** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[Bonefishblues]

Even the bookmakers got the result drastically wrong. They are usually much more accurate than pollsters as they can't afford not to be

I thought bookmakers start with a guestimate and then as the money comes in adjust the odds accordingly.
If everyone who bet did so on a leave victory then that would indicate a leave victory was very likely, ditto the opposite.

You could argue its the same system pollsters use, i.e. large scale sampling with the main difference being how self selection manifests itself in the two forms.
Overall though I'd go with pollsters over bookies, I think the science behind polling allows you to make some adjustment for self selection. Bookies otoh have no easy way to figure it out.

Is exactly what happens.

[andrec]

The error in the predictions of opinion polls, as compared with the actual result in June 2016, wasn't as great as all that. It may have been bigger than the sampling error in some cases, but not by many sigmas.

It may be that the actual number of mind-changers - from Leave to Remain - is not as great as some polls predict. But I still maintain that there are a significant number.

And don't forget that the pollsters in USA correctly forecast that Clinton would get the larger number of votes. They didn't correctly account for gerrymandering of course...

The US Presidency and the number of votes have not correlated for may years

The US presidency is decided by the number of votes in the electoral college, not the popular vote. I've no idea why some people have such trouble accepting this as the leader of the government in many countries is decided by a vote of a small number of people - the UK (where it is decided by the party with the most seats in parliament in a manner decided by that party), Germany, Japan and India are a few examples and there are many, many more. And the EU decides it leaders in that way too. The people do not vote them into office, and this causes no complaint from EUphiles who tell us that the EU is very democratic.

[kwackers]

Hello all , Can't seem to find any response to my "Quantitive Easing" cost query? I wonder why???
Maybe it cost UK Ltd nothing at all? Maybe the banks were merely crying wolf! IGICB MM

It's a huge subject, what did you want to know?

As a summary though if you have a big mortgage or shares you did pretty well, if you have savings then it cost you.

It's not as if it's stopped either and one of it's side effects (low interest rates) is likely to be a problem if we hit another recession and given one is due plus its fairly likely brexit would trigger one anyway then we have the problem of how we manage it. We already have QE and we already have very low interest rates.

So did it cost us? Depends on which bit of "us" you belong to. Some folk have done well out of it and some have lost money.

There's huge amounts of stuff out there on it though - but it is a complicated thing and can't be easily summed up into soundbites.

[merseymouth]

Hi Kwackers, Having no mortgage, small savings which earn sod all interest! But many borrowing money for next to nothing in the way of interest, expected as a right? Toxic Sub-Prime Stocks not my fault, but it has cost the innocent quite a lot, while the leaches hung on to their ill-gotten gains .
So we still suffer the austerity measures to prop up the parasites in the City! Luckily I'm getting nearer to the exit door, Age does wither us. MM

[PDQ Mobile]

^^ kwackers.
Yes.
Or in other words if one lived frugally and according to one's means, one got penalized.

But if one speculated and ran up even more unsustainable debt one did ok.

The unfair part is/was it was the speculators that caused all the problems in the first place.

[bovlomov]

This sums it up...
F140877F-4C87-4E88-9E06-F827D1306211.jpeg

She's going to lose everything she has? I doubt it. She'll lose her local MEPs and that's about it, and if I'd asked her the name of those MEPs five years ago I'd be have been willing to bet she couldn't name them. She is obviously one of those apocalyptic Remainers with no sense of proportion or perspective.

We have no idea of the lady's circumstances. Has she a business that depends on membership of the EU? Has she family members who are losing citizenship status? Does she have friends and relatives who were part of an international study programme?

What is it in the photo that leads you to say that she is 'obviously one of those...' ?

[Paulatic]

This sums it up...
F140877F-4C87-4E88-9E06-F827D1306211.jpeg

She's going to lose everything she has? I doubt it. She'll lose her local MEPs and that's about it, and if I'd asked her the name of those MEPs five years ago I'd be have been willing to bet she couldn't name them. She is obviously one of those apocalyptic Remainers with no sense of proportion or perspective.

It’s a shame you appear to judge people by your own limited knowledge. I can’t speak for that lady but personally I’ve always known my MEP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alyn_Smith who has always done a good job of keeping me well informed with regular emails. I worked in an industry where a good knowledge of EU directives was an asset.

[Flinders]

Even the bookmakers got the result drastically wrong. They are usually much more accurate than pollsters as they can't afford not to be

I thought bookmakers start with a guestimate and then as the money comes in adjust the odds accordingly.
If everyone who bet did so on a leave victory then that would indicate a leave victory was very likely, ditto the opposite.

You could argue its the same system pollsters use, i.e. large scale sampling with the main difference being how self selection manifests itself in the two forms.
Overall though I'd go with pollsters over bookies, I think the science behind polling allows you to make some adjustment for self selection. Bookies otoh have no easy way to figure it out.

I think the way it works now with the big bookmakers is that these days computers re-adjust the odds according to the money that comes in, with an eye to making a profit, and to what the competition is offering in the way of odds to get custom. I don't think they tend to back their own specific knowledge or opinions a huge amount. I think that the smaller private bookies sometimes do back their specific judgement of horse/jockey/trainer form etc. more and take a bigger risk on their personal knowledge, which is often very comprehensive, according to how good they feel their knowledge is on a particular race.
National bookies don't like big payouts to individuals, and I am told will ban anyone winning much, private bookies will often be more open to accommodating big bets and/or serious punters. There are also betting exchanges (internet bookies where you can offer your own odds against as well as for a horse to other people, effectively being a bookie in a small way).
So a big bookie's odds may be more affected by a surge in popular support for a horse (or outcome of a vote) whereas a private bookie may prefer to put more weight on backing his own judgement, though they may lay off a little risk by betting against their own opinion with another bookie in case they're wrong. Basically, it's complicated.
"If everyone who bet did so on a leave victory then that would indicate a leave victory was very likely, ditto the opposite." Not really. I might be a remain voter but bet on leave because I thought the vote would go that way, or so that I;d have something to drown my sorrows in if I lost. And vice-versa.

As for polls, the polls closely before the vote were generally within the margin of error of the result, and the vote was so close it could easily have gone either way. It was, in my opinion, constitutionally unsound and in practical terms, insane, to allow a 50%+ win of the votes on one day. Constitutional changes like leave ought to be done on 2/3 of the vote on the day, or 50%+ of those entitled to vote. Even most sports clubs and societies insist on that, in order to prevent a reckless change due to a transient issue people have got hot under the collar about, or due to facts not being properly known by enough people. I might also say that if one side broke the rules in a vote to win, or spread misinformation, both of which happened with the leave vote, a vote would normally have to be rerun.

[kwackers]

"If everyone who bet did so on a leave victory then that would indicate a leave victory was very likely, ditto the opposite." Not really. I might be a remain voter but bet on leave because I thought the vote would go that way, or so that I;d have something to drown my sorrows in if I lost. And vice-versa.

Hang on, haven't you just repeated what I said?

Being a remain voter but betting on leave because you thought the vote might go that way is the same as saying "if everyone who bet did so on a leave victory then that would indicate a leave victory was very likely". Pro leave or pro remain doesn't effect what you think the result is going to be.
The rider about drowning your sorrows isn't hugely significant I don't think because you could just as easily be hoping for cash for a celebration.

Anyways; I don't see anything wrong with taking the way people bet as an overall indication of what people think - with the proviso of self selection.

[bovlomov]

EDIT: Comment removed as it appeared not to be true. Sorry!

[windmiller]

Even the bookmakers got the result drastically wrong. They are usually much more accurate than pollsters as they can't afford not to be

I thought bookmakers start with a guestimate and then as the money comes in adjust the odds accordingly.
If everyone who bet did so on a leave victory then that would indicate a leave victory was very likely, ditto the opposite.

You could argue its the same system pollsters use, i.e. large scale sampling with the main difference being how self selection manifests itself in the two forms.
Overall though I'd go with pollsters over bookies, I think the science behind polling allows you to make some adjustment for self selection. Bookies otoh have no easy way to figure it out.

I think the way it works now with the big bookmakers is that these days computers re-adjust the odds according to the money that comes in, with an eye to making a profit, and to what the competition is offering in the way of odds to get custom. I don't think they tend to back their own specific knowledge or opinions a huge amount. I think that the smaller private bookies sometimes do back their specific judgement of horse/jockey/trainer form etc. more and take a bigger risk on their personal knowledge, which is often very comprehensive, according to how good they feel their knowledge is on a particular race.
National bookies don't like big payouts to individuals, and I am told will ban anyone winning much, private bookies will often be more open to accommodating big bets and/or serious punters. There are also betting exchanges (internet bookies where you can offer your own odds against as well as for a horse to other people, effectively being a bookie in a small way).
So a big bookie's odds may be more affected by a surge in popular support for a horse (or outcome of a vote) whereas a private bookie may prefer to put more weight on backing his own judgement, though they may lay off a little risk by betting against their own opinion with another bookie in case they're wrong. Basically, it's complicated.
"If everyone who bet did so on a leave victory then that would indicate a leave victory was very likely, ditto the opposite." Not really. I might be a remain voter but bet on leave because I thought the vote would go that way, or so that I;d have something to drown my sorrows in if I lost. And vice-versa.

As for polls, the polls closely before the vote were generally within the margin of error of the result, and the vote was so close it could easily have gone either way. It was, in my opinion, constitutionally unsound and in practical terms, insane, to allow a 50%+ win of the votes on one day. Constitutional changes like leave ought to be done on 2/3 of the vote on the day, or 50%+ of those entitled to vote. Even most sports clubs and societies insist on that, in order to prevent a reckless change due to a transient issue people have got hot under the collar about, or due to facts not being properly known by enough people. I might also say that if one side broke the rules in a vote to win, or spread misinformation, both of which happened with the leave vote, a vote would normally have to be rerun.

The bookies got it hopelessly wrong because they took the advice of "Experts" who had previously predicted nearly everything in the history of the world incorrectly yet again.

[roubaixtuesday]

I thought bookmakers start with a guestimate and then as the money comes in adjust the odds accordingly.
If everyone who bet did so on a leave victory then that would indicate a leave victory was very likely, ditto the opposite.

You could argue its the same system pollsters use, i.e. large scale sampling with the main difference being how self selection manifests itself in the two forms.
Overall though I'd go with pollsters over bookies, I think the science behind polling allows you to make some adjustment for self selection. Bookies otoh have no easy way to figure it out.

I think the way it works now with the big bookmakers is that these days computers re-adjust the odds according to the money that comes in, with an eye to making a profit, and to what the competition is offering in the way of odds to get custom. I don't think they tend to back their own specific knowledge or opinions a huge amount. I think that the smaller private bookies sometimes do back their specific judgement of horse/jockey/trainer form etc. more and take a bigger risk on their personal knowledge, which is often very comprehensive, according to how good they feel their knowledge is on a particular race.
National bookies don't like big payouts to individuals, and I am told will ban anyone winning much, private bookies will often be more open to accommodating big bets and/or serious punters. There are also betting exchanges (internet bookies where you can offer your own odds against as well as for a horse to other people, effectively being a bookie in a small way).
So a big bookie's odds may be more affected by a surge in popular support for a horse (or outcome of a vote) whereas a private bookie may prefer to put more weight on backing his own judgement, though they may lay off a little risk by betting against their own opinion with another bookie in case they're wrong. Basically, it's complicated.
"If everyone who bet did so on a leave victory then that would indicate a leave victory was very likely, ditto the opposite." Not really. I might be a remain voter but bet on leave because I thought the vote would go that way, or so that I;d have something to drown my sorrows in if I lost. And vice-versa.

As for polls, the polls closely before the vote were generally within the margin of error of the result, and the vote was so close it could easily have gone either way. It was, in my opinion, constitutionally unsound and in practical terms, insane, to allow a 50%+ win of the votes on one day. Constitutional changes like leave ought to be done on 2/3 of the vote on the day, or 50%+ of those entitled to vote. Even most sports clubs and societies insist on that, in order to prevent a reckless change due to a transient issue people have got hot under the collar about, or due to facts not being properly known by enough people. I might also say that if one side broke the rules in a vote to win, or spread misinformation, both of which happened with the leave vote, a vote would normally have to be rerun.

The bookies got it hopelessly wrong because they took the advice of "Experts" who had previously predicted nearly everything in the history of the world incorrectly yet again.

1. Do you now agree that the pre referendum polls were accurate?

2. Please clarify what you are actually claiming about bookmakers.

[661-Pete]

The bookies got it hopelessly wrong because they took the advice of "Experts" who had previously predicted nearly everything in the history of the world incorrectly yet again.

1. Do you now agree that the pre referendum polls were accurate?

2. Please clarify what you are actually claiming about bookmakers.

And also:
3. Please explain what you mean by "experts". In particular, does the word "experts" enclosed in quotes mean something different from the same word not enclosed in quotes?

You seem to have a very disparaging view of "experts", in quotes or not. I'd have thought, everyone is an 'expert' in something. I suppose I'm an 'expert' in one or two fields, but I'll keep that bit of knowledge to myself. Perhaps you are, too?

[bovlomov]

You seem to have a very disparaging view of "experts", in quotes or not. I'd have thought, everyone is an 'expert' in something. I suppose I'm an 'expert' in one or two fields, but I'll keep that bit of knowledge to myself. Perhaps you are, too?

I prefer to call them 'so-called "experts" ' (but what do they know?!!)

[pete75]

You seem to have a very disparaging view of "experts", in quotes or not. I'd have thought, everyone is an 'expert' in something. I suppose I'm an 'expert' in one or two fields, but I'll keep that bit of knowledge to myself. Perhaps you are, too?

I prefer to call them 'so-called "experts" ' (but what do they know?!!)

You're an innocent man on trial for murder. Who would you like to defend you - some bod dragged at random from a bunch of Tommy Robinson supporters or a so called "expert" in this case a QC?