Domestic Politics

[cadete]

2 minutes ago, GreenSeater said:

I briefly thought that, but that seems incredibly illegal, I'm sure @cadete would know for sure if it is, but I imagine that would definitely be some kind of crime

Yes, it would be... 

FWIW I just remembered last night that I had a dream where I was studying Gerrymander in Tasmanian State Elections... WTF.

[thisphantomfortress]

52 minutes ago, Deeming said:

Like the "Health Australia Party" which has just drawn #1 spot in NSW Senate - who doesn't like and support 'health'? Only problem, they are an anti-vaxxer group

The worst of the worst that lot. There are always two sides to every coin, except this one. Don't vacinate; kids die FFS

Edited June 10, 2016 by thisphantomfortress

[thisphantomfortress]

More drama than Game of Thrones; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-10/cfa-board-to-be-removed-if-they-dont-agree-to-deal/7500518

How can they not see this is political suicide?

[cadete]

19 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

The worst of the worst that lot. There are always two sides to every coin, except this one. Don't vacinate kids die FFS

My Ex's father was one these guys who used to always gone about how much a sham Modern Medicine was... mind you his main driving force behind always bringing this shit up was because he just did not want to pay his daughter's doctors bills.

The guy was an idiot, he would basically dismiss any health problem they had their whole childhoods as just a Modern Medicine load of crap and instead would promote shit like Fish Liver Oil Tablets, a ton of Discount Herbal Remedies and one of those metal bands you wear on your wrist.

So many times I held my tongue felt like saying... if any of the shit really worked as well as he said it did then it would be Alternative Medicine or Herbal Medicine it be Modern Medicine because the Modern Pharmaceutical Companies would have instantly adopted into their own drugs.

Edited June 10, 2016 by cadete

[Tesla]

15 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

The worst of the worst that lot. There are always two sides to every coin, except this one. Don't vacinate; kids die FFS

I thought you were a libertarian?

TBH I really don't know why people have so much confidence in modern western medicine that they think others shouldn't have a choice on whether they (or their dependants) consume it's products, the confidence really isn't justified. Plenty of drugs with bad long term side effects end up getting approved and sold before the true extent of how fucked they are is found out. Plenty even continue to be available because it comes down to cost/benefit and they treat something that's considered worse than the negative side effects of the medicine even if the negative effects are significant and substantial.

[thisphantomfortress]

8 minutes ago, cadete said:

My Ex's father was one these guys who used to always gone about how much a sham Modern Medicine was... mind you his main driving force behind always bringing this shit up was because he just did not want to pay his daughter's doctors bills.

The guy was an idiot, he would basically dismiss any health problem they had their whole childhoods as just a Modern Medicine load of crap and instead would promote shit like Fish Liver Oil Tablets, a ton of Discount Herbal Remedies and one of those metal bands you wear on your wrist.

So many times I held my tongue felt like saying... if any of the shit really worked as well as he said it did then it would be Alternative Medicine or Herbal Medicine it be Modern Medicine because the Modern Pharmaceutical Companies would have instantly adopted into their own drugs.

My old man works in the medical industry, his rebuke to anti-vaxxers is a simple one; "have you ever met someone with polio?"

Its a two pronged attack a) it shows the success of vacinations and b ) anyone who had met someone with polio would do anything to stop their kids getting it.

1 minute ago, Tesla said:

I thought you were a libertarian?

TBH I really don't know why people have so much confidence in modern western medicine that they think others shouldn't have a choice on whether they (or their dependants) consume it's products, the confidence really isn't justified. Plenty of drugs with bad long term side effects end up getting approved and sold before the true extent of how fucked they are is found out. Plenty even continue to be available because it comes down to cost/benefit and they treat something that's considered worse than the negative side effects of the medicine even if the negative effects are significant and substantial.

There is no such thing as black and white, just different (50) shades of grey. There are a couple of exceptions, this and guns are two of them for me. (even on guns I favour a more liberal approach than we currently have, but some restrictions should exist)

 

[Tesla]

12 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

My old man works in the medical industry, his rebuke to anti-vaxxers is a simple one; "have you ever met someone with polio?"

Its a two pronged attack a) it shows the success of vacinations and b ) anyone who had met someone with polio would do anything to stop their kids getting it.

There is no such thing as black and white, just different (50) shades of grey. There are a couple of exceptions, this and guns are two of them for me. (even on guns I favour a more liberal approach than we currently have, but some restrictions should exist)

 

Most anti-vaxxers have retarded arguments so I understand why most people have little sympathy for their opinion. And I should add I don't subscribe to alternative medicine as most of that is BS. The point I'm making is really that modern western medicine is not so amazing that people shouldn't have a choice regarding wether they should consume it's products.

Having said that it is pretty unlikely that the vaccines that have been around for ages have any issues, but I do think it's a bit dodgy when new ones get rolled out pretty quickly (like when the so called 'swine flu epidemic' was meant to be happening), personally I wouldn't want to be a guinea pig unless I actually thought it was likely I'd get a life threatening disease. But again that's exactly what I'm advocating for, that people should have the choice of balancing the risks and potential benefits.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Tesla

[GreenSeater]

13 minutes ago, Tesla said:

Most anti-vaxxers have retarded arguments so I understand why most people have little sympathy for their opinion. And I should add I don't subscribe to alternative medicine as most of that is BS. The point I'm making is really that modern western medicine is not so amazing that people shouldn't have a choice regarding wether they should consume it's products.

Having said that it is pretty unlikely that the vaccines that have been around for ages have any issues, but I do think it's a bit dodgy when new ones get rolled out pretty quickly (like when the so called 'swine flu epidemic' was meant to be happening), personally I wouldn't want to be a guinea pig unless I actually thought it was likely I'd get a life threatening disease. But again that's exactly what I'm advocating for, that people should have the choice of balancing the risks and potential benefits.

The whole vaccine debate has been done to death, but people get mad about it because people who choose to not vaccinate their kids can cause children too young to get vaccinated or people who can't receive vaccinations due to complex medical issues to catch preventable diseases. It's not just the effects on those who choose not to get vaccinated that are the problem, it causes problems for society as a whole, not just some kid unlucky enough to be born to parents who are idiots.

That last point in itself is a huge issue too. The kids have no say in it, their parents just decide to expose them to preventable diseases because of their beliefs. Am yet to meet an anti-vaxer who wasn't vaccinated when they were a kid.

Edited June 10, 2016 by GreenSeater

[Tesla]

32 minutes ago, GreenSeater said:

The whole vaccine debate has been done to death, but people get mad about it because people who choose to not vaccinate their kids can cause children too young to get vaccinated or people who can't receive vaccinations due to complex medical issues to catch preventable diseases. It's not just the effects on those who choose not to get vaccinated that are the problem, it causes problems for society as a whole, not just some kid unlucky enough to be born to parents who are idiots.

That last point in itself is a huge issue too. The kids have no say in it, their parents just decide to expose them to preventable diseases because of their beliefs. Am yet to meet an anti-vaxer who wasn't vaccinated when they were a kid.

Well I think the difference is I see it as people who have their kids vaccinated are providing a benefit to society, rather than those who don't get their kids vaccinated are doing something detrimental to society. Perhaps that's a minor distinction but I think it makes a large difference to the debate.

[Deviant]

I'll back whoever goes off topic and starts slinging personal insults at people. Fuck the facts.

[Tesla]

39 minutes ago, Deviant said:

I'll back whoever goes off topic and starts slinging personal insults at people. Fuck the facts.

The Donald Trump strategy. 

[thisphantomfortress]

14 minutes ago, Tesla said:

The Donald Trump strategy.

The T-abz approach to. He was like a dog chasing a car that didn't know what to do when he caught it.

[Deviant]

1 hour ago, thisphantomfortress said:

The T-abz approach to. He was like a dog chasing a car that didn't know what to do when he caught it.

That's the greens strategy. I was thinking about that today. They are great in theory... but then what.

Like a dog chasing a car... in its head its great. But what's going to happen when it catches it.

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

The Donald Trump strategy. 

He'll win it all. 

[Shahanga]

2 hours ago, Tesla said:

Well I think the difference is I see it as people who have their kids vaccinated are providing a benefit to society, rather than those who don't get their kids vaccinated are doing something detrimental to society. Perhaps that's a minor distinction but I think it makes a large difference to the debate.

You can tell you don't have kids

[hedaik]

2 hours ago, Tesla said:

Well I think the difference is I see it as people who have their kids vaccinated are providing a benefit to society, rather than those who don't get their kids vaccinated are doing something detrimental to society. Perhaps that's a minor distinction but I think it makes a large difference to the debate.

Unvaccinated people kill babies who aren't yet old/strong enough to have vaccinations.

[Shahanga]

4 hours ago, GreenSeater said:

I briefly thought that, but that seems incredibly illegal, I'm sure @cadete would know for sure if it is, but I imagine that would definitely be some kind of crime

To be fair, you could definitely do the same thing with the far right. Just say " G'day Australia, my name is GreenSeater, and I hate Sharia Law and think all refugees should fuck off back to where they came from." Even if you don't actually believe it it would be very easy to fake and make people vote for you if you are good enough at bullshitting. Case and point: Donald Trump. Dude probably doesn't give a fuck about Mexicans or muslims or anything but he realised that plenty of Americans do and if you're loud and ridiculous enough people will notice you. His entire campaign was probably just a publicity stunt that went crazy and now he's got a 50/50 shot of getting the biggest job in the world.

As far as I'm concerned you've just described normal politics. You don't actually Think they believe the crap they go on about do you?

when (Wayne?) Taylor wa opposition leader resigned when I lived over there one reason he gave for not being good at his job is "he found it hard to pretend to be angry"

[jw1739]

I honestly don't remember ever being less interested in Federal politics than I am for this election.

[hedaik]

16 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I honestly don't remember ever being less interested in Federal politics than I am for this election.

Although Ill vote Shorten Im not terrible fussed about who gets in so I havent been too interested either.

[Tesla]

It was getting a bit worrying looking at the polls for a while there but surely Shorten's goofs and Daniel Andrews seemingly committing political suicide has locked this one in as a Coalition win.

[thisphantomfortress]

1 minute ago, Tesla said:

It was getting a bit worrying looking at the polls for a while there but surely Shorten's goofs and Daniel Andrews seemingly committing political suicide has locked this one in as a Coalition win.

Never pay attention to polls, betting markets are what I use. They have far more stake

[NewConvert]

16 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Never pay attention to polls, betting markets are what I use. They have far more stake

This is something that I don't understand - mind you that is probably because I don't gamble. The bookie gives you odds and you place a bet. How do bookies calculate what odds to offer?

[Shahanga]

3 hours ago, NewConvert said:

This is something that I don't understand - mind you that is probably because I don't gamble. The bookie gives you odds and you place a bet. How do bookies calculate what odds to offer?

My understanding is they keep adjusting the odds to ensure they will always turn a profit regardless of the result. So if more people bet on result a, result b will have the longer odds.

@cadete or @Tesla could explain in more detail im sure.

4 hours ago, Tesla said:

It was getting a bit worrying looking at the polls for a while there but surely Shorten's goofs and Daniel Andrews seemingly committing political suicide has locked this one in as a Coalition win.

I'm worried because they both seem useless. We need a government to get the budget under control with the smarts to deal with the difficult China - USA situation and the 1000 of other challenges they will face. Instead we have oxygen thieves worried about the PCcrowd and planning on managing the economy well "in 10 years time".

Edited June 11, 2016 by Shahanga
Fat fingers

[Tesla]

2 hours ago, Shahanga said:

My understanding is they keep adjusting the odds to ensure they will always turn a profit regardless of the result. So if more people bet on result a, result b will have the longer odds.

@cadete or @Tesla could explain in more detail im sure.

I'm worried because they both seem useless. We need a government to get the budget under control with the smarts to deal with the difficult China - USA situation and the 1000 of other challenges they will face. Instead we have oxygen thieves worried about the PCcrowd and planning on managing the economy well "in 10 years time".

Well most corporate bookmakers basically just rely on their odds being accurate enough and then banning or restricting people that consistently beat those odds and turn a long term profit. They wouldn't necessarily turn a profit regardless of the result, their odds aren't accurate enough and their volume isn't high enough, but over all the markets they have and with the restricting of successful punters, they make their profit.

Sports odds generally just follow the odds from pinnacle sports, which is the largest sports bookmaker (in terms of money turned over) and has a system where they basically do what you say, adjust the price based on bets made (but the bets of people who are profitable affect the odds more than those who aren't) , and their system is so good they can get their odds at least 99% accurate and make a profit without restricting or banning successful punters. I would say they are the closest to making a profit regardless of the result on the vast majority of markets that they offer, because their odds are so accurate and also because they take in so much volume (they are based in some tax haven island so who knows what kind of numbers they are turning over but it wouldn't surprise me if they take in $100m on some events like big soccer games). Since these are the most accurate odds, the other bookmakers follow them and take a bit of a larger margin. 

When it comes to racing there is no bookmaker that won't restrict successful punters (apart from when forced to take a bet by law, eg on track bookies and there are rules for all bookies on nsw racing), and certainly none would be making a profit regardless of the result on all races (they make their profit in the long run of course). But with fixed odds they generally do have the same sort of principle. If a successful punter puts a bet on horse A, then they'll just drop their fixed odds to the back of the queue (in other words, offer the worst odds for this selection out of all their competitors), this is a reason some will let a good punter make a decent sized bet, just so they can get their information. It's all about getting the information at the lowest cost. Of course there are other sources of information (hence why they are all keen to give owners a bonus for betting on their own horse, so they can see what the owner thinks,for example). There are some complications though, I believe on Australian racing they try to predict the tote prices a bit as well and that can influence the odds they give, and on uk/ire racing there is betfair (gambling exchange) which is another source of information and if they see the odds on there drop below their own then they will instantly cut their odds.

So in summary, what you've said is pretty accurate to the truth, it's just a bit more complicated in reality. 

When it comes to novelty markets like politics, things can be different. For example, financial stuff can generally be figured out by the financial markets. Based on prices of financial assets you can see what the market thinks is the  chance of an interest rate cut etc (and this would be extreme accurate). With politics I think the polls and a number of other things would help set the odds, as well as adjusting based on bets made as you suggest. 

Edited June 11, 2016 by Tesla

[NewConvert]

6 hours ago, Tesla said:

Well most corporate bookmakers basically just rely on their odds being accurate enough and then banning or restricting people that consistently beat those odds and turn a long term profit. They wouldn't necessarily turn a profit regardless of the result, their odds aren't accurate enough and their volume isn't high enough, but over all the markets they have and with the restricting of successful punters, they make their profit.

Sports odds generally just follow the odds from pinnacle sports, which is the largest sports bookmaker (in terms of money turned over) and has a system where they basically do what you say, adjust the price based on bets made (but the bets of people who are profitable affect the odds more than those who aren't) , and their system is so good they can get their odds at least 99% accurate and make a profit without restricting or banning successful punters. I would say they are the closest to making a profit regardless of the result on the vast majority of markets that they offer, because their odds are so accurate and also because they take in so much volume (they are based in some tax haven island so who knows what kind of numbers they are turning over but it wouldn't surprise me if they take in $100m on some events like big soccer games). Since these are the most accurate odds, the other bookmakers follow them and take a bit of a larger margin. 

When it comes to racing there is no bookmaker that won't restrict successful punters (apart from when forced to take a bet by law, eg on track bookies and there are rules for all bookies on nsw racing), and certainly none would be making a profit regardless of the result on all races (they make their profit in the long run of course). But with fixed odds they generally do have the same sort of principle. If a successful punter puts a bet on horse A, then they'll just drop their fixed odds to the back of the queue (in other words, offer the worst odds for this selection out of all their competitors), this is a reason some will let a good punter make a decent sized bet, just so they can get their information. It's all about getting the information at the lowest cost. Of course there are other sources of information (hence why they are all keen to give owners a bonus for betting on their own horse, so they can see what the owner thinks,for example). There are some complications though, I believe on Australian racing they try to predict the tote prices a bit as well and that can influence the odds they give, and on uk/ire racing there is betfair (gambling exchange) which is another source of information and if they see the odds on there drop below their own then they will instantly cut their odds.

So in summary, what you've said is pretty accurate to the truth, it's just a bit more complicated in reality. 

When it comes to novelty markets like politics, things can be different. For example, financial stuff can generally be figured out by the financial markets. Based on prices of financial assets you can see what the market thinks is the  chance of an interest rate cut etc (and this would be extreme accurate). With politics I think the polls and a number of other things would help set the odds, as well as adjusting based on bets made as you suggest. 

Thanks for that Tesla.

So if you are correct regarding polls being used to set the odds, then @thisphantomfortress assertion above would not be entirely accurate. Also as time progressed it is likely that the polls and betting odds would converge. So if you are punter then getting good odds early and calling it right would be the best way to make money out of betting on politics.

[NewConvert]

For those who are bored by politics the Northern Territory comes to the rescue:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/nt-minister-nathan-barrett-resigns-over-sex-video-claims-20160611-gpgzgg.html

[Tesla]

4 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Thanks for that Tesla.

So if you are correct regarding polls being used to set the odds, then @thisphantomfortress assertion above would not be entirely accurate. Also as time progressed it is likely that the polls and betting odds would converge. So if you are punter then getting good odds early and calling it right would be the best way to make money out of betting on politics.

Well the polls don't paint the full story, and the bookmakers would know that too, eg the coalition could win even with a slight loss in the two party preferred vote. I would agree with @thisphantomfortress that the betting odds give a better indication of the chances than the polls do. 

[Tesla]

RIP Greens

[thisphantomfortress]

1 minute ago, Tesla said:

RIP Greens

Ruthless. Did they preference them last at previous elections or is this the first time?

[Shahanga]

5 hours ago, Tesla said:

Well the polls don't paint the full story, and the bookmakers would know that too, eg the coalition could win even with a slight loss in the two party preferred vote. I would agree with @thisphantomfortress that the betting odds give a better indication of the chances than the polls do. 

There is also a theory that "the smart money" is betting, for instance people who may have access to internal party polling.

[Tesla]

19 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

There is also a theory that "the smart money" is betting, for instance people who may have access to internal party polling.

Yeah, again it's what I said about information. If some bloke has shown some success betting on politics then they're going to assume he has some inside information and adjust their odds accordingly. And they themselves might know people on the inside, also wouldn't surprise me if they receive a big bet from someone and then google his name and maybe they'll see he is involved in one of the parties in some way, etc.

Who knows the full extent of their information sources. Though in general I don't think they put in as much effort as they could, especially on a novelty market like politics, since they do just rely on the fact they have a decent sized margin (and it's larger on politics than most sports reflecting the bookmaker's uncertainty) and can restrict people that are successful. They probably have a pretty low maximum bet on these novelty markets as well, to reduce the risk (just checked at bet365 will only let me bet $1k on Labor at $4 odds, while they'll let me bet $20k on a draw in one of the Euro 2016 games at $4 odds).

Edited June 12, 2016 by Tesla

[Tesla]

1 hour ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Ruthless. Did they preference them last at previous elections or is this the first time?

They won Melbourne originally due to Liberal preferences, but last election the Libs preference Labor I think.

They've most likely lost their chance at more seats now thanks to this, they'll still have Melbourne though I imagine.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Tesla

[NewConvert]

2 hours ago, Tesla said:

Yeah, again it's what I said about information. If some bloke has shown some success betting on politics then they're going to assume he has some inside information and adjust their odds accordingly. And they themselves might know people on the inside, also wouldn't surprise me if they receive a big bet from someone and then google his name and maybe they'll see he is involved in one of the parties in some way, etc.

Who knows the full extent of their information sources. Though in general I don't think they put in as much effort as they could, especially on a novelty market like politics, since they do just rely on the fact they have a decent sized margin (and it's larger on politics than most sports reflecting the bookmaker's uncertainty) and can restrict people that are successful. They probably have a pretty low maximum bet on these novelty markets as well, to reduce the risk (just checked at bet365 will only let me bet $1k on Labor at $4 odds, while they'll let me bet $20k on a draw in one of the Euro 2016 games at $4 odds).

I think that you are onto something here. It must be about information and with sports it is easier to follow and track information as well as there being fewer uncontrolled factors (eg inclement weather) compared to politics. The fact that bookmakers restrict betting reflects that there is a greater degree of uncertainty than with sports. Are there any stats as to the accuracy of betting markets vs polls? Mind you, if as you say, the polls feed into the betting markets then I am not sure whether this kind of data would be useful - as I mentioned earlier the polls and betting markets would most likely converge closer to polling day. Do bookmakers tighten up the restrictions as they get closer to polling day?

[Jimmy]

You know the ALP are struggling when they bring Hawke back to star in their TV commercials.

[Duffman]

44 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

I think that you are onto something here. It must be about information and with sports it is easier to follow and track information as well as there being fewer uncontrolled factors (eg inclement weather) compared to politics. The fact that bookmakers restrict betting reflects that there is a greater degree of uncertainty than with sports. Are there any stats as to the accuracy of betting markets vs polls? Mind you, if as you say, the polls feed into the betting markets then I am not sure whether this kind of data would be useful - as I mentioned earlier the polls and betting markets would most likely converge closer to polling day. Do bookmakers tighten up the restrictions as they get closer to polling day?

An interesting thing is that betting markets tend to be so accurate that the US Government was at one point looking at setting up what were in effect betting markets to predict global events https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no4/using-prediction-markets-to-enhance-us-intelligence-capabilities.html. Apparently it got shut down because the public wasn't too happy that terrorists could make money by gambling on where they would next carry out an attack. http://www.economist.com/node/1957767

[Tesla]

6 minutes ago, Duffman said:

An interesting thing is that betting markets tend to be so accurate that the US Government was at one point looking at setting up what were in effect betting markets to predict global events https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no4/using-prediction-markets-to-enhance-us-intelligence-capabilities.html. Apparently it got shut down because the public wasn't too happy that terrorists could make money by gambling on where they would next carry out an attack. http://www.economist.com/node/1957767

I believe that's more like a financial market, hence the accuracy.

Betting works a bit differently and so it isn't as accurate. If just betting exchanges existed and not corporate bookmakers then it would be similar.

 

Edited June 12, 2016 by Tesla

[Duffman]

4 minutes ago, Tesla said:

I believe that's more like a financial market, hence the accuracy. 

How's that so? Is there a big difference between a futures market and an informed betting market? To me it seems like it would operate in much the same was as the political markets.

[Tesla]

1 hour ago, Duffman said:

How's that so? Is there a big difference between a futures market and an informed betting market? To me it seems like it would operate in much the same was as the political markets.

Different availability of information.

Say we talk about the betting market, and use betfair (which is an exchange not dissimilar from a futures exchange) as an example.

If I go and bet  $1,000 on Horse A at William Hill at 9/1, I give william hill information that I think 9/1 is a good price and that I'm willing to bet $1,000 at that price.

If I go on betfair and bet $1,000 on Horse A at $10 (9/1) odds, I give the whole market information that I like this horse at $10 odds for $1,000.

Now if William Hill only lets me bet $500 on Horse A, maybe I go find somewhere else to bet the other $500. Maybe I bet it at Ladbrokes at 17/2 odds, now Ladbrokes has some information too. Maybe after my bet both WH and Ladbrokes reduce their odds, providing some information to the market as well.

But if there is only $500 of unmatched lays on betfair at $10 I'll snap that up and maybe leave my other $500 on there unmatched, giving the whole market (corporate bookmakers, other bookmakers, traders, arbitrageurs, punters, etc.) information someone is more than happy to have another $500 worth of $10 odds. That's obviously more information, and you won't see 9/1 at any corporate bookmaker as long as that unmatched money sits on betfair, as an example of how it will have a bigger effect on the market. Or maybe I'll take up all the liquidity on offer at 9.8, 9.6, etc as well, either way i'm providing information that I like these prices as well to the whole market. Overall, the market is getting more information.

Do you see what i'm getting at? Betting with a bookmaker I only give that bookmaker information, and then that bookmaker might provide some secondary information by changing their odds. And I can only give them as much information as they let me, if they only let me place $500 they don't know if I wanted to place $1k, $2k, $10k, etc. Betting on the exchange I instantaneously provide more information to the whole market, and the market reacts to my information and creates more information (eg bookmakers will cut their odds to  be under betfair, I'll trigger an action from a trader or arbitrageur because of my actions, etc). More information will lead to a more accurate price.

Since the exchange provides more information to the whole market, it makes the whole market more efficient (accurate) than if the market was made up predominantly of just bookmakers. But it's still not as efficient as it would be if it was just the exchange.

Now a futures market is even better than betfair, betfair is biased by the bookmakers since there are people arbitraging the bookmaker prices (well you could argue that's not a bias, you could argue that's just information coming from the bookmakers, but without going into too much detail I would say it is more bias than true information for a few reasons).

The overriding principal is that the more public information and the less restrictions there are, the more efficient a market is. The betting market is full of restrictions (literally) and a lot of information isn't available publicly. Futures markets, like most financial markets have rules and even laws to ensure as much information as possible is available publicly, and while you wouldn't say they are completely free of restrictions, it's reasonably free and unrestricted.

I hope what I've said makes sense, basically the betting market isn't as good a market as a financial market. The information doesn't flow as easily. So it will never be as accurate.

The evidence backs all this up of course. There are certainly some people (albeit not a lot) who can make a living or at least a nice second income betting on racing, if the market was highly accurate this wouldn't really be possible. Supposedly there are some people who can make money in the long run betting on sports as well (I didn't cover sports in this post, but I said in a previous post it is much more efficient market than racing), but I am far from convinced personally that many people like this exist, and if they do they're certainly not doing it on the final odds (which are most accurate) but rather on early odds. While financial markets, well the evidence is that it's even harder to beat the market (so it must be more accurate). Studies have found that even out of the best funds (basically made up of the smartest people in our society, with great educations, with experience, etc) very few beat the financial markets, and if they do it's generally less than their fees.

To bring this all back to politics, at the end of the day the power of markets is amazing. It is almost magic. Even imperfect markets, like those in betting, are still pretty damn accurate (just not as much as financial markets). And that's the story of free market economics. The free market is able to answer the fundamental economic questions (what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom to produce it) better than any central planner will ever be able to, even in this age of rapidly advancing technology and big data. And just like the betting or financial markets, the freer and less restricted the market is, the better  

Edited June 12, 2016 by Tesla

[HeartFc]

50 dead in a (suspected) Terrorist attack in Orlando.

Congratulations President Trump.

[bt50]

7 hours ago, HeartFc said:

50 dead in a (suspected) Terrorist attack in Orlando.

Congratulations President Trump.

Fuck off.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump.

Edit : ive re-read thatand you mean that this will get him elected no? Thought for a minute you were some crazy SJW trying to blame it on him.

Edited June 12, 2016 by bt50

[Shahanga]

1 hour ago, bt50 said:

Fuck off.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump.

Edit : ive re-read thatand you mean that this will get him elected no? Thought for a minute you were some crazy SJW trying to blame it on him.

I did what you did. 1. Got nothing to do with Trump. 2. Oh yeah old mate is right, people will be more inclined to vote for a "strong leader"* Like him in times like this.

*even though he doesn't seem to have any policies.