Bad Beat/Moaning/Venting - pray for Lazare

[Emmet]

I understand ...
Unlikely in theory but still possible seems way more vague than a lot of numbers statisticians come up with.

But was it really that unlikely trump would get the nom ?

From when? At his very lowest he was priced at 100/1, 18+ months ago. Knowing what we do know now {a posteriori} (which was not known at the time {a priori}), what price would you have made Trump 18 months ago ?

He has been odds on to win the nomination since February 20th from the lofty heights of 9/4 on the first of January. And Best priced at 4/1 way back in October.

The last time the markets had him at less than a 10% chance of winning was in August. Which was about the same time that Leicester were 5,000/1 to be Premier League champions.

[Shashka]

From when? At his very lowest he was priced at 100/1, 18+ months ago. Knowing what we do know now {a posteriori} (which was not known at the time {a priori}), what price would you have made Trump 18 months ago ?

He has been odds on to win the nomination since February 20th from the lofty heights of 9/4 on the first of January. And Best priced at 4/1 way back in October.

The last time the markets had him at less than a 10% chance of winning was in August. Which was about the same time that Leicester were 5,000/1 to be Premier League champions.

I don't understand the odds. I won't pretend to understand on what basis they are calculated or what they should be.

18 months ago there were still other existing candidates.

There were really only four real runners Rubio Kasich Cruz and Trump.

I would have said Trump stood a better chance than Cruz.

But Trump is a first time candidate ..THAT is the main reason this is unlikely ...not his view or performance.

He has been doing well since last summer.

[Emmet]

I don't understand the odds. I won't pretend to understand on what basis they are calculated or what they should be.

18 months ago there were still other existing candidates.

There were really only four real runners Rubio Kasich Cruz and Trump.

I would have said Trump stood a better chance than Cruz.

But Trump is a first time candidate ..THAT is the main reason this is unlikely ...not his view or performance.

He has been doing well since last summer.

.

[Shashka]

Republicans will have wrapped up their nom campaign before Dems. I don't know but I imagine if you look at stats that might prove favorable.

[ComradeCollie]

@ AJ (or anyone), do you know anywhere in Blanch or nearby that sells Hangsen juices?

I always buy mine in Temple Bar, but it's the most awkward place to get to and I'm almost out.

If you put an order in here before 2pm, it should arrive the next day http://www.bargainvapour.com/

[ArmaniJeans]

@ AJ (or anyone), do you know anywhere in Blanch or nearby that sells Hangsen juices?

I always buy mine in Temple Bar, but it's the most awkward place to get to and I'm almost out.

Never tried that one, is it good? What flavours.
Kinda always limited myself to whatever is sold in Blanch shopping centre (Vaping Dog brand I think) because its handy but its probably a poor enough liquid.

[Shashka]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Is0w8BK2zc

lol

[LuckyLloyd]

I suppose it's LOL Paddy Power for the Leicester price at the start of the season too?

And every subsequent price that wasn't 1/∞?

Trump has always been shorter than 100s... http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/...ld-trump/today

Leicester weren't 5000/1 in October baby - at a certain point Silver started hopecasting rather than analysing. But feel free to continue thetering your wagon to 538. Hey you can check out their football predictions!

[Lazare]

Never tried that one, is it good? What flavours.
Kinda always limited myself to whatever is sold in Blanch shopping centre (Vaping Dog brand I think) because its handy but its probably a poor enough liquid.

I really like their virginia tobacco, it's the one I've been using since I started. I never liked any other brands I've tried.

[Emmet]

Leicester weren't 5000/1 in October baby - at a certain point Silver started hopecasting rather than analysing. But feel free to continue thetering your wagon to 538. Hey you can check out their football predictions!

Your image that you posted had dates on some of the articles.

What were those dates?

From when? At his very lowest he was priced at 100/1, 18+ months ago. Knowing what we do know now {a posteriori} (which was not known at the time {a priori}), what price would you have made Trump 18 months ago ?

He has been odds on to win the nomination since February 20th from the lofty heights of 9/4 on the first of January. And Best priced at 4/1 way back in October.

The last time the markets had him at less than a 10% chance of winning was in August. Which was about the same time that Leicester were 5,000/1 to be Premier League champions.

You'll note I didn't say anything in defence or support of 538, just questioned your logic.

[ArmaniJeans]

Leicester weren't 5000/1 in October baby - at a certain point Silver started hopecasting rather than analysing. But feel free to continue thetering your wagon to 538. Hey you can check out their football predictions!

Believe it or not they were, the 5-2 defeat at home to Arsenal the last weekend of September left them with a 3W3D1L record at the start of October, and back out to 5000/1. (from this mornings Racing Post).
I normally wouldn't be a contradictory smartass on a minor point, but your gratuitous use of 'baby' means it's merited imo.

[Denny Crane]

[IMG]
lol Nate Silver

After all his talk of hedgehogs he writes today that he's been completely wrong on Trump at every point, but...Trump definitely has no chance even the way he grasps onto the things he's been right about is a bit grim.

[Denny Crane]

[mdoug]

I wonder what the max bet on all the 5000/1 people keep mentioning

[Opr]

I wonder what the max bet on all the 5000/1 people keep mentioning

I am sure they would have taken 200 which would have been a million. Isn't that usually the max payout for a bet? The max I have heard of anyone having on it was 50 and he cashed out before the Watford game for 72k. Some guy backed them for 50p before the season started and decided to cash out for 45p after they won the opening game

Opr

[Kayroo]

Leicester weren't 5000/1 in October baby - at a certain point Silver started hopecasting rather than analysing. But feel free to continue thetering your wagon to 538. Hey you can check out their football predictions!

How can you have ever played poker and fail to grasp the probabilistic nature of Silver's writing? Leicester were a 0.02% chance to win the league at various stages. Trump was a 2% chance in December. A lot of things had to go right for both of those chances to come in but they did.

If Silver predicted that Trump wins 2% of the time then we should expect that, if he's right, Trump wins 2% of the time. This is the 2% shot. They happen. So do 0.02% shots. The commentary on those numbers was absolutely rational.


On an unrelated note I was hoping we would continue the Gerry Adams discussion but I would imagine you were offline most of the weekend. Another time perhaps!

[Opr]

Poker is a bad comparison as the odds aren't at all subjective. In poker you know the odds on something because you can calculate the EV over the long term.I think that is kind of an interesting question. In hindsight what price would you make Leicester in a simulation that runs another million times?

Opr

[Kayroo]

Poker is a bad comparison as the odds aren't at all subjective. In poker you know the odds on something because you can calculate the EV over the long term.I think that is kind of an interesting question. In hindsight what price would you make Leicester in a simulation that runs another million times?

Opr

I'm not really comparing it to poker, but a poker player should have a more solid grasp of probabilistic reasoning

[Opr]

I'm not really comparing it to poker, but a poker player should have a more solid grasp of probabilistic reasoning

Sorry I have no idea what the debate is over but you do say "Leicester were a 0.02% chance to win". They were priced as such that isn't the same as the chance of them winning being .02%.

Opr

[Shashka]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF_chuSy9G4

Lauren Bacall ...just because.

[Strewelpeter]

What was Gerry saying on Turgidy? How many times was Cromwell mentioned
TBH I could handle listening to Gerry digging downwards but listening to the other creep giving him a soft ride is more than my stomach could handle.

[Shashka]

Poker is a bad comparison as the odds aren't at all subjective. In poker you know the odds on something because you can calculate the EV over the long term.I think that is kind of an interesting question. In hindsight what price would you make Leicester in a simulation that runs another million times?

Opr

Odds in poker is something I am not great at.

[Shashka]

But well like anything you can get better.

[Shashka]

What was Gerry saying on Turgidy? How many times was Cromwell mentioned
TBH I could handle listening to Gerry digging downwards but listening to the other creep giving him a soft ride is more than my stomach could handle.

I missed it. http://www.thejournal.ie/gerry-adams...48459-May2016/

But my god!"I’ve never seen myself as white. That’s only skin deep."

[Shashka]

He just leave it at this stage. https://soundcloud.com/rte-radio-1/g...erview-on-tubs

Here it is on sound cloud.

[Opr]

I'd also be far more inclined to think that if someone predicted something as a 2% chance there is a high likelihood that the prediction was off when I end up in the 50-1 sliding door. I pretty sure you could use probability to proof this but at the moment my head hurts enough thinking about alternative realities.

Opr

[Emmet]

I'd also be far more inclined to think that if someone predicted something as a 2% chance there is a high likelihood that the prediction was off when I end up in the 50-1 sliding door. I pretty sure you could use probability to proof this but at the moment my head hurts enough thinking about alternative realities.

Opr

Apply same logic to the lottery winner.

[Opr]

Apply same logic to the lottery winner.

Lotto = Poker. You can't apply the same logic to mathematical odds on events that you can simulate with certainty.

Opr

[Emmet]

Lotto = Poker. You can't apply the same logic to mathematical odds on events that you can simulate with certainty.

Opr

you need to finish this sentence with something that follows the word 'because' ...

[LuckyLloyd]

Believe it or not they were, the 5-2 defeat at home to Arsenal the last weekend of September left them with a 3W3D1L record at the start of October, and back out to 5000/1. (from this mornings Racing Post).
I normally wouldn't be a contradictory smartass on a minor point, but your gratuitous use of 'baby' means it's merited imo.

Them still being 5000 / 1 trading just south of 2ppg is crazy, but bookmakers have an incentive that analysts don't.

How can you have ever played poker and fail to grasp the probabilistic nature of Silver's writing? Leicester were a 0.02% chance to win the league at various stages. Trump was a 2% chance in December. A lot of things had to go right for both of those chances to come in but they did.

If Silver predicted that Trump wins 2% of the time then we should expect that, if he's right, Trump wins 2% of the time. This is the 2% shot. They happen. So do 0.02% shots. The commentary on those numbers was absolutely rational.


On an unrelated note I was hoping we would continue the Gerry Adams discussion but I would imagine you were offline most of the weekend. Another time perhaps!

I understand probability very well.

The issue here is that Silver resisted adjusting his forecasting way past the point of Trump transitioning to a contender and started trying to find / push arguments that honestly seemed fuelled by hope / preference than rigorous analysis. We were discussing same in February / March.

You and Emmet are trying to present this as 'lol Lloyd being results orientated'. I was questioning Silver in January because the Guiliani comparisons had stopped being valid even then. The sharps on this stuff on 2 + 2 could see things were awry early too. 538 / Silver have translated his extraordinary 2008 content to a successful website and entry into the professional punditry arena but he's stretched himself too thin and fallen prey to some of the exact issues he critiscised pundits for previously.

I have no idea why ye are so intent on defending him!!

[Emmet]

I have no idea why ye are so intent on defending him!!

nobody has

I asked if we should also LOL at Paddy Power et al's estimate of the probability of Leicester winning the premier league title in August too. Especially given that it was orders of magnitude smaller!

[Opr]

you need to finish this sentence with something that follows the word 'because' ...

The odds are fixed? There is no prediction? I am not sure what you are driving at here? I am not saying that the 2% chance was incorrect. I do know though that you can't tell me it was correct. As such the odds on the event happening are subjective. This is not the case in the lotto. If the odds are subjective the chances of it happening may be higher or lower.

Opr

[Mellor]

Leicester were a 0.02% chance to win the league at various stages. Trump was a 2% chance in December.

No they weren't.
How ever slim their chances were, the bookies overvalue and other extreme long shots so that they can take under value the usual suspects at the top.

[Kayroo]

Sorry I have no idea what the debate is over but you do say "Leicester were a 0.02% chance to win". They were priced as such that isn't the same as the chance of them winning being .02%.

Opr

Oh absolutely, that's an absolutely terrible comparison by me. It was more illustrative of the broader point than a legitimate comparison.

[Kayroo]

No they weren't.
How ever slim their chances were, the bookies overvalue and other extreme long shots so that they can take under value the usual suspects at the top.

I replied to OPR before I saw this. I 100% accept this. I have no idea what the actual probability of them winning the league would be. Again, it was illustrative rather than demonstrative.

[RichieM]

presumably despite stupidly large odds on Leicester winning the title so few bet on it that it would have cost any bookies way more if City or Chelsea had taken the title as we would all have presumed at the start of the season.

I thought that bookies were not really setting a line on how they think the race will go but how they think people are likely to bet and what the market will look like at the end to ensure a profit is just as important.

Emmet will know this I guess but why else would they need so much BI and Analytics if it is just handicapping in the traditional sense?

[Kayroo]

You and Emmet are trying to present this as 'lol Lloyd being results orientated'. I was questioning Silver in January because the Guiliani comparisons had stopped being valid even then. The sharps on this stuff on 2 + 2 could see things were awry early too. 538 / Silver have translated his extraordinary 2008 content to a successful website and entry into the professional punditry arena but he's stretched himself too thin and fallen prey to some of the exact issues he critiscised pundits for previously.

I have no idea why ye are so intent on defending him!!

I'm not really defending him as much as I am defending his basic methodology. I read 538 quite a bit, and listen to their podcasts. Not exclusively at all though, I try and read as broadly as possible. I haven't found that their writers have lost objectivity on Trump. I think they made valid assumptions that proved to be wrong in the face of an outlier candidacy. Prediction models used by 538 and others are based on historic data comparisons to present conditions. This candidacy flies in the face of those models because it defies historical comparison. A model that bases assumptions on previous events cannot succeed in that environment.

He isn't falling into the traps he criticised others for. Actually it's the exact opposite of that. He is sticking to a model that the majority of the time will lead him to make correct predictions. He does this knowing that long term he will be right more often than wrong. On this occasion the model was wrong for a combination of reasons. His criticism of pundits was based on the fact that they reacted to minor events as major ones while ignoring overall trends that tended to be much more predictive of long term outcomes. His "game changer" criticisms in particular remain as true now as ever they were.

[Opr]

No they weren't.
How ever slim their chances were, the bookies overvalue and other extreme long shots so that they can take under value the usual suspects at the top.

I'm not sure that this is right. I think that the 5000-1 odds were probably a fair representation of perceived chances of Leicester City without a crystal ball. Pricing up the market on all known metrics would before the season have given you a huge price like the above. I'm not sure you can say there is value in these prices because a complete outlier has happened. You can obviously price up the market different now with better information but I'm not sure that information was available to anyone until the season ended. I'm not sure any bookie is taking bets on a 5000-1 shot to balance the market. In fact they probably think the odds are much higher than 5000-1 but don't need to quote higher as people will take the price anyway. They are taking bets on a 5000-1 shot because they believe it is free money.

Opr

[Mellor]

presumably despite stupidly large odds on Leicester winning the title so few bet on it that it would have cost any bookies way more if City or Chelsea had taken the title as we would all have presumed at the start of the season.

The antepost bets on Leicester were probably quite small. An was probably covered by antepost bets on City, Utd, Chelsea.
However, the major losses sustained by the industry was in running betting. People jumping on the band wagon at 500 to 100/1 range. There's was times when they won a match, and their odds didn't change.
They were 33/1 in jan, and it was only 6 games ago when they dropped below evens. The bookies let the preconceptions of Leicester affect what was actually happening.

[TheDrunkenOne]

Watching some boxing clips and its amazing looking at the old clips where guys stumbling about but the boxing just carrying on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DzbiTs7SK0

[Opr]

presumably despite stupidly large odds on Leicester winning the title so few bet on it that it would have cost any bookies way more if City or Chelsea had taken the title as we would all have presumed at the start of the season.

It has been one of the biggest losses ever according to most reports. I think it was Sit who posted though that in terms of people throwing away money on no hoper bets it will probably benefit them for decades to come in futures earnings.

http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/15448565/leicester-city-premier-league-title-costs-big-england-sportsbooks-114-million

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/02/leicester-city-win-premier-league-and-cost-bookies-biggest-ever/

Opr

[Guest]

It has been one of the biggest losses ever according to most reports. I think it was Sit who posted though that in terms of people throwing away money on no hoper bets it will probably benefit them for decades to come in futures earnings.

http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/15448565/leicester-city-premier-league-title-costs-big-england-sportsbooks-114-million

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/02/leicester-city-win-premier-league-and-cost-bookies-biggest-ever/

Opr

Says they are been paid out 25million presuming its Britain. Every double like will be dead like win premier league and division 1. Just a guess but think bookies talking through there holes as usual

[RichieM]

The antepost bets on Leicester were probably quite small. An was probably covered by antepost bets on City, Utd, Chelsea.
However, the major losses sustained by the industry was in running betting. People jumping on the band wagon at 500 to 100/1 range. There's was times when they won a match, and their odds didn't change.
They were 33/1 in jan, and it was only 6 games ago when they dropped below evens. The bookies let the preconceptions of Leicester affect what was actually happening.

Yes of course people would have continued to back them during the season - sometimes I can be so thick, shame I mainly post these retarded thoughts online instead of keeping them to myself.

[Opr]

Says they are been paid out 25million presuming its Britain. Every double like will be dead like win premier league and division 1. Just a guess but think bookies talking through there holes as usual

Yeah the net losses are going to be lower but they still seem quite high according to most reports. Skybet say in the below article they lost £4.6m net after all bets were settled on the market.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/leicester-citys-shock-premier-league-win-burns-36m-hole-in-bookies-pockets-2016-05-03#:fhZ3Fitm0a_/mA

Opr

[Denny Crane]

nobody has

I asked if we should also LOL at Paddy Power et al's estimate of the probability of Leicester winning the premier league title in August too. Especially given that it was orders of magnitude smaller!

It's more his narrative rather than he estimates of the probability that warrants the lol. Really difficult to believe he was being objective.

[Guest]

Says they are been paid out 25million presuming its Britain. Every double like will be dead like win premier league and division 1. Just a guess but think bookies talking through there holes as usual

Yeah its like the "bad day for the bookies,ho,ho" banter you get on radio stations during Cheltenham. Even when they lose they win

[Guest]

6 months of Trump flinging shit at the Clinton's to look forward to + people who own west wing box sets wailing on the radio.lovely stuff

[Flushdraw]

The antepost bets on Leicester were probably quite small. An was probably covered by antepost bets on City, Utd, Chelsea.
However, the major losses sustained by the industry was in running betting. People jumping on the band wagon at 500 to 100/1 range. There's was times when they won a match, and their odds didn't change.
They were 33/1 in jan, and it was only 6 games ago when they dropped below evens. The bookies let the preconceptions of Leicester affect what was actually happening.

I backed them at Evens for Top 4 when they were 2 points clear of Arsenal at Christmas. Bookies just refused to think they could last the pace.

[gorrrr72]

6 months of Trump flinging shit at the Clinton's to look forward to + people who own west wing box sets wailing on the radio.lovely stuff

I don't know, the Clinton email scandal is not going away and if she is indicted it might disqualify her. It's not just about the national security issue, it's criminal because they have emails about the Clinton Foundation where people are donating millions of dollars for business favours. So I don't think that level of corruption can be overlooked, no matter what she has on the people in power.
I think Newt Gingrich said it best when he said you can't let the Clintons loose on a $2bn fortune and expect there not to be massive corruption. It's like leaving a lion and a zebra locked in a room together and expecting both of them to be there the next morning.

[Raoul Duke III]

Unemployment at 8.4%

Fairly spectacular and well under the EU average. Outside of rural unemployment blackspots, we're nearing the point where anyone seriously looking for work should have it. Obviously gets harder to move the needle from here on but still some turnaround.

[DeadParrot]

I don't know, the Clinton email scandal is not going away and if she is indicted it might disqualify her. It's not just about the national security issue, it's criminal because they have emails about the Clinton Foundation where people are donating millions of dollars for business favours. So I don't think that level of corruption can be overlooked, no matter what she has on the people in power.
I think Newt Gingrich said it best when he said you can't let the Clintons loose on a $2bn fortune and expect there not to be massive corruption. It's like leaving a lion and a zebra locked in a room together and expecting both of them to be there the next morning.

I dunno. Zebra Bill could probably sweet talk his way into some lion tang

[Fiery Wasabi]

Anyone else get a Water Bill today..???

The fuckin cheek of them. Straight in the shredder....

[mdoug]

The antepost bets on Leicester were probably quite small. An was probably covered by antepost bets on City, Utd, Chelsea.
However, the major losses sustained by the industry was in running betting. People jumping on the band wagon at 500 to 100/1 range. There's was times when they won a match, and their odds didn't change.
They were 33/1 in jan, and it was only 6 games ago when they dropped below evens. The bookies let the preconceptions of Leicester affect what was actually happening.

I backed them at 48 on exchanges on the 5th of December for a lot, stupidly laid them at 34 after they won that game :P(I think city lost that day). Still had a fun sweat for 2k for 5 months at least after thinking they'd do shit start of the year

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Ed]

Genius at a company sends mass email to a number of customers including me, doesn't bother to BCC the list. How outraged can/should i be?

[Guest]

Jesus conor McGregor in full on meltdown mode on social media the past week,he's turned me against him again. Interested to see his next press conf considering he's had the "invincible mystic Mac" and " running the game" rugs well and truly pulled from under him

[AndyFatBastard]

Genius at a company sends mass email to a number of customers including me, doesn't bother to BCC the list. How outraged can/should i be?

You should reply-all and let him know.

[TheDrunkenOne]

Dont think its been posted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13C7AtGDlhY

[mdoug]

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...