The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	Sorry, but you don't actually know what you're talking about. Read up on risk and probability. Maybe also learning about the concept of hedging might help you out. Outcome is a factor, but there's a lot more to maximising return on a wager - and as a business, that is what they do, not simply predict outcomes.

I don't need to read up in risk and probability and I'm quite aware of the principles of hedging and financial and stasticical modeling, but that's the thing with people who just can't let go of the details such as yourself, they never make it to the high level view.

A good arbiter of the expected outcome of events in any scale is to look at what bookmakers are predicting, because their job is to predict outcomes. If you can demonstrate that bookmakers offer better odds against the most likely outcome, please go ahead.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Mikers
	I don't need to read up in risk and probability and I'm quite aware of the principles of hedging and financial and stasticical modeling, but that's the thing with people who just can't let go of the details such as yourself, they never make it to the high level view.

Can't let go of details? LOL. Like the facts as opposed to how you'd prefer reality to be?

You made a claim that was bollocks and based on a lack of understanding. There's no high level there.

	Quote:
	A good arbiter of the expected outcome of events in any scale is to look at what bookmakers are predicting, because their job is to predict outcomes. If you can demonstrate that bookmakers offer better odds against the most likely outcome, please go ahead.

Again, it's not. Their job is to maximize profit and sometimes that means hedging your bets, regardless of the likely outcome.

Seriously, look it up. Actually, here's an article on hedging. It's geared towards their customer, but this is what bookies do also. It's part of their business. This isn't a 'detail', seriously.

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	I don't need to read up in risk and probability and I'm quite aware of the principles of hedging and financial and stasticical modeling, but that's the thing with people who just can't let go of the details such as yourself, they never make it to the high level view. A good arbiter of the expected outcome of events in any scale is to look at what bookmakers are predicting, because their job is to predict outcomes. If you can demonstrate that bookmakers offer better odds against the most likely outcome, please go ahead.

The whole business of bookmaking like all other forms of gambling is about cleverly setting odds in favour of the house so no matter what occurs they win; especially clever tricks like giving very high odds on unlikely events to draw in more punters.

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	No it's that they are successful businesses and their business is predicting outcomes.

They do not do predictions; they simply follow the money.
If a lot of people bet a lot of money on a topic then the odds go down and vice versa.

[newtoswitz]

	Quote:	Mikers
	There business is predicting outcomes.

Where?

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	When the Left are cheering Cloggie Tories after they've lost 10 seats, a far right party has seen a 33% increase in the vote and is the second largest party, the top three polling parties parties are various levels of right wing, when this happens, you know things have changed.

It is easy for populist parties to gain votes with false promises, it is only when they win that their lies are exposed.

Case in point, Trump with replacing Obamacare and his Muslim ban!

[Mikers]

	Quote:	marton
	They do not do predictions; they simply follow the money. If a lot of people bet a lot of money on a topic then the odds go down and vice versa.

Yes exactly, you summarize my point perfectly. If everyone has it wrong the bookmaker has it wrong. So if we have an event and there are 10000 bets placed, then the bookie will have that at low odds. So the question is are 10,000 punters wrong?. Or more precisely in this context are the predictions of 10'000 people more or less accurate than someone who reads a load of books and makes an 'informed' statement sneering down at the simpleton who chose to follow the bookies view.

bookies normally pick the winner, I think stats should back that up.

	Quote:	Mikers
	Yes exactly, you summarize my point perfectly. If everyone has it wrong the bookmaker has it wrong. So if we have an event and there are 10000 bets placed, then the bookie will have that at low odds. So the question is are 10,000 punters wrong?. Or more precisely in this context are the predictions of 10'000 people more or less accurate than someone who reads a load of books and makes an 'informed' statement sneering down at the simpleton who chose to follow the bookies view. bookies normally pick the winner, I think stats should back that up.

This would be true if the bookies were a zero sum game. Fact is they change their prices to best hedge their positions and maximise profit. Their prices are based on expert opinions, actuarial work and modified as betting proceeds in order to faciliate hedging and possible arbitrage opportunities in the market.

[newtoswitz]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Yes exactly, you summarize my point perfectly. If everyone has it wrong the bookmaker has it wrong. So if we have an event and there are 10000 bets placed, then the bookie will have that at low odds. So the question is are 10,000 punters wrong?. Or more precisely in this context are the predictions of 10'000 people more or less accurate than someone who reads a load of books and makes an 'informed' statement sneering down at the simpleton who chose to follow the bookies view. bookies normally pick the winner, I think stats should back that up.

	Quote:
	This would be true if the bookies were a zero sum game. Fact is they change their prices to best hedge their positions and maximise profit. Their prices are based on expert opinions, actuarial work and modified as betting proceeds in order to faciliate hedging and possible arbitrage opportunities in the market.

It isn't that black or white.

- bookies start their price based on expert views

- once they have enough backing to fund it, they try to just follow the market, so they stay safely hedged and in profit (otherwise the price wouldn't move, they would stick with their expert view)

- Mikers example is based on the wrong assumption that bookies take bets on only one side; I don't think they ever do that willingly, they're always balancing bets and making profit on the margin - the example should say "if 9000 people bet one way, and 1000 bet the other", but then the bookie just makes the odds slightly less than 9:1 / 1:9 and holds no risk

[Mikers]

	Quote:	newtoswitz
	It isn't that black or white. - bookies start their price based on expert views - once they have enough backing to fund it, they try to just follow the market, so they stay safely hedged and in profit (otherwise the price wouldn't move, they would stick with their expert view) - Mikers example is based on the wrong assumption that bookies take bets on only one side; I don't think they ever do that willingly, they're always balancing bets and making profit on the margin - the example should say "if 9000 people bet one way, and 1000 bet the other", but then the bookie just makes the odds slightly less than 9:1 / 1:9 and holds no risk

Yes I agree I am over simplifying, but I am not looking at this only mathematically. I am saying, at a high level, when you view statistically the outcomes of events historically that bookies have offered odds on then overall the bookmaker will have a high percentage of success In the idea that they offered the lowest odds on that outcome, i.e. They got it 'right'. This value they are putting on it is as you say based on their own initial prediction along with a host of combinations of how the crowd bets along with hedging factors to mitigate loss. But however you analyze it, when you stand back and say 'how many times in the last 10 years did the bookmakers odds reflect In reality what actually happened' the result will be fairly high. Therefore bookies are good predictors of events at a laymans level.

Found some evidence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...a-gambler.html

	Quote:	Mikers
	Yes I agree I am over simplifying, but I am not looking at this only mathematically. I am saying, at a high level, when you view statistically the outcomes of events historically that bookies have offered odds on then overall the bookmaker will have a high percentage of success In the idea that they offered the lowest odds on that outcome, i.e. They got it 'right'. This value they are putting on it is as you say based on their own initial prediction along with a host of combinations of how the crowd bets along with hedging factors to mitigate loss. But however you analyze it, when you stand back and say 'how many times in the last 10 years did the bookmakers odds reflect In reality what actually happened' the result will be fairly high. Therefore bookies are good predictors of events at a laymans level. Found some evidence: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...a-gambler.html

The cynic/realist in me says bookies have no interest in being right about anything, they are only interested in profit, so if they have a tennis match, Murray vs Federer and Murray is 4:1 and Federer 1:4, if only one person bets on Murray and 100 on Federer, they don't care if Murray wins and they "get it wrong".

[newtoswitz]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Yes I agree I am over simplifying, but I am not looking at this only mathematically. I am saying, at a high level, when you view statistically the outcomes of events historically that bookies have offered odds on then overall the bookmaker will have a high percentage of success In the idea that they offered the lowest odds on that outcome, i.e. They got it 'right'. This value they are putting on it is as you say based on their own initial prediction along with a host of combinations of how the crowd bets along with hedging factors to mitigate loss. But however you analyze it, when you stand back and say 'how many times in the last 10 years did the bookmakers odds reflect In reality what actually happened' the result will be fairly high. Therefore bookies are good predictors of events at a laymans level. Found some evidence: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...a-gambler.html

You keep repeating the same thing but ignoring the point that both StirB and I are making - the bookies don't make the odds except as an intial bid (where they almost always play it very safe, so actually aren't very accurate).

The market makes the odds, and odds are frequently good predictors of events because of crowd knowledge - bookies are just the platform.

Read The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver, it's a bit long-winded but it covers loads of examples (and counter examples) of odds and expectations.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	newtoswitz
	You keep repeating the same thing but ignoring the point that both StirB and I are making - the bookies don't make the odds except as an intial bid (where they almost always play it very safe, so actually aren't very accurate). The market makes the odds, and odds are frequently good predictors of events because of crowd knowledge - bookies are just the platform. Read The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver, it's a bit long-winded but it covers loads of examples (and counter examples) of odds and expectations.

Ok sorry I misread you in this case because we make the same point. The bookmakers odds represent the predictions of the market and so my point is (and was) what you are saying: bookmakers are a reflection of the crowds prediction and the crowd overall is often right, therefore the 'bookmaker' is right.

[newtoswitz]

	Quote:	Mikers
	There business is predicting outcomes. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to make this simple enough for you to understand.

	Quote:	Mikers
	Ok sorry I misread you in this case because we make the same point. The bookmakers odds represent the predictions of the market and so my point is (and was) what you are saying: bookmakers are a reflection of the crowds prediction and the crowd overall is often right, therefore the 'bookmaker' is right.

You said one very specific thing, and then said that wasn't what you meant but repeated almost the same thing again anyway. I think I've heard this before, and a Hawai'i court didn't accept it there either.

Stop saying bookmaker when you mean odds.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	newtoswitz
	You said one very specific thing, and then said that wasn't what you meant but repeated almost the same thing again anyway. I think I've heard this before, and a Hawai'i court didn't accept it there either. Stop saying bookmaker when you mean odds.

Bookmaker.

Why are the press trying to compare Brexit with Wilders? One is a far right party that want's to ban a religion. The other is simply leaving the European Union. There are no similarities between the two apart from a minor part of Wilders' manifesto in that he also want's the leave the EU. The election was ran on an entirely different theme though.

[baboon]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	It's remarkable, only in modern Europe can a FAR RIGHT party come second in a General Election and it be hailed as a victory for liberals. People just aren't seeing the bigger picture. The PVV ran an explicitly anti-Islamisation campaign. These issues are normally marginal in elections, now it's the central political battle ground. The VVD only "won" by presenting themselves as PVV light. If the PVV weren't there then there would have been outrage at what Rutte said.

In this case 87% (I'll write that our in case you have trouble understanding it: eighty-seven percent) of the Dutch voters rejected PVV.

That'as a pretty comprehensive rejection in my book

[baboon]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Why are the press trying to compare Brexit with Wilders? One is a far right party that want's to ban a religion. The other is simply leaving the European Union. There are no similarities between the two.

Probably because there's a very unpleasant amount of common ground between PVV and many of those behind Brexit.

	Quote:	baboon
	In this case 87% (I'll write that our in case you have trouble understanding it: eighty-seven percent) of the Dutch voters rejected PVV. That'as a pretty comprehensive rejection in my book

The Nazis never won the popular vote.

UKIP won 12.5% of the vote last time out and yet the Queen has today authorised Brexit.

	Quote:	baboon
	Probably because there's a very unpleasant amount of common ground between PVV and many of those behind Brexit.

"Unpleasant amount of common ground". Yet another example of why the left are finished.

[baboon]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	"Unpleasant amount of common ground". Yet another example of why the left are finished.

What has that even remotely to do with "the left"?

If you're thinking I am part of "the left", think again.