|
Post by jamesgill on May 8, 2015 19:05:10 GMT
Can someone please break those down into thicko terms, I don't 'do' betting and bookies, so it's a bit confusing for me, but more a case of can't be arsed reading all that and trying to decipher it! I too know absolutely nothing about anything in that table. I understand odds, barely, but that is just downright confusing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2015 19:06:10 GMT
Basically the numbers (or fractions) shown are the odds/payment of an outcome.
If you bet £10 on Chuka at 15/8 (1.875) and you were right you receive £10*15/8 + original stake back... This case that would equal £28.75 return from a £10 bet on Chuka.
The odds on Chuka are the shortest making him the bookies' favourite at present with Burnham not far behind (indeed some places offering the same odds for Umunna and Burnham at 2/1 now)
|
|
|
Post by gazz on May 8, 2015 19:08:54 GMT
Thanks, gts. It's going to be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by jamesgill on May 8, 2015 19:09:49 GMT
Chuka should win by name alone In 5 years, we'll have a Prime Minster called Chuka!
|
|
|
Post by gazz on May 8, 2015 19:11:49 GMT
I wonder what the odds are on the guy who devised the odds system being the same guy who invented the rules to cricket?................ ....On second thoughts, don't answer that!
|
|
|
Post by bringbacklenwhite on May 8, 2015 19:18:43 GMT
110-1 - Ken Livingston.
Now !!! Him vs Boris in the future would be brilliant TV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2015 19:18:46 GMT
You can also think of odds as the chance/likelihood the bookies are offering for an outcome.
Eg. if they offered 33-1 on Mr X, they are saying if the leadership election was performed 33 times he would win once. Obviously if you disagree and think they could run it 100 times with Mr X not getting a look in, it's a poor bet from a punter's point of view. Alternatively if you think in 33 times he's likely to win more than once it's a good bet.
Also worth noting when it comes to odds that if a bookie takes a lot of money on a certain outcome, they will shorten the odds offered as they are mitigating their potential losses if a certain outcome happens. Not to say that it is any more or less likely, they are just protecting themselves.
|
|
|
Post by another_ruined_saturday on May 8, 2015 20:05:52 GMT
Eg. if they offered 33-1 on Mr X yeah...mr x please. he has a certain mystique...
|
|
|
Post by another_ruined_saturday on May 8, 2015 20:12:07 GMT
i like andy burnham too. alan johnson or too old and too 'tarnished' from previous roles? harriet harman? - same negatives as johnson. mrs balls?
|
|
|
Post by another_ruined_saturday on May 8, 2015 20:22:13 GMT
i nodded off on the sofa about 2am with the telly on, and still reeling from the exit polls. at least i was reassured by paddy pantsdown's certainty that they were wrong.
we are forever getting hassled at work by the office of a local lib dem mp. he's a pain in the arse and knows we can't magic up what he's asking us to, but obviously it helps him look good in front of his constituents. he also happens to be my MP, and i've had as much campaign propaganda through the door in lib-dem colours as i have all the others put together. in one leaflet he talked about how he wasn't a 'party' mp and was tied up in helping his constituents rather than party politics. on the back of the same leaflet he basked in the glow of the few positive achievements of the lib-dems in westminster since 2010. make of that what you will.
so the first thing i did this morning after switching my phone alarm off was check who'd won in my area. of course he's one of the eight lib-dems who has survived.
i held off until i was on the way into work, then checked the bbc website and saw that the numbers were even worse (from my perspective) than the exit polls had predicted. i also noticed that the bbc was predicting it would piss it down today and tomorrow. i had gone to work without a coat. first thing i said when i got there was that the only thing to make the day worse was if i later discovered i had lost a testicle somehow.
real feelings of demoralisation around at work (although some people, of course, oblivious). we're f***ed in the public sector.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on May 8, 2015 20:35:07 GMT
The bedroom tax con will surface in all its glory soon enough. "Empty the houses, sell the houses, use the profits". What is happening near where I live, is that private landlords are buying up the council properties, then renting them out. How is that giving people the 'right to buy'?
It seems to me as if they're shifting the responsibility for these properties elsewhere, making savings by taking them off the maintenance bill and making a fat pile of cash in the process.
|
|
|
Post by another_ruined_saturday on May 8, 2015 20:37:43 GMT
sell off your assets! sell off housing associations' assets! and that f***ing lib dem will still be emailing us asking why we can't whistle up that suburban semi with the garden by nine o clock yesterday. it's going to be grand.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on May 8, 2015 21:03:07 GMT
These should fetch a few bob then..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2015 6:18:51 GMT
Personally I'm of the view that the best way forward is to follow in some measure the example of the Scots with more powers devolved to the regions. As an Engineer working in manufacturing I fail to see how a London based governing "Elite" whose principal pre-occupation is with the protection and continued enrichment of the financial sector and therefore the City of London can possibly understand my aspirations. The idea that the Tories are the party of aspiration is one of the greatest myths of the moment imo. I'm not sure how a London Lawyer like Chuka Umnna or any of the rest of the Labour leadership fit the bill at the moment
|
|
|
Post by gazz on May 9, 2015 11:13:41 GMT
That's a very good post, nye. This is why I personally favour Andy Burnham. By the way, is your surname 'Bevan' by any chance?!
|
|