« Will the Bain attacks hurt Mitt?
Will Miliband’s plan do anything about these perceptions? »
h1

New Hampshire 2008: When the 250-1 shot won

January 10th, 2012

Betfair Hillary price NH primary day 2008

It’s New Hampshire primary day and perhaps a good moment to reflect on the nightmare political betting night that some punters had four years ago.

In the Democratic race Obama had won Iowa a few days earlier and looked on target to take New Hampshire. It all seemed so certain. An opinion poll of the state by Gallup on the day before had reported 41% for Obama with 28% for Hillary Clinton. Nobody could argue with figures like that.

Shortly before the polling booths closed the buzz was that Gallup and others had been right and that Obama was set to take the state by a substantial margin. On the Betfair betting exchange the money was all one way.

Obama’s price tightened to 1/100 and punters were piling in on that. Meanwhile the Hillary price moved out sharply and at one stage bets at 250/1 were matched.

Then the picture began to change and it soon became clear that this was going to be Hillary’s victory.

I know several punters who got really caught by the turnaround one of whom told me later that it was his worst session of betting ever.

Could there possibly be a similar experience overnight? I don’t think so but I love long-shots and have risked a small amount laying Romney at 1/100.

[For non-punters a £100 successful bet at 1/100 will produce a profit after getting your stake back of just one pound.]

UPDATE: I have replaced the original illustration with a chart from Morus (Greg Callus) showing the price movement on the Betfair New Hampshire price on primary day in 2008.

Mike Smithson @MikeSmithsonOGH
← Older Comments
  • http://twitter.com/JamesKelly James Kelly

    Are you really surprised that I don’t think the UK Supreme Court should be interfering in a Scottish independence referendum, and that any reasonable steps to thwart such interference would not be unwelcome?

  • Peter the Punter

    Thanks Hyufd

    When you post these figures, may I ask you to make clear which State they are for?   These are clearly National, but the other day there was much confusion as to whether the numbers were for NH, SC, or National.   (I think it was SC but still not sure.)

    Cheers

  • Anonymous

    Alex Salmond – ‘one thing is certain, we’ll not be holding a referendum on Bannockburn Day.’

    Pity there wasn’t a market on it.

  • http://twitter.com/JamesKelly James Kelly

    “They want a legally-binding referendum on independence”

    Link?  Mr Nabavi said the same thing last night, but where’s the evidence?  The SNP proposal is for a consultative referendum on whether the Scottish Government should open negotiations with the UK government on independence.

  • malcolmG

    James,  No he just has no idea what he is talking about.

  • The Watcher

    And yet they don’t seem to be very interested in holding one.

    How odd.

    It’s as if they’re terrified of the outcome either way.

  • http://twitter.com/JamesKelly James Kelly

    “And yet they don’t seem to be very interested in holding one.”

    Oh yeah, that’s why they put it in their manifesto.  What part of “the second half of this parliament” do you not understand?

  • malcolmG

    THEY ARE BEING OFFERED NOTHING OF THE SORT. A rigged vote is hardly likely to get them excited,  unlike Cameron et al they are not idiots.

  • Anonymous

    I thought the whole point of the SNP was Scottish independence.

  • antifrank

    So the SNP are proposing to ignore the option of a legally binding referendum on a subject for which they have a mandate in favour of holding a consultative referendum on a subject for which they have no mandate?  Yeah right.

  • Tissue Price

    In what way does having the vote in 2013 as opposed to 2014/15 constitute “rigged”, please?

  • Anonymous

    why wait..lets get it done..bloody tho it may become..

  • http://twitter.com/JamesKelly James Kelly

    “So the SNP are proposing to ignore the option of a legally binding referendum on a subject for which they have a mandate in favour of holding a consultative referendum on a subject for which they have no mandate?”

    Antifrank, I would respectfully suggest you ought to be more cautious about the use of sarcasm in exchanges with those of us who are “closer to the action”, so to speak – it might save you from ending up looking very foolish further down the line.  Yes, it’s quite conceivable that they could do exactly that, and for some very good reasons.

  • http://twitter.com/JamesKelly James Kelly

    “I thought the whole point of the SNP was Scottish independence.”

    I’m sorry, without an explanatory note on that comment I haven’t a clue what you’re getting at.  But take it from me – the SNP pledge was for a consultative referendum held under Holyrood’s existing powers.

  • Anonymous

    LoL. I’m enjoying this (to quote the Blessed M), observing Kelly ‘n Pork, and this curious Malcolm G chappie, working themselves into a state ever more frenetic and obsessive indignation.

    Free the Dickson One – at least he had a sense of humour.

  • Floater
  • Anonymous

    Why do you think such a referendum would be “rigged?”

  • Anonymous

    The serfs in Scotland are desperate to be free of the English shackles..bring it forward to 2012 and be free two years earlier..what is there not to like..

  • Anonymous

    The point might be made that out of all the parties, Scottish & UK, the SNP is the one with the most developed (and successful) long term strategy. Since part of this strategy was before the last election announcing a referendum in a specific period while the other parties were against a referendum, it might well be seen as a disadvantage for them to be now railroaded into one.

    Let’s be honest, all parties will try to stage any vote at a time most advantageous to them. I don’t think there’s any great moral deficit in that from any side, apart from the SNP actually being consistent about it for a longer period. 

  • Anonymous

    This referendum thing has more the whiff of Faintheart than Braveheart..The Scots used to be tougher than the current lot

  • malcolmG

    we do not know what strings will be attached,  you can guarantee Westminster will make it as unfavourable to the SNP as possible.  But the real point is that Westminster should butt out,  it is for the Scottish government to handle based on the needs of Scotland.  Westminster had years to have one and refused to allow it for personal gain so they can F*** off. 

  • malcolmG

    We have the past to confirm that,  lat time the Tories did it they included the dead as NO votes as well as everybody that did not bother voting.  A majority then was turned into a nO based on NON voting and the dead.

  • malcolmG

    What rock did you crawl out from under. Adding “chappie” does not make your insulting crap funny.  Stick to playing with dolls you pompous diddy or try to post something relevant to the discussion.

  • malcolmG

    Richard,  you trying to imitate fluffy today.

  • Charles

    The problem is that an “in/out” referendum is up to the Scots.

    Once “devomax” is considered as an option then it becomes a matter for the whole of the UK – one side can’t arbitrarily change the terms of a contract (while it can terminate the contract)

  • Charles

    My understanding was that civil partnerships conveyed exactly the same secular rights as a civil marriage and it was just a matter of terminology and religion (at least that’s the way I told Tony Blair’s adviser that she should set it up when we first discussed it a couple of years before it was brought in).

    I would actually copy the Belgians in this.  Make everyone have a civil marriage ceremony/signing that takes care of all of the secular bit – take the “signing the register” bit out of the church services – and make it open to everyone on the same terms.  If someone wants to do the civil bit as a very small and private event and then have a big church wedding to celebrate the fact, then that is entirely up to them and no business of the government

  • malcolmG

    Charles,  In reality ,  “Devomax” is just the minimum the unionists will need to stump up now to have a chance of stopping a YES vote.  They have failed miserably.

  • Anonymous

    No..I just have a feeling..being a Northerner and born close to Scotland..a land I have great respect for, that the current dithering and political manoevering by the SNP would make the brave, dead men, of Bannockburn turn their heads away in shame…What happened to the Claymore and shield, the swinging blood spattered tartan kilt, the mud caked hair as your ancestors ran down the glen side to turn away the foe..Its more like tea and pink ice buns or a curried takeaway today..You wont make a move until it is safely in the bag..delivered by Lawyers…Shame on you.. Your delaying tactics will misfire.. 

  • Floater

    LOl – I think most of us understand that its Labour who are herd like.

  • Peter the Punter

    Excellent, TP.

    I was unaware that in addition to you other talents, you speak fluent Cockney.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, it was SC apologies. The numbers beyond the national poll you identified I have posted should all now identify the state!

  • Anonymous

    Huh?  When did the Conservatives stage a referendum that included dead people as “No” voters?

  • Anonymous

    Yes, indeed. 

  • http://twitter.com/JamesKelly James Kelly

    Sean, do you really not know what he’s talking about or are you just tiresomely pretending not to understand?  He’s talking about the 40% rule, introduced by George Cunningham but supported by Thatcher’s Tories.  

  • malcolmG

    Richard,  possibly,  however they set out their timetable in the manifesto and are sticking to it.  I think given the way things are going it is in the interests of the SNP and Scotland to do that. Given the poor media coverage it will need a long time to get all the arguments for and against out there and better to wait a bit and get the right result than rush it.  Only people panicking are the Unionist politicians,  and that is purely self interest.

  • Tissue Price

    I have some sympathy with that – but it doesn’t follow that the UK government is bound to let them follow their strategy.  That’s politics.

    Of course we await the detail but this seems a reasonably honourable course as well as a recognition that the issue cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely (as it might well do following the ‘consultative referendum’ approach).

    Personally I hope Scotland votes Yes, for its own sake more than from the English Tory perspective.

  • Floater

    In that case we should keep an eye out for Draper and co.

  • Tissue Price

    Me, I was born within the sounds of… ahem, well East Dulwich railway station, actually.

  • Floater

    LOL – to far and to fast indeed.

  • Anonymous

    It all sounds a bit paranoid to me.

  • http://twitter.com/JamesKelly James Kelly

    “It all sounds a bit paranoid to me.”

    The facts, Sean -
    Scotland votes Yes to devolution in 1979.
    Scotland does not get devolution.

    Paranoia?  No, a rigged referendum, concocted by an unholy alliance of Labour rebels and Thatcher’s Tories.

  • Charles

    … and presumably 1 miliband is one thousand millionth of a megaband

    No, one thousand millionth of an Elvis ;-)

  • Anonymous

    Not rigged at all.  Everyone who participated in the vote knew the terms upon which it was being held.  A “rigged” referendum would be one where the winning result was ignored, or in which the count was dishonestly conducted.

  • http://twitter.com/JamesKelly James Kelly

    “Everyone who participated in the vote knew the terms upon which it was being held.”

    You ought to check your history, Sean.  The 40% rule did not mean that a mandate lower than that struck out the Scotland Act – it simply meant that  the Secretary of State had to table an Order of Repeal.  Callaghan could have instructed his troops to vote against it.

  • Richard Howell

    re James Kelly/malcomg/pork
    As far as I was aware, the SNP were a constitutional nationalist party. Correct me if I’m wrong about that. The Scottish Ministers hold office at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. If they act in an unlawful manner deliberately, they will be dismissed, and their functions will revert to the Secretary of State.

  • Anonymous

    NEWS FLASH – MITT BREAKS THE 25% BARRIER!

    NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY 2012 – Very Early Returns

    DIXVILLE NOTCH
    total votes cast = 9

    Democratic = 3 votes total
    Barack Obama = 3(100%)

    Republican = 6 votes total
    Jon Huntsman = 2 33%)
    Mitt Romney = 2 (33%)
    Newt Gingrich = 1 (17%)
    Ron Paul = 1 (17%)

    HARTS LOCATION
    total votes cast = 23

    Democratic = 10 votes total
    Barack Obama = 10 (100%)

    Republican = 13 votes total
    Mitt Romney = 5 (38%)
    Ron Paul = 4 (31%)
    Jon Huntsman = 2 (15%)
    Newt Gingrich = 1 (8%)
    Rick Perry = 1 (8%)

    COMBINED DN + HL
    total votes cast = 32

    Democratic = 13 votes total
    Barack Obama = 13(100%)

    Republican = 19 votes total
    Mitt Romney = 7 (37%)
    Ron Paul = 5 (26%)
    Jon Huntsman = 4 (21%)
    Newt Gingrich = 2 (11%)
    Rick Perry = 1 (5%)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixville_Notch,_New_Hampshire

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hart%27s_Location,_New_Hampshire

  • dw

    Why don’t you just turn the island into a car park.  I’m sure there will be plenty of space for your Range Rover.

  • http://twitter.com/JamesKelly James Kelly

    “re James Kelly/malcomg/pork
    As far as I was aware, the SNP were a constitutional nationalist party. Correct me if I’m wrong about that. The Scottish Ministers hold office at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. If they act in an unlawful manner deliberately, they will be dismissed, and their functions will revert to the Secretary of State.”

    You’re correct that the SNP are a constitutional nationalist party.  You’re incorrect about pretty much everything else.  ’Revert to the Secretary of State’?  Where on earth did you get that from?  That would require the suspension of devolution itself, not the “dismissal” of individual ministers (and I’m far from clear who would be doing the dismissing in any case).

← Older Comments