling and hence Biden won't run. I don't honestly think he really wants it and if he did run it'd be more out of duty than anything else.
Just another question if I may please ( I posted at 9.04 below):
Do you know why first Caucus at Iowa and first Primary at New Hampshire are later this time round?
Surely Iowa was Dec 2011 and NH Jan 2012?
Thank you
Iowa and NH were in January 2012
There was a possibility that Iowa would end up in 2011 when Michigan (I think?) was playing silly beggars (which would have meant that Iowa would have ended up with no delegates as a consequence!), but in the end some kind of sanity prevailed.
Watching HIGNFY, Sadiq Khan is a bit lacking in charisma, even when making a potentially funny quip. I assume Goldsmith will probably be on at some point, and we'll see if he's any better in that sense. Not that charisma is the be all and end all, but still, very cold performance.
PS _ I hope someone knows the answers to peterelectionfollowr's questions, as I have no the slightest idea and they seem pretty intriguing.
Sadiq Khan was looking quite embarrassed by the shambolic week in Labour. HIGNFY is worth watching this week for the first question alone, even for those who are not fans. Derision from the BBC is not what new Labour leaders usually get. The Corbyn/McDonnell carcrash is just too irresistable even for leftwing comedians.
May I aska few questions on US elections please which I do follow but still need further guidance please.
1. Do both major parties now consider make up of votes in Electoral College fair or is it perhaps slightly biased to Democrats? Was last change to EC 2012? 2. Do Republicans still consider Precinct (constituency) boundaries favour Democrats for the General Election also in November 2016? 3.Approximately how many primaries are Winner Takes All. I know key one is California. 4. Does each state set its own rules for the state legislature and governors elections and timing or are they also in November of years with even number?
Thanking you
1. The EC allocations change according to the US census, though not directly due to the +2 each state receives. I don't know whether the parties consider it fair but there's no meaningful effort something that's Constitutionally defined. The winner-take-all aspect of virtually all states is probably less 'fair' but again, neither party in any state seems much inclined to change it.
2. I doubt it. The Republicans have done well out of the current congressional districts, winning a comfortable majority in the House in 2012 on fewer votes than the Democrats.
3. The best resource here is (IMO) The Green Papers. To be honest, I've not been through the schedules (the details differ between Dem and Rep), with enough thoroughness yet. I usually create a spreadsheet with the relevant details on but haven't got round to it yet. California will probably not be that key though. The race is usually over by the time it gets there and there'll probably only be one candidate standing by that point.
4. Yes, they set their own rules. Election day nearly always coincides with the November Tuesday rule, though there are some run-off elections held later, and not all states hold all elections in even-numbered years.
Just another question if I may please ( I posted at 9.04 below):
Do you know why first Caucus at Iowa and first Primary at New Hampshire are later this time round?
Surely Iowa was Dec 2011 and NH Jan 2012?
Thank you
There's always a push between the party organisations, which don't like the primaries and caucuses too early, and the states, some of which like to up their prominence by moving earlier in the schedule. As Iowa and NH jealously guard their 'first in the nation' role, that can - and has - pushed them earlier and earlier. I've not followed the process this time but presumably there's been less (or none) of that kind of queue-jumping this time round, allowing a later start.
GOP states holding primaries and caucuses pre March 2016 must award delegates by PR after by WTA or PR
May I aska few questions on US elections please which I do follow but still need further guidance please.
1. Do both major parties now consider make up of votes in Electoral College fair or is it perhaps slightly biased to Democrats? Was last change to EC 2012? 2. Do Republicans still consider Precinct (constituency) boundaries favour Democrats for the General Election also in November 2016? 3.Approximately how many primaries are Winner Takes All. I know key one is California. 4. Does each state set its own rules for the state legislature and governors elections and timing or are they also in November of years with even number?
Thanking you
1. The EC allocations change according to the US census, though not directly due to the +2 each state receives. I don't know whether the parties consider it fair but there's no meaningful effort something that's Constitutionally defined. The winner-take-all aspect of virtually all states is probably less 'fair' but again, neither party in any state seems much inclined to change it.
2. I doubt it. The Republicans have done well out of the current congressional districts, winning a comfortable majority in the House in 2012 on fewer votes than the Democrats.
3. The best resource here is (IMO) The Green Papers. To be honest, I've not been through the schedules (the details differ between Dem and Rep), with enough thoroughness yet. I usually create a spreadsheet with the relevant details on but haven't got round to it yet. California will probably not be that key though. The race is usually over by the time it gets there and there'll probably only be one candidate standing by that point.
4. Yes, they set their own rules. Election day nearly always coincides with the November Tuesday rule, though there are some run-off elections held later, and not all states hold all elections in even-numbered years.
Just another question if I may please ( I posted at 9.04 below):
Do you know why first Caucus at Iowa and first Primary at New Hampshire are later this time round?
Surely Iowa was Dec 2011 and NH Jan 2012?
Thank you
There's always a push between the party organisations, which don't like the primaries and caucuses too early, and the states, some of which like to up their prominence by moving earlier in the schedule. As Iowa and NH jealously guard their 'first in the nation' role, that can - and has - pushed them earlier and earlier. I've not followed the process this time but presumably there's been less (or none) of that kind of queue-jumping this time round, allowing a later start.
The GOP have said that no primaries or caucuses in 2016 can take place earlier than February
I follow lower league football as well as politics. I fancy Rochdale to bounce back from 2 defeats for draw at Bury. In my opinion 4 possible draws at Southampton, Birmingham, Bury and Scunthorpe.
Thanks Peter, I think it may be a draw at Bury as well, but 1.95 DNB is big in my opinion.
I like backing draws, French Ligue 2 is a happy hunting ground
Just another question if I may please ( I posted at 9.04 below):
Do you know why first Caucus at Iowa and first Primary at New Hampshire are later this time round?
Surely Iowa was Dec 2011 and NH Jan 2012?
Thank you
Iowa and NH were in January 2012
There was a possibility that Iowa would end up in 2011 when Michigan (I think?) was playing silly beggars (which would have meant that Iowa would have ended up with no delegates as a consequence!), but in the end some kind of sanity prevailed.
Thanks, David, for an excellent article. As someone who has been on this site for 3 (coming up 4) US election cycles now, Number 1 on the list is the key. I've seen far too much extrapolation of British models onto the US system. As you say, it is 51 elections, and swing is not the measure - comparison district by district to last elections' results is how it's measured here.
Just another question if I may please ( I posted at 9.04 below):
Do you know why first Caucus at Iowa and first Primary at New Hampshire are later this time round?
Surely Iowa was Dec 2011 and NH Jan 2012?
Thank you
Iowa and NH were in January 2012
There was a possibility that Iowa would end up in 2011 when Michigan (I think?) was playing silly beggars (which would have meant that Iowa would have ended up with no delegates as a consequence!), but in the end some kind of sanity prevailed.
Indeed
@PEF The reason is that it is not in the parties' interests to extend even further the primary process or to have it too early in relation to the actual election. Following the chaos in 2011 of other States trying to be more relevant in the nomination process by bidding to be first or at least very early, the two Parties sought to instill some discipline on the process. The GOP wanted a short, decisive primary process so that less money and time would be spent on attacking each other, and more of both would be available to attack the Dem nominee. I presume the same logic applies to the Dem process.
Consequently, it was decided that States that go out of order would be heavily penalized by loss of delegates. States that go in order but opt for earlier in the process must, at least in the GOP race, allocate their delegates proportionally rather than winner takes all for the State.
Thanks, David, for an excellent article. As someone who has been on this site for 3 (coming up 4) US election cycles now, Number 1 on the list is the key. I've seen far too much extrapolation of British models onto the US system. As you say, it is 51 elections, and swing is not the measure - comparison district by district to last elections' results is how it's measured here.
Only one candidate in the last 100 years has won the popular vote for the US presidency and failed to win the electoral college too, Al Gore and had he won just 500 more votes in Florida, the equivalent to the majority in a UK council by election, he would have won that too
Thanks, David, for an excellent article. As someone who has been on this site for 3 (coming up 4) US election cycles now, Number 1 on the list is the key. I've seen far too much extrapolation of British models onto the US system. As you say, it is 51 elections, and swing is not the measure - comparison district by district to last elections' results is how it's measured here.
Only one candidate in the last 100 years has won the popular vote for the US presidency and failed to win the electoral college too, Al Gore and had he won just 500 more votes in Florida, the equivalent to the majority in a UK council by election, he would have won that too
That's probably one example of history misleading. Until not long ago, there was a much more flexible electorate - the Electoral College landslides of 1964, 1972 and 1984 were on a scale almost inconceivable now. Many states, including huge ones like California, are pretty much written off before the campaign begins. Consequently, there can be a lot of votes in CA, NY and TX, to take but three, that go a long way in the national vote but have comparatively little impact in the ECV.
Now you can argue - and to a large extent you'd be right to - that the swing in the shares in these states will still mirror the national swing and so the balance will be maintained. Quite probably. But campaigning and targeting is improving all the time and it a disproportionate swing in the key states is entirely possible.
Also, by definition, it's only the close elections that can produce a reverse result and there aren't too many that land within, say 2%.
Thanks, David, for an excellent article. As someone who has been on this site for 3 (coming up 4) US election cycles now, Number 1 on the list is the key. I've seen far too much extrapolation of British models onto the US system. As you say, it is 51 elections, and swing is not the measure - comparison district by district to last elections' results is how it's measured here.
Only one candidate in the last 100 years has won the popular vote for the US presidency and failed to win the electoral college too, Al Gore and had he won just 500 more votes in Florida, the equivalent to the majority in a UK council by election, he would have won that too
That's probably one example of history misleading. Until not long ago, there was a much more flexible electorate - the Electoral College landslides of 1964, 1972 and 1984 were on a scale almost inconceivable now. Many states, including huge ones like California, are pretty much written off before the campaign begins. Consequently, there can be a lot of votes in CA, NY and TX, to take but three, that go a long way in the national vote but have comparatively little impact in the ECV.
Now you can argue - and to a large extent you'd be right to - that the swing in the shares in these states will still mirror the national swing and so the balance will be maintained. Quite probably. But campaigning and targeting is improving all the time and it a disproportionate swing in the key states is entirely possible.
Also, by definition, it's only the close elections that can produce a reverse result and there aren't too many that land within, say 2%.
David, indeed. I work a lot in safety. One of the problems is the low probability event. As they happen very infrequently, many organizations think that what they are doing is safe, because doing what they do has not resulted in the accident (yet). Using the metric of no accidents yet, they conclude that their process is safe. Sometimes using the wrong metric convinces you that you are right, even when in fact you are wrong.
Good pay-day for the Pakistan lads, or is that just what their fans tell themselves to excuse being a nation of bottle merchants? A shame we have to ask.
Good pay-day for the Pakistan lads, or is that just what their fans tell themselves to excuse being a nation of bottle merchants? A shame we have to ask.
Oh crap. I left early and missed the action. Ignore the overs, it will be dark in 50 minutes, was 17:40 last not when they came off. Can't see it myself but stranger things have happened.
Good pay-day for the Pakistan lads, or is that just what their fans tell themselves to excuse being a nation of bottle merchants? A shame we have to ask.
If the wave of migrants keeps coming, in 10-15 years, Swedes will be a minority in their own country. That there is, in fact, an exchange of populations going on, should be clear in any sober assessment.
At a press conference October 9, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said that Sweden is in a state of crisis. However, when asked to clarify what he meant by this, Löfven was unable to produce a single coherent sentence.
Betfair is 1.9 v 2.1 in favour of the draw. Take your pick or even up your book. I'm on the draw, it will be dark in half an hour and the bowlers will be as slow as they can get away with being.
Betfair is 1.9 v 2.1 in favour of the draw. Take your pick or even up your book. I'm on the draw, it will be dark in half an hour and the bowlers will be as slow as they can get away with being.
There'll be a few people who backed the draw at 1.01 who'll be a bit nervous here! England also traded as high as 129/1.
Floodlights on now. Latest play in first four days was 17:37. 17 minutes to go on that basis.
Isn't the first option with the batting team, so that England and Wales can just flail it about knowing they can safely call it if they run out of wickets?
Floodlights on now. Latest play in first four days was 17:37. 17 minutes to go on that basis.
Isn't the first option with the batting team, so that England and Wales can just flail it about knowing they can safely call it if they run out of wickets?
Not anymore. The umpires make the call and that's that.
Floodlights on now. Latest play in first four days was 17:37. 17 minutes to go on that basis.
Isn't the first option with the batting team, so that England and Wales can just flail it about knowing they can safely call it if they run out of wickets?
Not anymore. The umpires make the call and that's that.
So it will depend if whoever paid the Pakistani team also slipped an envelope to the Umps?
Floodlights on now. Latest play in first four days was 17:37. 17 minutes to go on that basis.
Isn't the first option with the batting team, so that England and Wales can just flail it about knowing they can safely call it if they run out of wickets?
Not anymore. The umpires make the call and that's that.
So it will depend if whoever paid the Pakistani team also slipped an envelope to the Umps?
Unfortunately too many matches involving Pakistan still have somewhat unusual endings. Shame that it keeps being mentioned. Betfair have £16m on this match, I'm on for very small money compared to the ashes where we all knew both teams were going all out to win.
Can't be more than a couple of overs to go now, it will be properly dark in 15 mins.
Just seen the previous thread; this tax credits debate is getting messy.
And SeanT is the reason why I wouldn't touch older men with a barge pole as far dating goes. Likely to be very right wing (and a bit scary with it as well).
Floodlights on now. Latest play in first four days was 17:37. 17 minutes to go on that basis.
Isn't the first option with the batting team, so that England and Wales can just flail it about knowing they can safely call it if they run out of wickets?
Not anymore. The umpires make the call and that's that.
So it will depend if whoever paid the Pakistani team also slipped an envelope to the Umps?
The good thing about Pakistan cheating by going so slowly now is that it means that they're not trying to lose.
Floodlights on now. Latest play in first four days was 17:37. 17 minutes to go on that basis.
Isn't the first option with the batting team, so that England and Wales can just flail it about knowing they can safely call it if they run out of wickets?
Not anymore. The umpires make the call and that's that.
So it will depend if whoever paid the Pakistani team also slipped an envelope to the Umps?
The good thing about Pakistan cheating by going so slowly now is that it means that they're not trying to lose.
Covering their tracks? Why bring on the quick when the spinners were doing alright?
Just seen the previous thread; this tax credits debate is getting messy.
And SeanT is the reason why I wouldn't touch older men with a barge pole as far dating goes. Likely to be very right wing (and a bit scary with it as well).
Corbyn is an older man. And I'm reasonably certain he's not right wing.
Floodlights on now. Latest play in first four days was 17:37. 17 minutes to go on that basis.
Isn't the first option with the batting team, so that England and Wales can just flail it about knowing they can safely call it if they run out of wickets?
Not anymore. The umpires make the call and that's that.
So it will depend if whoever paid the Pakistani team also slipped an envelope to the Umps?
The good thing about Pakistan cheating by going so slowly now is that it means that they're not trying to lose.
Covering their tracks? Why bring on the quick when the spinners were doing alright?
Presumably to encourage the umpire to call for light? Didn't work though.
Just seen the previous thread; this tax credits debate is getting messy.
And SeanT is the reason why I wouldn't touch older men with a barge pole as far dating goes. Likely to be very right wing (and a bit scary with it as well).
SeanT is rich though as statistically older men are more likely to be and as Mrs Merton said to Debbie McGee 'what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels'
Floodlights on now. Latest play in first four days was 17:37. 17 minutes to go on that basis.
Isn't the first option with the batting team, so that England and Wales can just flail it about knowing they can safely call it if they run out of wickets?
Not anymore. The umpires make the call and that's that.
So it will depend if whoever paid the Pakistani team also slipped an envelope to the Umps?
The good thing about Pakistan cheating by going so slowly now is that it means that they're not trying to lose.
Covering their tracks? Why bring on the quick when the spinners were doing alright?
Presumably to encourage the umpire to call for light? Didn't work though.
Fair point. As I said earlier, you don't need to throw a game of cricket to make money on it.
Just seen the previous thread; this tax credits debate is getting messy.
And SeanT is the reason why I wouldn't touch older men with a barge pole as far dating goes. Likely to be very right wing (and a bit scary with it as well).
Corbyn is an older man. And I'm reasonably certain he's not right wing.
But is he scary?
Corbyn is a bit weird, and tbh some his ideas and who he is associated with, does make him scary in a way.
Just seen the previous thread; this tax credits debate is getting messy.
And SeanT is the reason why I wouldn't touch older men with a barge pole as far dating goes. Likely to be very right wing (and a bit scary with it as well).
Corbyn is an older man. And I'm reasonably certain he's not right wing.
From the betting point of view: are we going to get a further repeat of the shy Tories? Denmark, Israel, UK, Sindy ref....Canada?
Even if there was I expect Trudeau would still win. He now has a clear lead in the polls while final polls in the UK, Israel and Denmark had it tied. In Sindy final polls had No ahead. This election seems more JFK v Nixon or Obama v McCain or Rudd v Howard than Cameron v Ed Miliband or Netanyahu v Herzog
In Greece in September or the US in 2012 there were arguably shy Syriza or Obama voters albeit both were incumbents
From the betting point of view: are we going to get a further repeat of the shy Tories? Denmark, Israel, UK, Sindy ref....Canada?
Even if there was I expect Trudeau would still win. He now has a clear lead on the polls while final polls in the UK, Israel and Denmark had it tied. In Sindy final polls had No ahead. This election seems more JFK v Nixon or Obama v McCain or Rudd v Howard than Cameron v Ed Miliband or Netanyahu v Herzog
I'm wondering if NDP supporters might vote tactically for the Libs to ensure that the Tories don't get most seats. The momentum appears to be with the Pretty Boy.
Good piece but I'm not convinced about the whole "51 elections" thing. I haven't done anything systematic on this but it seemed like the national polling + UNS was pretty good last time, whereas the state polling was all over the shop. And I remember in 2008 guys like RodCrosby and Nate Silver did pretty well projecting the state primaries by extrapolating demographics from the first few, so it doesn't really seem like they're all unique snowflakes.
Comments
Betting PostBacked New Zealand, Australia and South Africa to all win by 10 points or more at 4.5, with Ladbrokes.
Cheers Sam
http://t.co/DUZSAKbwTA
I had a look at Division 1 and for the life of me I cannot understand why Bury are 1.95 draw no bet
Wales scraped a victory against England, which wasn't that impressive. South Africa have been a bit off but I think they stand a decent chance of the winning margin.
It wouldn't be a staggering result if France or Wales won, but I'd be a little surprised. If Scotland win, I'd be shocked [and, money aside, delighted].
Anyway, we shall soon see.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/the-strangest-thing-about-the-snp-conference-is-how-normal-it-is/
Edited extra bit: got to say I approve of the rugby, which appears specifically scheduled to avoid clashing with Homeland.
My mate does both teams to score betting and I thought YES in Spurs and Everton matches, NO in west brom
South Africa lost to Japan and are the weakest of the Southern Hemisphere three
South Africa are the weakest of the three major SH teams, but Wales are roughly on a par with England.
Just another question if I may please ( I posted at 9.04 below):
Do you know why first Caucus at Iowa and first Primary at New Hampshire are later this time round?
Surely Iowa was Dec 2011 and NH Jan 2012?
Thank you
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/10/pollster_biden_must_make_up_his_mind_this_weekend
Trust in the tinkerman, he will beat Soton away and 5.1 on Betfair.
PS _ I hope someone knows the answers to peterelectionfollowr's questions, as I have no the slightest idea and they seem pretty intriguing.
Not a vote winning performance.
https://xkcd.com/1122/
I did a lucky 15! Oldskool!
I follow lower league football as well as politics. I fancy Rochdale to bounce back from 2 defeats for draw at Bury. In my opinion 4 possible draws at Southampton, Birmingham, Bury and Scunthorpe.
2. I doubt it. The Republicans have done well out of the current congressional districts, winning a comfortable majority in the House in 2012 on fewer votes than the Democrats.
3. The best resource here is (IMO) The Green Papers. To be honest, I've not been through the schedules (the details differ between Dem and Rep), with enough thoroughness yet. I usually create a spreadsheet with the relevant details on but haven't got round to it yet. California will probably not be that key though. The race is usually over by the time it gets there and there'll probably only be one candidate standing by that point.
4. Yes, they set their own rules. Election day nearly always coincides with the November Tuesday rule, though there are some run-off elections held later, and not all states hold all elections in even-numbered years. There's always a push between the party organisations, which don't like the primaries and caucuses too early, and the states, some of which like to up their prominence by moving earlier in the schedule. As Iowa and NH jealously guard their 'first in the nation' role, that can - and has - pushed them earlier and earlier. I've not followed the process this time but presumably there's been less (or none) of that kind of queue-jumping this time round, allowing a later start.
Or perhaps, Biden will only run if Hillary pulls out or is so seriously damaged that the party turns to him anyway. The only person who can defeat Hillary is herself at the moment and while the e-mail issue may blow up again, it seems that Sanders doesn't intend to make much of it and no-one else is in the game. All of which means I really can't see Hillary falling and hence Biden won't run. I don't honestly think he really wants it and if he did run it'd be more out of duty than anything else.
Thank you for your help.
Heading out of the sun to find a bar showing Spurs v Liverpool!
I like backing draws, French Ligue 2 is a happy hunting ground
http://www.electionprediction.org/2015_fed/index.php
Today's Canadian Election Watch has the two neck and neck - Liberals at 129 and Conservatives at 128:
http://cdnelectionwatch.blogspot.ca/
Liberals have drifted slightly on Betfair to 1.18 but Conservatives still a bit of value at 5.0 IMHO
Probably only 20 seats in it either way.
Here are the latest polls over the last two days
Nanos Liberals 37 Tories 31 NDP 23
Leger Liberals 38 Tories 30 NDP 22
Angus Reid Liberals 35 Tories 33 NDP 21
Mainstreet Liberals 38 Tories 33 NDP 21
Consequently, it was decided that States that go out of order would be heavily penalized by loss of delegates. States that go in order but opt for earlier in the process must, at least in the GOP race, allocate their delegates proportionally rather than winner takes all for the State.
Now you can argue - and to a large extent you'd be right to - that the swing in the shares in these states will still mirror the national swing and so the balance will be maintained. Quite probably. But campaigning and targeting is improving all the time and it a disproportionate swing in the key states is entirely possible.
Also, by definition, it's only the close elections that can produce a reverse result and there aren't too many that land within, say 2%.
99 to win in 23 overs?
Athens reckons light will go in about an hour...
Throw in the dodgy run out... This isn't bent is it?
Ignore the overs, it will be dark in 50 minutes, was 17:40 last not when they came off.
Can't see it myself but stranger things have happened.
If this happens I'm gonna feel like that Liverpool fan that left Istanbul at half time to miss the airport crowds
Sweden Close to Collapse.
Serves them right!
If the wave of migrants keeps coming, in 10-15 years, Swedes will be a minority in their own country. That there is, in fact, an exchange of populations going on, should be clear in any sober assessment.
At a press conference October 9, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said that Sweden is in a state of crisis. However, when asked to clarify what he meant by this, Löfven was unable to produce a single coherent sentence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34559706
Wild dust storm rolls over US city of Phoenix
http://i.imgur.com/qPCUm.jpeg
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ScreenSnapz0241-620x448.jpg
Can't be more than a couple of overs to go now, it will be properly dark in 15 mins.
And SeanT is the reason why I wouldn't touch older men with a barge pole as far dating goes. Likely to be very right wing (and a bit scary with it as well).
Corbyn is an older man. And I'm reasonably certain he's not right wing.
But is he scary?
In Greece in September or the US in 2012 there were arguably shy Syriza or Obama voters albeit both were incumbents