Attempted coup in Turkey

[Gary_Duff]

Bookmaker's odds are never a reflection of the pure probability of something happening.

 

[CaptainSensible]

Lolwut

That's not the way it works at all, m8.

These are the odds atm:

https://m.oddschecker.com/m/politics/british-politics/article-50

Anyway, you'd be waiting a long time to collect on a bet of "not at all". So basically the bookies think it's as likely to be triggered in the first 3 months of next year as the year after or later.

You can get 20/1 on it being triggered by the end of Sept and 7/1 on it being triggered between October and the new year.

However, these are just one bookie's odds.

I believe the bookies also had Remain as big favs to win the Referendum in the first place, so not sure why people put so much faith in them.

Oh dear, you're as bad as Blues.

You have to add up all the probabilities up to 2018, which is the two year window they have. When you do this you will find that the bookies are saying it is more likely than not to be triggered in this 2 year period.

A simple example, if an event is evens to happen in the next year then if you want to bet on it for a specific day the price is 364/1 but for it to happen within the year it is evens (add the probabilities). What the bookies have done in Blues example is sub divide the next two year period into 3 month periods and thus confusing him (and possibly you) as to the probability of the article being triggered.

 

[Conan The Vegetarian]

Don't forget about the Scotch veto, m8.

Is Nicola still on her "god it's so unfair" tour of EU capitals?

 

[Gary_Duff]

Oh dear, you're as bad as Blues.

You have to add up all the probabilities up to 2018, which is the two year window they have. When you do this you will find that the bookies are saying it is more likely than not to be triggered in this 2 year period.

A simple example, if an event is evens to happen in the next year then if you want to bet on it for a specific day the price is 364/1 but for it to happen within the year it is evens (add the probabilities). What the bookies have done in Blues example is sub divide the next two year period into 3 month periods and thus confusing him (and possibly you) as to the probability of the article being triggered.

Excuse me?

You may not realise it, but you're addressing the PROC betting challenge champion 2015/16, m8.

You (and the person who wrote the article) are making the all too common mistake of thinking that bookmakers are in the business of predicting the future.

The price offered by a bookmaker does not reflect the mathematical probability of a given event taking place. It's intended to ensure the bookmark turns a profit regardless of the result.

Take a look at the historical odds for France or Portugal to lift the trophy before the final of the Euros for example. Portugal were 7/4, France were 1/2.

 

[CaptainSensible]

Excuse me?

You may not realise it, but you're addressing the PROC betting challenge champion 2015/16, m8.

You (and the person who wrote the article) are making the all too common mistake of thinking that bookmakers are in the business of predicting the future.

The price offered by a bookmaker does not reflect the mathematical probability of a given event taking place. It's intended to ensure the bookmark turns a profit regardless of the result.

Take a look at the historical odds for France or Portugal to lift the trophy before the final of the Euros for example. Portugal were 7/4, France were 1/2.

To begin with I disagree with the analysis of the person who wrote the article, he clearly has a misunderstanding of what the prices mean.

And yes of course the bookies will always set the odds to make a profit but this is generally a small percentage in your above example they are taking roughly 3% so this doesn't really alter the probabilities. Of course the amount of money placed on an outcome can and will move the price but when they open the book to begin with it is based on their view of the future.

 

[Gary_Duff]

To begin with I disagree with the analysis of the person who wrote the article, he clearly has a misunderstanding of what the prices mean.

And yes of course the bookies will always set the odds to make a profit but this is generally a small percentage in your above example they are taking roughly 3% so this doesn't really alter the probabilities. Of course the amount of money placed on an outcome can and will move the price but when they open the book to begin with it is based on their view of the future.

So we're agreed that just because the bookies have priced Article 50 post 2018 at 2/1, it doesn't follow that the likelihood of it happening pre 2018 is 1/2.

 

[CaptainSensible]

So we're agreed that just because the bookies have priced Article 50 post 2018 at 2/1, it doesn't follow that the likelihood of it happening pre 2018 is 1/2.

If 2/1 reflects the probability of post 2018 then yes 1/2 would be the pre 2018 price, but as ever if this price is manipulated by the flow of money then things change.

If you want to be really pedantic and adjust for the slight percentage profit the bookies will take on every book then yes the price would be slightly different to 1/2, but not significantly so.

The question for you is if the price for post 2018 is 2/1 does this indicate the likelihood of it happening is greater before or after 2018? Now as you pointed out with Brexit itself, just because the likelihood is higher does not guarantee the outcome. But the author of Blues article was implying the greatest likelihood is that Brexit happens in 2018 or later based on the probabilities the prices were indicating, which is clearly wrong.

 

[Gary_Duff]

If 2/1 reflects the probability of post 2018 then yes 1/2 would be the pre 2018 price, but as ever if this price is manipulated by the flow of money then things change.

If you want to be really pedantic and adjust for the slight percentage profit the bookies will take on every book then yes the price would be slightly different to 1/2, but not significantly so.

The question for you is if the price for post 2018 is 2/1 does this indicate the likelihood of it happening is greater before or after 2018? Now as you pointed out with Brexit itself, just because the likelihood is higher does not guarantee the outcome. But the author of Blues article was implying the greatest likelihood is that Brexit happens in 2018 or later based on the probabilities the prices were indicating, which is clearly wrong.

Bookies odds aren't an indicator of probability, m8.

Another example.

Paddy Power currently offer 3/1 on another Brexit Referendum before 2019.

The price they offer against this happening is 1/5. By your logic it should be 1/3.

But it's not.

 

[poulgorm]

Brexit will happen - the Brits want it and Germany and France want them out. With Britain gone, Germany and France can steamroll through the European integration project. OK, some of the remaining smaller countries will object, but Merkel and Hollande couldn't give a fiddler's about them. Britain was the only country who could have blocked the integration project.

 

[CaptainSensible]

Bookies odds aren't an indicator of probability, m8.

Another example.

Paddy Power currently offer 3/1 on another Brexit Referendum before 2019.

The price they offer against this happening is 1/5. By your logic it should be 1/3.

But it's not.

If 3/1 accurately reflects the probability of a second referendum before 2019 then the real odds of it not happening is 1/3. The fact they offer 1/5 is merely them scalping you. Conversely if 1/5 is the real price for no referendum then you should be offered 5/1 to bet on it to happen. It's also possible they are taking a cut of both prices, but how you can argue their prices are not an indicator of probabilities is beyond me, the skew may not allow for a 100% accuracy but they are an indicator nonetheless.