That’s Rudd rooted then, Bookie pays out all Coalition bets

An Aussie bookmaker has paid out on a Coalition win…if the bookies abandon you that is pretty much the end of things for Kevin Rudd.

Sportsbet has declared the federal election a one-horse race and we’re paying out all bets on the Coalition nine days before Australia goes to the polls.

We’re so confident of a landslide Coalition victory for Tony Abbott and his team, we’ve paid out more than $1.5 million in bets to our members – a first in Australian federal election history.

Following last night’s third and final debate between the two leaders, the Coalition is at Black Caviar-like odds ($1.03) to claim government. (We paid out on the wonder mare as well!)

Kevin Rudd and Labor is $11 to win the election – their highest price since betting markets opened immediately following the 2010 federal election.  Read more »

Odds on the next pope? No odds yet on sorting out their child abuse issues


Not sure how you get a line on the next pope but these are the oddsRead more »

Better than buggering little boys

Good grief…first word problems people, first world problems, still at least whining about insider trading in the Anglican Church is better than buggering little boys in the Catholic Church, so things are improving.

A British MP has raised the prospect of insider trading in the Church of England after a last-minute flurry of bets with bookmakers on Justin Welby becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury.

A string of bookmakers stopped taking money on the Bishop of Durham to succeed Dr Rowan Williams earlier this week after a sudden run of money on the favourite even before media reports that the decision was imminent.

A tax on stupidity, Ctd

No I’m not talking about voting Green, I am talking about internet gambling.

Peter FitzSimons explains how online betting agencies filter out winners:

For some extraordinary reason, internet bookies are allowed to refuse and restrict bets from punters who are too damn smart, relying on their fine print terms and conditions. Interestingly, I am told the two bookmakers who are most ubiquitous in their advertising, Tom Waterhouse and bet365, are among the “bookmakers that continuously come up in forums for closing down punters”. But it’s not just them! The practice is so widespread, apparently, that one crowd, Pinnacle Sports, even advertises “winners are welcome”, as their point of difference, while NSW TAB and Betfair, which is a betting exchange – whatever that is – is also said to give punters more of a fair go. However, for most of the rest, those who regularly win, across as few as five to 10 bets are apparently known as “toughies” and players who have won a set amount, (usually as little as $1000), are often either refused bets or limited to small wagers of $5 to $10.

Read more »

Understanding forecasting and polls


People have criticised me in the comments on posts where I post Nate Silver’s predictions and where the numbers call the election for Obama. They also mistake my calling the election for Obama at this stage as support for Obama. They should not, but that is a separate post.

Ther eis a reason I prefer Nate Silver’s predictions…he is usually right…and uncannily so. Sure you can point to individual polls that show Mitt Romney beating Obama, but that is a single poll.

Nate Silver uses far more sophisitcated modelling than simple polling. Conveniently he has explained what he does in a recent post. It is very enlightening. Especially the comparison of his methodology with prediction markets and betting agencies.

Before people diss what Nate Silver has to say, based ont eh numbers and his unique methodologies, they should really learn and understand what makes his models tick. It is way, way more than just running a “poll of polls” which is what some think.

I sometimes get asked whether I bet money on my forecasts — I don’t, since I would consider it a conflict of interest — or failing that, whether I would recommend a bet on them relative to the odds on offer at Intrade or Betfair.

My answer is probably unsatisfying. I think modeling a presidential election is a pretty hard problem. I think futures markets and sports books (like markets of any kind) can certainly go wrong. But I also think that the statistical methods can go wrong: all of them rely on a set of assumptions and choices made by the forecaster.

Some choices, in my view, are clearly better than others. One or two of the statistical methods, for instance, assumes that the outcome in each state is independent of the outcome in the next one. Ohio might move in one direction — and Michigan, just as easily, in the opposite one.

That’s simply not a credible assumption. The failure to appreciate correlations in risk is one of the things that led to the recent financial crisis. A change in economic conditions, or a substantial gaffe or scandal in the campaign, is likely to be reflected to some degree in all states, and move all of their numbers in the same direction. Our model assumes that the uncertainty in different states is largely, but not entirely, correlated. If you believe the contrary, you probably ought not be let anywhere near a job function in which you are asked to manage risk — although the credit-ratings agencies might be happy to hire you.

These pet peeves aside, elections forecasting is a challenging problem. More often, the assumptions in a model are intrinsically going to be educated guesses rather than being demonstrably right or wrong.

So my default is this: Bet on Vegas relative to the FiveThirtyEight model, but bet on the FiveThirtyEight model relative to Vegas. If you take the average between the FiveThirtyEight model and the consensus betting lines, you’d get about a two-in-three chance of Mr. Obama winning another term.