Lisa Nandy evidently looked at that poll of Labour members and their views of Labour leaders.
Nandy clearly pitching to overtake Long Bailey as a milder Corbynite alternative to Starmer still with the Northern links and greater acceptance of Brexit
Regarding the bets: I understand why Paddy Power is not paying out on (for example) the aliens one.
The problem I have is that - while aliens have not been found - neither you nor Paddy Power has won. And if aliens are discovered immediately after your death, well, Paddies will just say "couldn't find customer, I'll keep it". It seems there is an asymmetry that I'm not really happy with.
Your relatives could collect it, if it's placed in a betting shop and it would go towards your funeral.
Or towards the cost of paying the aliens to resurrect you from the dead.
Brutal for RLB and Starmer. Starmer was the most known candidate and slated heavily. Nandy was least known, but when shown videos of her gathered a lot of support in the room.
Whilst this is informative and interesting I’m wary of treating this as gospel. My personal experience speaking to ex Lab now Con Brexiteers in the North East is very different. Starmer is popular.
Starmer was still more popular than Long Bailey in that focus group but the polling we have suggests Starmer is a bit more popular in London, the South and Scotland than he is in the North and Midlands
The videos seemed pretty brief - one of the people commenting on Starmer as "corporate" was careful to say "Just on the basis of what we've just seen". Ultimately a focus group is anecdotal too - we need a widely-viewed debate and a proper poll.
Who was the female Labour MP who was a member of an obscure Catholic "sect" , which did have some weird connotations if not the same/ similarish.. once thought of a high flier in Blair/ Brown era?
Ruth Kelly. Very cute in a weird kind of way.
She was also the nicest Cabinet Minister that I knew - she would always find time to say some friendly words to the most obscure backbenchers or Commons staff even when clearly on her way to somewhere else. The other extreme in my experience was Peter Mandelson, who while talking to you would look around to see if there was someone else more important to talk to, and walk off without a word if he saw one. Peter is highly intelligent and interesting to talk to, but it's a cold experience, while Ruth is naturally warm.
Lisa Nandy evidently looked at that poll of Labour members and their views of Labour leaders.
Nandy clearly pitching to overtake Long Bailey as a milder Corbynite alternative to Starmer still with the Northern links and greater acceptance of Brexit
Why wouldn't you. That's exactly the position anyone with any nuance of markets would target. You exploit the weaknesses of the leading candidate which is definitely Starmer.
Lisa Nandy evidently looked at that poll of Labour members and their views of Labour leaders.
Nandy clearly pitching to overtake Long Bailey as a milder Corbynite alternative to Starmer still with the Northern links and greater acceptance of Brexit
Paddy should pay out on these bets, all of them. Best of luck to the Punter heading to IBAS
Yes. It's clear. They should pay. The voiding can never happen because there can be no point in time at which one can 100% say that there will NEVER be alien life or Sindy2. So if the void cannot occur this leaves just 2 outcomes Win or Lose. The expiry of year 2019 eliminates Lose. This leaves just one outcome. Win. It's a slam dunk. Paddy will lose if it goes to arb.
Could we see a Nandy : Long-Bailey price crossover this weekend ?
If we do it'll be completely wrong. Long-Bailey is polling a long way ahead of Nandy with Labour members at the moment - that's not to say it won't happen though as we note with Mike Bloomberg in the US presidential race crossing over Warren.
Lisa Nandy evidently looked at that poll of Labour members and their views of Labour leaders.
Nandy clearly pitching to overtake Long Bailey as a milder Corbynite alternative to Starmer still with the Northern links and greater acceptance of Brexit
SKS has accepted that the issue of Brexit is settled for the time being. What more do you want?
Brutal for RLB and Starmer. Starmer was the most known candidate and slated heavily. Nandy was least known, but when shown videos of her gathered a lot of support in the room.
Whilst this is informative and interesting I’m wary of treating this as gospel. My personal experience speaking to ex Lab now Con Brexiteers in the North East is very different. Starmer is popular.
Starmer was still more popular than Long Bailey in that focus group but the polling we have suggests Starmer is a bit more popular in London, the South and Scotland than he is in the North and Midlands
The videos seemed pretty brief - one of the people commenting on Starmer as "corporate" was careful to say "Just on the basis of what we've just seen". Ultimately a focus group is anecdotal too - we need a widely-viewed debate and a proper poll.
Plus a poll comparing Labour led by the different contenders against the Tories
Lisa Nandy evidently looked at that poll of Labour members and their views of Labour leaders.
Nandy clearly pitching to overtake Long Bailey as a milder Corbynite alternative to Starmer still with the Northern links and greater acceptance of Brexit
SKS has accepted that the issue of Brexit is settled for the time being. What more do you want?
He still wants both single market and customs union alignment with the EU, Nandy backed customs union but not single market membership
Some of the wording around bets is piss poor. With Skybet for instance they gave a Corbyn exit market with the wording "When he makes an official announcement..." which was most definitely in 2019. Now I'm on 2020 with them as well which is when the Corbexit bets (With them) will actually pay out, and it's a slightly larger profit than 2019; but the original wording for the 2019 Corbexit bet was also satisfied. Note the wording goes away when you review the bet.
Another gripe is bets disappearing that are over a year old from bet view history. This combined with shoddy settlement is unacceptable; I wouldn't bother with bookies if they didn't pay so well in aggregate.
Lisa Nandy evidently looked at that poll of Labour members and their views of Labour leaders.
Nandy clearly pitching to overtake Long Bailey as a milder Corbynite alternative to Starmer still with the Northern links and greater acceptance of Brexit
SKS has accepted that the issue of Brexit is settled for the time being. What more do you want?
He still wants both single market and customs union alignment with the EU, Nandy backed customs union but not single market membership and ending free movement
Who was the female Labour MP who was a member of an obscure Catholic "sect" , which did have some weird connotations if not the same/ similarish.. once thought of a high flier in Blair/ Brown era?
Ruth Kelly. Very cute in a weird kind of way.
She was also the nicest Cabinet Minister that I knew - she would always find time to say some friendly words to the most obscure backbenchers or Commons staff even when clearly on her way to somewhere else. The other extreme in my experience was Peter Mandelson, who while talking to you would look around to see if there was someone else more important to talk to, and walk off without a word if he saw one. Peter is highly intelligent and interesting to talk to, but it's a cold experience, while Ruth is naturally warm.
Interesting thread, and well done to Mike OGH for using his platform to discuss these things.
IMO the Trump bet is a dead cert for a payout, and the other two are ambiguous at best.
If neither of them contained a ‘never’ option nor any obvious mitigation, then the benefit of the doubt for ambiguous wording should go against the party that wrote the words. Can’t imagine that either of them have a massive book behind them, hopefully the publicity here can see them both resolved in short order.
Paddy should pay out on these bets, all of them. Best of luck to the Punter heading to IBAS
Yes. It's clear. They should pay. The voiding can never happen because there can be no point in time at which one can 100% say that there will NEVER be alien life or Sindy2. So if the void cannot occur this leaves just 2 outcomes Win or Lose. The expiry of year 2019 eliminates Lose. This leaves just one outcome. Win. It's a slam dunk. Paddy will lose if it goes to arb.
Lose in the sense that the attendant publicity is what this bookmaker strives at all costs to avoid?
It would be interesting to know the stake, the odds and the date of the bet. Say the punter thought he was betting, at any time in 2019, that alien life would not be found by end 2019: that is the freest of free money even at let's say 1/250, and that should have made him think to get clarification in writing of the exact terms.
Lisa Nandy evidently looked at that poll of Labour members and their views of Labour leaders.
Nandy clearly pitching to overtake Long Bailey as a milder Corbynite alternative to Starmer still with the Northern links and greater acceptance of Brexit
SKS has accepted that the issue of Brexit is settled for the time being. What more do you want?
He still wants both single market and customs union alignment with the EU, Nandy backed customs union but not single market membership and ending free movement
Lisa Nandy evidently looked at that poll of Labour members and their views of Labour leaders.
Nandy clearly pitching to overtake Long Bailey as a milder Corbynite alternative to Starmer still with the Northern links and greater acceptance of Brexit
SKS has accepted that the issue of Brexit is settled for the time being. What more do you want?
He still wants both single market and customs union alignment with the EU, Nandy backed customs union but not single market membership and ending free movement
And?
Nandy is the more Eurosceptic of the 2
And? That has nothing to do with the “acceptance of Brexit”. Remember that like Keir, Nandy is also a Remainer.
In 9 days time Brexit will have been done. Neither SKS or Nandy is proposing to reverse it.
F1: there's now a points match market on Ladbrokes.
Got to say none appeals, possibly excepting Latifi at 5.5 to beat Russell. But it's a season long thing which puts me off a bit.
Day-trading friend of mine has just dropped well into four figures on Hamilton at around 1.75 for the title - I think the odds are about right but that’s a lot of money to tie up for the whole year - and for the last couple of years he’s had a slow start to the season which might see him drift out in the next couple of months.
Paddy should pay out on these bets, all of them. Best of luck to the Punter heading to IBAS
Yes. It's clear. They should pay. The voiding can never happen because there can be no point in time at which one can 100% say that there will NEVER be alien life or Sindy2. So if the void cannot occur this leaves just 2 outcomes Win or Lose. The expiry of year 2019 eliminates Lose. This leaves just one outcome. Win. It's a slam dunk. Paddy will lose if it goes to arb.
If you were betting on the Alien life form being discovered, or the second Indy Ref to take place after 2019, you are saying
(a) those events will take occur and (b) they wont before 2020
only one part of the bet has weighed in, so PP are right not to pay out
If the bet was "Will miss X have a baby 'BEFORE 2019' or '2020 or AFTER' "
She has to have a baby for the bet to pay out
Mug bets to have as the bookie has the "Miss X never has a baby" on their side
Lisa Nandy evidently looked at that poll of Labour members and their views of Labour leaders.
Nandy clearly pitching to overtake Long Bailey as a milder Corbynite alternative to Starmer still with the Northern links and greater acceptance of Brexit
SKS has accepted that the issue of Brexit is settled for the time being. What more do you want?
He still wants both single market and customs union alignment with the EU, Nandy backed customs union but not single market membership and ending free movement
And?
Nandy is the more Eurosceptic of the 2
And? That has nothing to do with the “acceptance of Brexit”. Remember that like Keir, Nandy is also a Remainer.
In 9 days time Brexit will have been done. Neither SKS or Nandy is proposing to reverse it.
The type of Brexit will be anything but done, Starmer wants us to ultimately return to the single market and a customs union and Nandy wants us to be members of a customs union but not the full single market
The three remaining candidates for Labour leader can be summed up as follows:
Long-Bailey: we're not out of touch, it's the public that are wrong. Starmer: he may not be a great man but he's a great poster. Nandy: When you've got worries, all the noise and the hurry seems to help, I know, down towns.
Lisa Nandy evidently looked at that poll of Labour members and their views of Labour leaders.
Nandy clearly pitching to overtake Long Bailey as a milder Corbynite alternative to Starmer still with the Northern links and greater acceptance of Brexit
SKS has accepted that the issue of Brexit is settled for the time being. What more do you want?
He still wants both single market and customs union alignment with the EU, Nandy backed customs union but not single market membership and ending free movement
And?
Nandy is the more Eurosceptic of the 2
And? That has nothing to do with the “acceptance of Brexit”. Remember that like Keir, Nandy is also a Remainer.
In 9 days time Brexit will have been done. Neither SKS or Nandy is proposing to reverse it.
The type of Brexit will be anything but done, Starmer wants us to ultimately return to the single market and a customs union and Nandy wants us to be members of a customs union but not the full single market
Well for one I doubt that’s correct. I don’t think either have fully laid out their position. I believe the plan is to wait and see what happens.
Regardless you are arguing a different point. Supporting membership of the single market is not “not accepting Brexit”.
I don't think PP should be under an obligation to pay out on an outcome which the bet implied would happen and which hasn't yet, merely because the bet was for the last, open-ended time-period offered.
If there is no further IndyRef, the punter shouldn't be entitled to pay out; likewise re aliens.
The Trump bet is a different matter. Trump will cease to be president sometime and on that basis, PP should pay out.
In that case, they shouldn’t have taken the bet, as it doesn’t have a time limit on paying out. I would argue that ‘never’ could be included in ‘later.’
They seem even more twisty and dishonest than AQA and speaking as a former employee who left after being swindled once too often that is saying something.
I don't agree there, I'm afraid.
A payout on the bet is contingent on the conditions of the bet being met, not just that other alternatives have not been met. Had the option been 'not before 2020' then that would be different but the terms of the Scottish referendum bet are surely ('after 1/1/20' AND 'IndyRef takes place'). So far, only one of those conditions has been met.
I appreciate that when a man says he'll do something later, this is quite frequently synonymous with 'never' but I don't think that's an arguable legal principle.
You’ll simultaneously get Leavers telling you that it is outrageous and it doesn’t matter in the slightest.
Absolutely right. The two things are not contradictory, my toddler can throw an outrageous tantrum but it doesn't matter by the end of the day and giving in to her only encourages more bad behaviour.
One day, a long day from now, you will come to realise that you are the toddler.
Keep telling yourself that. Funny I thought I was supposed to realise that in the recession before Brexit after the referendum result, then it was after invoking Article 50, then it was going to be after Brexit. Now we've still not even Brexited yet and you're kicking the can to "a long day from now".
You are so stubborn you still can't face the fact you were wrong can you?
Upthread we have @Casino_Royale telling us that maybe - just maybe, if all the stars align - we might start seeing benefits from Brexit in fifteen years' time.
Meanwhile the economy continues to languish, having drifted far behind its peers since the referendum vote, and Brexiteers hug themselves with delight because of an estimate that Britain might have anaemic growth for the foreseeable future if the government hoses the country with money that it can't afford to spend.
Look out the window at a grey, cold, dark January day. That is Brexit - dismal, dull and unending.
This isn’t news.
I said on my blog before the referendum that I expected Brexit to have a short-term negative effect, to be neutral in the medium-term and positive in the long-term.
I don't think PP should be under an obligation to pay out on an outcome which the bet implied would happen and which hasn't yet, merely because the bet was for the last, open-ended time-period offered.
If there is no further IndyRef, the punter shouldn't be entitled to pay out; likewise re aliens.
The Trump bet is a different matter. Trump will cease to be president sometime and on that basis, PP should pay out.
In that case, they shouldn’t have taken the bet, as it doesn’t have a time limit on paying out. I would argue that ‘never’ could be included in ‘later.’
They seem even more twisty and dishonest than AQA and speaking as a former employee who left after being swindled once too often that is saying something.
I don't agree there, I'm afraid.
A payout on the bet is contingent on the conditions of the bet being met, not just that other alternatives have not been met. Had the option been 'not before 2020' then that would be different but the terms of the Scottish referendum bet are surely ('after 1/1/20' AND 'IndyRef takes place'). So far, only one of those conditions has been met.
I appreciate that when a man says he'll do something later, this is quite frequently synonymous with 'never' but I don't think that's an arguable legal principle.
Some of the wording around bets is piss poor. With Skybet for instance they gave a Corbyn exit market with the wording "When he makes an official announcement..." which was most definitely in 2019. Now I'm on 2020 with them as well which is when the Corbexit bets (With them) will actually pay out, and it's a slightly larger profit than 2019; but the original wording for the 2019 Corbexit bet was also satisfied. Note the wording goes away when you review the bet.
Another gripe is bets disappearing that are over a year old from bet view history. This combined with shoddy settlement is unacceptable; I wouldn't bother with bookies if they didn't pay so well in aggregate.
This is exactly why I’m struggling to get Ladbrokes to pay out on a bet I placed in March 2017.
They’re clearly geared up for very short-term sports betting and games gambling and aren’t really interested that much in long-term slow burners, where they’ve banked the ‘profit’ and forgotten about it.
The three remaining candidates for Labour leader can be summed up as follows:
Long-Bailey: we're not out of touch, it's the public that are wrong. Starmer: he may not be a great man but he's a great poster. Nandy: When you've got worries, all the noise and the hurry seems to help, I know, down towns.
Lisa Nandy evidently looked at that poll of Labour members and their views of Labour leaders.
Nandy clearly pitching to overtake Long Bailey as a milder Corbynite alternative to Starmer still with the Northern links and greater acceptance of Brexit
SKS has accepted that the issue of Brexit is settled for the time being. What more do you want?
He still wants both single market and customs union alignment with the EU, Nandy backed customs union but not single market membership and ending free movement
And?
Nandy is the more Eurosceptic of the 2
And? That has nothing to do with the “acceptance of Brexit”. Remember that like Keir, Nandy is also a Remainer.
In 9 days time Brexit will have been done. Neither SKS or Nandy is proposing to reverse it.
The type of Brexit will be anything but done, Starmer wants us to ultimately return to the single market and a customs union and Nandy wants us to be members of a customs union but not the full single market
Well for one I doubt that’s correct. I don’t think either have fully laid out their position. I believe the plan is to wait and see what happens.
Regardless you are arguing a different point. Supporting membership of the single market is not “not accepting Brexit”.
I don't think PP should be under an obligation to pay out on an outcome which the bet implied would happen and which hasn't yet, merely because the bet was for the last, open-ended time-period offered.
If there is no further IndyRef, the punter shouldn't be entitled to pay out; likewise re aliens.
The Trump bet is a different matter. Trump will cease to be president sometime and on that basis, PP should pay out.
In that case, they shouldn’t have taken the bet, as it doesn’t have a time limit on paying out. I would argue that ‘never’ could be included in ‘later.’
They seem even more twisty and dishonest than AQA and speaking as a former employee who left after being swindled once too often that is saying something.
I don't agree there, I'm afraid.
A payout on the bet is contingent on the conditions of the bet being met, not just that other alternatives have not been met. Had the option been 'not before 2020' then that would be different but the terms of the Scottish referendum bet are surely ('after 1/1/20' AND 'IndyRef takes place'). So far, only one of those conditions has been met.
I appreciate that when a man says he'll do something later, this is quite frequently synonymous with 'never' but I don't think that's an arguable legal principle.
On all three times I've looked at the thread header I end up concluding that the Trump bet should pay out (it's 2020 and at some point Trump will leave the presidency even if he is appointed president for life as he would die) but the other 2 bets are still voidable as it's possible no Referendum or Aliens are found.
The three remaining candidates for Labour leader can be summed up as follows:
Long-Bailey: we're not out of touch, it's the public that are wrong. Starmer: he may not be a great man but he's a great poster. Nandy: When you've got worries, all the noise and the hurry seems to help, I know, down towns.
The three remaining candidates for Labour leader can be summed up as follows:
Long-Bailey: we're not out of touch, it's the public that are wrong. Starmer: he may not be a great man but he's a great poster. Nandy: When you've got worries, all the noise and the hurry seems to help, I know, down towns.
I don't think PP should be under an obligation to pay out on an outcome which the bet implied would happen and which hasn't yet, merely because the bet was for the last, open-ended time-period offered.
If there is no further IndyRef, the punter shouldn't be entitled to pay out; likewise re aliens.
The Trump bet is a different matter. Trump will cease to be president sometime and on that basis, PP should pay out.
In that case, they shouldn’t have taken the bet, as it doesn’t have a time limit on paying out. I would argue that ‘never’ could be included in ‘later.’
They seem even more twisty and dishonest than AQA and speaking as a former employee who left after being swindled once too often that is saying something.
I don't agree there, I'm afraid.
A payout on the bet is contingent on the conditions of the bet being met, not just that other alternatives have not been met. Had the option been 'not before 2020' then that would be different but the terms of the Scottish referendum bet are surely ('after 1/1/20' AND 'IndyRef takes place'). So far, only one of those conditions has been met.
I appreciate that when a man says he'll do something later, this is quite frequently synonymous with 'never' but I don't think that's an arguable legal principle.
On all three times I've looked at the thread header I end up concluding that the Trump bet should pay out (it's 2020 and at some point Trump will leave the presidency even if he is appointed president for life as he would die) but the other 2 bets are still voidable as it's possible no Referendum or Aliens are found.
I agree re Trump but I don't think the other two are voidable: they should just run indefinitely unless either scenario becomes essentially impossible - if, say, Scotland became independent without a referendum, at which point the bet would be lost.
It isn't an obligation of a bookie to offer all options in a market.
On all three times I've looked at the thread header I end up concluding that the Trump bet should pay out (it's 2020 and at some point Trump will leave the presidency even if he is appointed president for life as he would die) but the other 2 bets are still voidable as it's possible no Referendum or Aliens are found.
If the bets are voidable there must be something that triggers the voiding.
Some of the wording around bets is piss poor. With Skybet for instance they gave a Corbyn exit market with the wording "When he makes an official announcement..." which was most definitely in 2019. Now I'm on 2020 with them as well which is when the Corbexit bets (With them) will actually pay out, and it's a slightly larger profit than 2019; but the original wording for the 2019 Corbexit bet was also satisfied. Note the wording goes away when you review the bet.
Another gripe is bets disappearing that are over a year old from bet view history. This combined with shoddy settlement is unacceptable; I wouldn't bother with bookies if they didn't pay so well in aggregate.
This is exactly why I’m struggling to get Ladbrokes to pay out on a bet I placed in March 2017.
They’re clearly geared up for very short-term sports betting and games gambling and aren’t really interested that much in long-term slow burners, where they’ve banked the ‘profit’ and forgotten about it.
I would recommend placing any long-term bet with a traditional bookie over the counter, getting a hard-copy receipt and putting it in an envelope (the ink on the paper can rub off or degrade in sunlight over a long time).
This is terribly shallow of me, but she's got the disapproving letterbox mouth thar Cherie Blair has. Sets my teeth on edge.
Well, if we are being terribly shallow....
....RLB always looks to me that she has been created by Aardman Animation. That tiny mouth (obviously crafted so as to require less movement of the plasticine per frame). That Wallace-style Northern voice, just a little too deep.
Here's a challenge to any hacks reading. See if you can contrive to get her to say "Wensleydale"......
The tiny mouth doesn’t help her at all.
Associated with the humourless and dictators down the ages.
Well, Nandy's noticeable lisp doesn't help her either. We live in a modern television age, these things, however unfairly, now seem to matter. Do any of the other candidates have tv type issues?
I find that (and her) strangely cute and sexy.
Please don’t ask me why.
RLB reminds me of my old headmistress.
"Cut and sexy" is damn rare in a politician.
Although there apparently were those who had the hots for Maggie. (I suspect there was near total overlap with those who would pay to have their todger thrashed with nettles....)
I see Lisa Nandy has joined Rosena Allin-Khan, and Leanne Wood and Heidi Allen on the PB faves list!
Yeah young people more likely to move to Manchester these days in my experience.
London's an amazing city. But almost everybody has a budget. And you can live in the best suburb of pretty much any other British city for the same price as living in some dreary grimpot on the outer edges of London. Why live in Feltham when you could live in Didsbury or Gosforth or Hunters Bar or Mossley Hill?
The three remaining candidates for Labour leader can be summed up as follows:
Long-Bailey: we're not out of touch, it's the public that are wrong. Starmer: he may not be a great man but he's a great poster. Nandy: When you've got worries, all the noise and the hurry seems to help, I know, down towns.
On all three times I've looked at the thread header I end up concluding that the Trump bet should pay out (it's 2020 and at some point Trump will leave the presidency even if he is appointed president for life as he would die) but the other 2 bets are still voidable as it's possible no Referendum or Aliens are found.
If the bets are voidable there must be something that triggers the voiding.
What would that be?
Stupid but possible reasons:-
England unilaterally dumps Scotland. Scientists declare Alien life isn't possible.
Granted both things are highly unlikely to occur but it means there is no inevitability that something won't happen unlike Trump who will at some point die.
Yeah young people more likely to move to Manchester these days in my experience.
London's an amazing city. But almost everybody has a budget. And you can live in the best suburb of pretty much any other British city for the same price as living in some dreary grimpot on the outer edges of London. Why live in Feltham when you could live in Didsbury or Gosforth or Hunters Bar or Mossley Hill?
As often remarked, London has a vastly superior climate to Manchester, Newcastle etc. And it's a far better city, with more to do, more to see and better domestic and global transport links. .
The higher salaries make up for the higher cost of living as I have posted repeatedly on here, to deaf ears.
If you were betting on the Alien life form being discovered, or the second Indy Ref to take place after 2019, you are saying
(a) those events will take occur and (b) they wont before 2020
only one part of the bet has weighed in, so PP are right not to pay out
If the bet was "Will miss X have a baby 'BEFORE 2019' or '2020 or AFTER' "
She has to have a baby for the bet to pay out
Mug bets to have as the bookie has the "Miss X never has a baby" on their side
Your 'baby' example is not comparable.
There are 3 possible bet outcomes - WIN, LOSE, VOID.
In your example VOID is possible since there can come a point where it becomes impossible for Miss X to have a baby. Thus post 2019 there are 2 outcomes, VOID and WIN, still in play and it is right to not pay out until one of them crystallizes.
But with alien life and sindy2 there is no possible event that can trigger VOID. Because It can never be said with certainty that alien life will never be found or that Sindy2 will never happen.
Ergo, once 2019 has expired (eliminating LOSE) there is only ONE possible outcome for the bet and that is WIN. And if WIN is the only possible outcome it should be settled as such.
If you were betting on the Alien life form being discovered, or the second Indy Ref to take place after 2019, you are saying
(a) those events will take occur and (b) they wont before 2020
only one part of the bet has weighed in, so PP are right not to pay out
If the bet was "Will miss X have a baby 'BEFORE 2019' or '2020 or AFTER' "
She has to have a baby for the bet to pay out
Mug bets to have as the bookie has the "Miss X never has a baby" on their side
Your 'baby' example is not comparable.
There are 3 possible bet outcomes - WIN, LOSE, VOID.
In your example VOID is possible since there can come a point where it becomes impossible for Miss X to have a baby. Thus post 2019 there are 2 outcomes, VOID and WIN, still in play and it is right to not pay out until one of them crystallizes.
But with alien life and sindy2 there is no possible event that can trigger VOID. Because It can never be said with certainty that alien life will never be found or that Sindy2 will never happen.
Ergo, once 2019 has expired (eliminating LOSE) there is only ONE possible outcome for the bet and that is WIN. And if WIN is the only possible outcome it should be settled as such.
Logic. Substance over form.
QED.
If you bet on something to happen, it has to happen for you to win the bet. That's it.
Mr. Sandpit, it'll probably come off. But I certainly don't have thousands for a bet like that.
Me neither! This guy does make serious money as a city trader though, so I can only assume that he knows what he’s doing and that he can afford to lose it!
I learned yesterday that dentists may actually get paid less to work in London than elsewhere in the UK because it is such a popular location to live in for foreign dentists.
Lose in the sense that the attendant publicity is what this bookmaker strives at all costs to avoid?
It would be interesting to know the stake, the odds and the date of the bet. Say the punter thought he was betting, at any time in 2019, that alien life would not be found by end 2019: that is the freest of free money even at let's say 1/250, and that should have made him think to get clarification in writing of the exact terms.
I am banned from all bookies and in Paddy's case I consider it a badge of honour.
They have a kind of jocular contempt for their punters. Like the big bluff dealer on the estate.
I learned yesterday that dentists may actually get paid less to work in London than elsewhere in the UK because it is such a popular location to live in for foreign dentists.
Hmm, my cousin has a practice in Notting Hill and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be able to afford a detached house in Highgate if he was based outside of London.
The more I think about the question of what Paddy Power should do, the more I think the fault lies with the punter for having such bad bets. They basically walked into a trap... learn from it and move on
I learned yesterday that dentists may actually get paid less to work in London than elsewhere in the UK because it is such a popular location to live in for foreign dentists.
Hmm, my cousin has a practice in Notting Hill and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be able to afford a detached house in Highgate if he was based outside of London.
The UK does not look anything like Singapore, and never will. For example... As of June 2019, Singapore's population was composed of 3.5 million citizens, 530,000 permanent residents and 1.7 million foreign workers, students and dependents....
The more I think about the question of what Paddy Power should do, the more I think the fault lies with the punter for having such bad bets. They basically walked into a trap... learn from it and move on
So 'Paddy Power, purveyor of sucker bets' would be a fair description ?
London is the only city in the UK where PBers take an exception to those of us who like living here, living here – and waste endless pixels lecturing us as to why we are wrong. I couldn't care less if PBers want to live in Manchester, or Basingstoke, or Chipping Sodbury. Their life, up to them.
London is the only city in the UK where PBers take an exception to those of us who like living here, living here – and waste endless pixels lecturing us as to why we are wrong. I couldn't care less if PBers want to live in Manchester, or Basingstoke, or Chipping Sodbury. Their life, up to them.
You could care less. Because you don’t stop going on about.
London is the only city in the UK where PBers take an exception to those of us who like living here, living here – and waste endless pixels lecturing us as to why we are wrong. I couldn't care less if PBers want to live in Manchester, or Basingstoke, or Chipping Sodbury. Their life, up to them.
You could care less. Because you don’t stop going on about.
Paddy should pay out on these bets, all of them. Best of luck to the Punter heading to IBAS
Yes. It's clear. They should pay. The voiding can never happen because there can be no point in time at which one can 100% say that there will NEVER be alien life or Sindy2. So if the void cannot occur this leaves just 2 outcomes Win or Lose. The expiry of year 2019 eliminates Lose. This leaves just one outcome. Win. It's a slam dunk. Paddy will lose if it goes to arb.
Lose in the sense that the attendant publicity is what this bookmaker strives at all costs to avoid?
It would be interesting to know the stake, the odds and the date of the bet. Say the punter thought he was betting, at any time in 2019, that alien life would not be found by end 2019: that is the freest of free money even at let's say 1/250, and that should have made him think to get clarification in writing of the exact terms.
The alien bet was placed in late 2012, the stake was £145, and the odds were 2/1.
(Mike did ask me if I wanted to be named in the post, and I appreciate him not doing so up front.)
I agree that the bets were poorly worded, my argument essentially boils down to a combination of the one advanced that the bet can no longer be lost or voided so should be paid and (perhaps mostly) that the market implied an end date of 2020 and operating a market which, due to poor wording, may never resolve is an unfair practice which should not be permitted.
Some have said that I walked into a trap, but bookmakers are like any other consumer-facing organisation. It isn't acceptable to set traps for customers, ambiguities or failures to clarify should be interpreted in favour of the customer precisely to stop companies profiting off unfair small-print.
The options to be on were:
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 or later
In that context I feel the market strongly implied you would win if it got to 2020. If there was a risk none of the selections would ever win despite them collectively covering the entire period of conceivable time then:
1. PP should have made this clear; and 2. That's an unfair way to run a market, and PP shouldn't be permitted to do so.
Not in the best taste to keep hammering away at that meme, as his father passed away relatively recently
His mother has suffered from a horrible illness for a long time it seems. Turns out I used to live just round the corner from Mr Starmer, as he was then, in Kentish Town
The more I think about the question of what Paddy Power should do, the more I think the fault lies with the punter for having such bad bets. They basically walked into a trap... learn from it and move on
That is a tenable view. But I predict they will win the case if it goes the distance.
Not in the best taste to keep hammering away at that meme, as his father passed away relatively recently
His mother has suffered from a horrible illness for a long time it seems. Turns out I used to live just round the corner from Mr Starmer, as he was then, in Kentish Town
There's a distinct air of "Oh we didn't actually expect anyone to bet on these" about plenty of Power long term markets. If it's offered as a market it should be settled as soon as the criteria are fulfilled.
The more I think about the question of what Paddy Power should do, the more I think the fault lies with the punter for having such bad bets. They basically walked into a trap... learn from it and move on
That is a tenable view. But I predict they will win the case if it goes the distance.
If Paddy and IBAS get out of the right side of the bed they might get voided, but they can't, and I am pretty certain they wont, pay out a bet as a winner that relies on something happening which hasn't happened.
"When will Dagenham & Redbridge win the Premier League?"
Before the end of the 2025/26 season 100/1
After the end of the 2025/26 season 1/100
Have £100 on the latter, and you don't win a pound until they win the Premier League
Some of the wording around bets is piss poor. With Skybet for instance they gave a Corbyn exit market with the wording "When he makes an official announcement..." which was most definitely in 2019. Now I'm on 2020 with them as well which is when the Corbexit bets (With them) will actually pay out, and it's a slightly larger profit than 2019; but the original wording for the 2019 Corbexit bet was also satisfied. Note the wording goes away when you review the bet.
Another gripe is bets disappearing that are over a year old from bet view history. This combined with shoddy settlement is unacceptable; I wouldn't bother with bookies if they didn't pay so well in aggregate.
This is exactly why I’m struggling to get Ladbrokes to pay out on a bet I placed in March 2017.
They’re clearly geared up for very short-term sports betting and games gambling and aren’t really interested that much in long-term slow burners, where they’ve banked the ‘profit’ and forgotten about it.
I'm going to avoid placing bets with bookies that pay out more than a year in the future. I'll stick to Betfair for longer term bets. I'm concerned that some of my longer term bets with bookies have "disappeared".
This might be a good one. Thornberry is probably the most experienced media performer in the entire (active duty) Labour party. She aint gonna go down too easily.
I really don’t get why she hasn’t made more of an impression on this election. The reasons why she might not be popular were known when she was favourite to win it
The Labour Leave voters in Brum seemed to like her (and Nandy) suprisingly enough. But I have a feeling she will do badly up against AN.
I think Nandy will suprise us with how well she does in the end.
If you bet on something to happen, it has to happen for you to win the bet. That's it.
That will be Paddy's case. But it will not hold in this case IMO. It ignores the obvious essence of the bet. Still, it is a case and you are free to argue it. Surprised at you though. You didn't used to work for a bookie, did you?
Brutal for RLB and Starmer. Starmer was the most known candidate and slated heavily. Nandy was least known, but when shown videos of her gathered a lot of support in the room.
Whilst this is informative and interesting I’m wary of treating this as gospel. My personal experience speaking to ex Lab now Con Brexiteers in the North East is very different. Starmer is popular.
Starmer was still more popular than Long Bailey in that focus group but the polling we have suggests Starmer is a bit more popular in London, the South and Scotland than he is in the North and Midlands
The videos seemed pretty brief - one of the people commenting on Starmer as "corporate" was careful to say "Just on the basis of what we've just seen". Ultimately a focus group is anecdotal too - we need a widely-viewed debate and a proper poll.
Plus a poll comparing Labour led by the different contenders against the Tories
If you bet on something to happen, it has to happen for you to win the bet. That's it.
That will be Paddy's case. But it will not hold in this case IMO. It ignores the obvious essence of the bet. Still, it is a case and you are free to argue it. Surprised at you though. You didn't used to work for a bookie, did you?
The "after 2019" part of the bet is basically now a bet on there being a Scottish Indy ref/Alien life now. People do have such open ended bets. The person has basically fallen into a bookies trap.
I did used to work for a bookie, but I don't like them at all, and rarely would take their side. These bets are absolute liberty takes, but if mugs bet on them, they get what they deserve
England unilaterally dumps Scotland. Scientists declare Alien life isn't possible.
Granted both things are highly unlikely to occur but it means there is no inevitability that something won't happen unlike Trump who will at some point die.
I'm struggling to see the gripe here. 'Not happening before 2020' and 'Happening after 2020' are in no way logically equivalent. I haven't climbed Mount Everest before 2020. Does that imply that I will climb Mount Everest at some point in the future?
Brutal for RLB and Starmer. Starmer was the most known candidate and slated heavily. Nandy was least known, but when shown videos of her gathered a lot of support in the room.
Whilst this is informative and interesting I’m wary of treating this as gospel. My personal experience speaking to ex Lab now Con Brexiteers in the North East is very different. Starmer is popular.
Yeah....your anecdotes at the last GE were useless. Sorry.
This might be a good one. Thornberry is probably the most experienced media performer in the entire (active duty) Labour party. She aint gonna go down too easily.
I really don’t get why she hasn’t made more of an impression on this election. The reasons why she might not be popular were known when she was favourite to win it
The Labour Leave voters in Brum seemed to like her (and Nandy) suprisingly enough. But I have a feeling she will do badly up against AN.
I think Nandy will suprise us with how well she does in the end.
Yes, I've beena sceptic, but she's clearly shaping up to be portrayed as an interesting, female, fairly centrist alternative to Starmer. She's probably transfer-friendly if she can make 2nd on the first ballot.
If you bet on something to happen, it has to happen for you to win the bet. That's it.
I think the wording of these bets tempers that a bit. The bet wasn't 'Alien Existence will happen in 2020 or later', it was 'When will Alien Existence happen?' > '2020 or later'. The *market* already presumed the event occurring, in a sense.
If you bet on something to happen, it has to happen for you to win the bet. That's it.
I think the wording of these bets tempers that a bit. The bet wasn't 'Alien Existence will happen in 2020 or later', it was 'When will Alien Existence happen?' > '2020 or later'. The *market* already presumed the event occurring, in a sense.
Yes, it's like a street hustler mesmerising someone into betting on a coin being under a cup that it is obviously under, but isn't. They are stupid bets to have, and people should know better than to have them.
I'm struggling to see the gripe here. 'Not happening before 2020' and 'Happening after 2020' are in no way logically equivalent. I haven't climbed Mount Everest before 2020. Does that imply that I will climb Mount Everest at some point in the future?
But there is no Never Happen option offered in the bet. Thus the total population of possible outcomes is limited to when it happens. That's the market they put up.
I am confident that @Quincel wins this at the Bailey and I am happy to be his Rumpole.
I see Grant Shapps is now dithering over HS2 on Boris's behalf. In fairness, this is a tricky one for Boris. The Tory Right/Daily Mail/Kippers despise it mainly because it was associated with the Cameron and Osborne era. Yet the now fashionable north seem to regard it as symbolic of Boris's love. What to do?
If you bet on something to happen, it has to happen for you to win the bet. That's it.
I think the wording of these bets tempers that a bit. The bet wasn't 'Alien Existence will happen in 2020 or later', it was 'When will Alien Existence happen?' > '2020 or later'. The *market* already presumed the event occurring, in a sense.
Yes, it's like a street hustler mesmerising someone into betting on a coin being under a cup that it is obviously under, but isn't. They are stupid bets to have, and people should know better than to have them.
I must admit, I find the argument that PP are right not to pay out *because* they tricked me to be one I find very difficult. If they have acted to try and trick customers then they should be prevented from doing so. We don't accept fiddling with the small print and misleading claims in general transactions, or at least we (and regulators) shouldn't.
Regarding the bets: I understand why Paddy Power is not paying out on (for example) the aliens one.
The problem I have is that - while aliens have not been found - neither you nor Paddy Power has won. And if aliens are discovered immediately after your death, well, Paddies will just say "couldn't find customer, I'll keep it". It seems there is an asymmetry that I'm not really happy with.
Your relatives could collect it, if it's placed in a betting shop and it would go towards your funeral.
Do antepost bets lapse on death? There was some sort of kerfuffle on this a few years ago but I cannot remember the details.
I'm struggling to see the gripe here. 'Not happening before 2020' and 'Happening after 2020' are in no way logically equivalent. I haven't climbed Mount Everest before 2020. Does that imply that I will climb Mount Everest at some point in the future?
But there is no Never Happen option offered in the bet. Thus the total population of possible outcomes is limited to when it happens. That's the market they put up.
I am confident that @Quincel wins this at the Bailey and I am happy to be his Rumpole.
Yes, and anyone thinking of betting on it should have realised it was a trap before they jumped in
Yeah young people more likely to move to Manchester these days in my experience.
London's an amazing city. But almost everybody has a budget. And you can live in the best suburb of pretty much any other British city for the same price as living in some dreary grimpot on the outer edges of London. Why live in Feltham when you could live in Didsbury or Gosforth or Hunters Bar or Mossley Hill?
As often remarked, London has a vastly superior climate to Manchester, Newcastle etc. And it's a far better city, with more to do, more to see and better domestic and global transport links. .
The higher salaries make up for the higher cost of living as I have posted repeatedly on here, to deaf ears.
The weatger is pleasant, I'll grant you - though sometimes unpleasantly hot and humid in the summer. Equally, though, Manchester, Newcastle etc have the best of England's scenery on their doorsteo. It just comes down to what you value.
And London offers far more opportunity to achieve astronomical salaries. But for most of us, even if we're pretty comfortable, that's not going to be achievable wherever we live. The 10-15% more we earn for our middling jobs wont give us a conparable lifestyle to what we can achieve in Manchester etc.
This really isn't a criticism of Lindon or those who make the choice to live there! It's a fantastic city, even just to look at, and I can see why people make the choices they do. But nor am I surprised when people choose Mamchester, Newcastle etc.
I see Grant Shapps is now dithering over HS2 on Boris's behalf. In fairness, this is a tricky one for Boris. The Tory Right/Daily Mail/Kippers despise it mainly because it was associated with the Cameron and Osborne era. Yet the now fashionable north seem to regard it as symbolic of Boris's love. What to do?
I hope Boris is sweating on it. Cripes - what to do?
Comments
They are the perfect item of Brexit themed ephemera being an anachronism purchased only by the deluded and elderly.
Are you starting to get worried yet, Keith?
F1: there's now a points match market on Ladbrokes.
Got to say none appeals, possibly excepting Latifi at 5.5 to beat Russell. But it's a season long thing which puts me off a bit.
Now I'm on 2020 with them as well which is when the Corbexit bets (With them) will actually pay out, and it's a slightly larger profit than 2019; but the original wording for the 2019 Corbexit bet was also satisfied. Note the wording goes away when you review the bet.
Another gripe is bets disappearing that are over a year old from bet view history. This combined with shoddy settlement is unacceptable; I wouldn't bother with bookies if they didn't pay so well in aggregate.
It’s very rude, and I hate it.
IMO the Trump bet is a dead cert for a payout, and the other two are ambiguous at best.
If neither of them contained a ‘never’ option nor any obvious mitigation, then the benefit of the doubt for ambiguous wording should go against the party that wrote the words. Can’t imagine that either of them have a massive book behind them, hopefully the publicity here can see them both resolved in short order.
It would be interesting to know the stake, the odds and the date of the bet. Say the punter thought he was betting, at any time in 2019, that alien life would not be found by end 2019: that is the freest of free money even at let's say 1/250, and that should have made him think to get clarification in writing of the exact terms.
In 9 days time Brexit will have been done. Neither SKS or Nandy is proposing to reverse it.
(a) those events will take occur
and
(b) they wont before 2020
only one part of the bet has weighed in, so PP are right not to pay out
If the bet was "Will miss X have a baby
'BEFORE 2019'
or
'2020 or AFTER' "
She has to have a baby for the bet to pay out
Mug bets to have as the bookie has the "Miss X never has a baby" on their side
Long-Bailey: we're not out of touch, it's the public that are wrong.
Starmer: he may not be a great man but he's a great poster.
Nandy: When you've got worries, all the noise and the hurry seems to help, I know, down towns.
Keir Starmer justly looks short-odds favourite now.
Regardless you are arguing a different point. Supporting membership of the single market is not “not accepting Brexit”.
A payout on the bet is contingent on the conditions of the bet being met, not just that other alternatives have not been met. Had the option been 'not before 2020' then that would be different but the terms of the Scottish referendum bet are surely ('after 1/1/20' AND 'IndyRef takes place'). So far, only one of those conditions has been met.
I appreciate that when a man says he'll do something later, this is quite frequently synonymous with 'never' but I don't think that's an arguable legal principle.
I said on my blog before the referendum that I expected Brexit to have a short-term negative effect, to be neutral in the medium-term and positive in the long-term.
I stand by that.
They’re clearly geared up for very short-term sports betting and games gambling and aren’t really interested that much in long-term slow burners, where they’ve banked the ‘profit’ and forgotten about it.
https://theoneworldnews.com/europe/labour-leadership-candidate-lisa-nandy-drags-party-over-patronising-brexit-position/
It isn't an obligation of a bookie to offer all options in a market.
What would that be?
Probably nonsense at this stage, but rather poor polling for Trumpton, it must be said.
England unilaterally dumps Scotland.
Scientists declare Alien life isn't possible.
Granted both things are highly unlikely to occur but it means there is no inevitability that something won't happen unlike Trump who will at some point die.
The higher salaries make up for the higher cost of living as I have posted repeatedly on here, to deaf ears.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/regionalaccounts/grossdisposablehouseholdincome/bulletins/regionalgrossdisposablehouseholdincomegdhi/1997to2017
There are 3 possible bet outcomes - WIN, LOSE, VOID.
In your example VOID is possible since there can come a point where it becomes impossible for Miss X to have a baby. Thus post 2019 there are 2 outcomes, VOID and WIN, still in play and it is right to not pay out until one of them crystallizes.
But with alien life and sindy2 there is no possible event that can trigger VOID. Because It can never be said with certainty that alien life will never be found or that Sindy2 will never happen.
Ergo, once 2019 has expired (eliminating LOSE) there is only ONE possible outcome for the bet and that is WIN. And if WIN is the only possible outcome it should be settled as such.
Logic. Substance over form.
QED.
They have a kind of jocular contempt for their punters. Like the big bluff dealer on the estate.
Alien Life the long shot there surely. But what odds?
Probably 5/2 if it were Paddy.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cover-Story/Is-Singapore-s-perfect-economy-coming-apart
The UK does not look anything like Singapore, and never will.
For example...
As of June 2019, Singapore's population was composed of 3.5 million citizens, 530,000 permanent residents and 1.7 million foreign workers, students and dependents....
(Mike did ask me if I wanted to be named in the post, and I appreciate him not doing so up front.)
I agree that the bets were poorly worded, my argument essentially boils down to a combination of the one advanced that the bet can no longer be lost or voided so should be paid and (perhaps mostly) that the market implied an end date of 2020 and operating a market which, due to poor wording, may never resolve is an unfair practice which should not be permitted.
Some have said that I walked into a trap, but bookmakers are like any other consumer-facing organisation. It isn't acceptable to set traps for customers, ambiguities or failures to clarify should be interpreted in favour of the customer precisely to stop companies profiting off unfair small-print.
The options to be on were:
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020 or later
In that context I feel the market strongly implied you would win if it got to 2020. If there was a risk none of the selections would ever win despite them collectively covering the entire period of conceivable time then:
1. PP should have made this clear; and
2. That's an unfair way to run a market, and PP shouldn't be permitted to do so.
His mother has suffered from a horrible illness for a long time it seems. Turns out I used to live just round the corner from Mr Starmer, as he was then, in Kentish Town
https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/seasonal/election/sir-keir-starmer-my-mum-s-health-battles-have-inspired-me-1-4011167
Apologies.
If it's offered as a market it should be settled as soon as the criteria are fulfilled.
"When will Dagenham & Redbridge win the Premier League?"
Before the end of the 2025/26 season 100/1
After the end of the 2025/26 season 1/100
Have £100 on the latter, and you don't win a pound until they win the Premier League
I think Nandy will suprise us with how well she does in the end.
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1217873248731435010
I did used to work for a bookie, but I don't like them at all, and rarely would take their side. These bets are absolute liberty takes, but if mugs bet on them, they get what they deserve
I do like the end bit. Is that a promise?
I am confident that @Quincel wins this at the Bailey and I am happy to be his Rumpole.
And London offers far more opportunity to achieve astronomical salaries. But for most of us, even if we're pretty comfortable, that's not going to be achievable wherever we live. The 10-15% more we earn for our middling jobs wont give us a conparable lifestyle to what we can achieve in Manchester etc.
This really isn't a criticism of Lindon or those who make the choice to live there! It's a fantastic city, even just to look at, and I can see why people make the choices they do. But nor am I surprised when people choose Mamchester, Newcastle etc.