The Scottish referendum: Bookies were predicting an 80 percent potential for a ’no‘ vote, whilst the polls were contradictory and inaccurate.
Did bookies understand the results associated with referendum that is scottish advance, while polls were way off the mark? It sure appears that way.
Scotland has voted in which to stay the UK, with 55.3 % of voters deciding against dissolving the 300-year union of nations and going it alone. Many were surprised that the margin between winning and votes that are losing since wide as 10 %; lots of polls had predicted that the result was too close to call and that the ‚Yes‘ and ‚No‘ campaigns had been split straight down the middle.
The fact is, polls were all around the accepted destination: contradictory and fluctuating wildly. They ranged from the six-point lead for the ‚yes‘ vote to a seven point lead for the ’no‘ vote into the weeks leading up to the referendum. And they considerably underestimated the margin of the ‚No‘ victory although they were correctly predicting a ’no‘ vote on the eve of the big day.
Margins of mistake
Maybe Not the bookies, though. They’d it all figured down ages ago. As the pollsters‘ predictions were see-sawing, online recreations betting outfit Betfair had already determined to spend bettors who had their cash on a’no‘ vote a few days ahead of the referendum even occurred. Even though there is a whiff of a PR stunt about this announcement, it was made from the position of supreme confidence, because the gambling areas were rating the probability of a ’no‘ vote at around 80 percent at least a week before the vote happened. It absolutely was a forecast that, unlike compared to the heavily swinging results of the pollsters, remained stable in the lead up to the referendum.
But why, then, are polls so unreliable when comparing to the betting markets, and exactly why is the news in such thrall with their wildly unreliable results? The polling companies openly acknowledge that their studies are inaccurate, usually advising that we should permit a margin of mistake, commonly around five percent. Which means that in a closely fought race, such since the Scottish referendum, their info is utterly useless. The existence of a 5 percent margin of error renders that survey useless in a race where one party, according to the polls, is leading by, say, 52 percent.
The Wrong Questions
There are many factors that make polls unreliable, too many, in fact, to record here. Sometimes the sample size of participants is simply too low, or it’s unrepresentative of the population. Sometimes they ask leading questions, or those that conduct them are dishonest or sloppy about recording information. However the ultimate, prevailing explanation why polls fail is which they usually ask the question that is wrong. Instead of asking people who they’ll vote for, they must be asking the question that the bookies always ask: ‚Who do you think will win?‘
Research conducted by Professor Justin Wolfers suggests that this concern yields better forecasts, because, to quote Wolfers, it ‚leads them to also reflect on the opinions of those around them, and possibly also since it may yield more honest answers.‘
Those interviewed by pollsters are far more likely to express their support for change, while suppressing their concerns about the possible negative consequences in a case such as the Scottish referendum, where there is a large and popular movement for change. When asked about a problem on the location, it’s easier to express the perceived popular view. For the Scots, a ‚yes‘ vote might express the appealing proposition of severing ties with a remote and unpopular government in Westminster, but it means uncertainty and feasible economic chaos.
As Wolfers states, ‚There is just a historical propensity for polling to overstate the reality of success of referendums, possibly because we are more willing to share with pollsters we will vote for change than to actually do so. Such biases are less inclined to distort polls that ask those who they think will win. Indeed, in providing their objectives, some respondents may even reflect on whether or otherwise not they believe polling that is recent.
A significant number of Scots apparently lied in short, when asked whether they would vote for an independent Scotland. Gamblers, on the other hand, were brutally honest.
Suffolk Downs to Close Following Wynn Everett License Choose
Suffolk Downs in happier times: Horseracing attendance has dropped by 40 % in recent years. Now the choice of Wynn Everett for the East Massachusetts casino permit has sealed the racetrack’s fate.(Image: bloodhorse.com)
Suffolk Downs, the historic thoroughbred horseracing track in East Boston, is to close, officials have actually announced. Meanwhile, Wynn Resorts celebrates securing the sole East Massachusetts casino license for their Wynn Everett project, which will see the construction of a $1.2 billion casino resort in Everett, barring a casino that is unlikely vote in November.
Suffolk Downs is be the very first casualty of this week’s selection procedure. In favoring the Wynn bid over compared to the Mohegan Sun’s, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has hammered the final nail into the coffin of thoroughbred horseracing in hawaii. Suffolk is one of only two horseracing tracks in Massachusetts, together with only one exclusively for thoroughbreds.
Mohegan Sun’s proposed resort was to have been built on land owned by Suffolk Downs in Revere, and the racetrack had pledged to continue horseracing there for at the least 15 years should Mohegan Sun win the bid. However, the Commission, which voted 3:1 against Mohegan Sun, decided that the Wynn proposal offered better possible to generate jobs and open up new avenues of revenue for their state. Suffolk Downs COO Chip Tuttle made the statement that the track will never manage to continue right after the Gaming Commission’s choice was made public.
End of this Track
‚Our company is extraordinarily disappointed as this step is likely to cost the Commonwealth thousands of jobs, small company and family farms,‘ Tuttle said. ‚ We will be meeting with workers and horsemen over the next several days to speak about how exactly we wind down racing operations, as a 79-year legacy of Thoroughbred rushing in Massachusetts will be coming to a conclusion, resulting in unemployment and doubt for many hardworking individuals.‘
The industry has been hit by a 40 % reduction in recent years and Suffolk’s closure probably will affect hundreds of thoroughbred breeders, owners, farriers and others whom make their living in Massachusetts horseracing industry. The requirement to safeguard Suffolk Downs ended up being among the primary motivations for the 2011 Gambling Act, which expanded casino gaming in Massachusetts and created the east Massachusetts casino license, and the choice to go with Wynn has angered lots of people.
‚Today’s decision to award the license to Everett effectively put several hundred of my constituents out of work,‘ said Representative RoseLee Vincent, a Revere Democrat. ‚It is disturbing that the commission could reduce the working jobs of 800 hardworking people.‘
Many industry workers feel betrayed by politicians while the Gaming Commission. ‚What’s depressing is we worked so hard to get that gaming bill passed using the idea that it was going to save yourself the farms and save racing in Massachusetts,‘ said George F. Brown, the owner and manager of the breeding farm, who added that the ruling would ‚probably essentially … placed every one of the farms like mine out of business.‘
Suffolk Downs launched in 1935, soon after parimutuel betting had been legalized in the state. In 1937, Seabiscuit won the Massachusetts Handicap right here, breaking the history in the process. The race had been attended by 40,000 individuals. The track has hosted races featuring legendary racehorses like Whirlaway, Funny Cide, and Cigar over the years. In 1966, the Beatles played a concert here on the track’s infield in front side of 24,000 fans that are screaming.
Ultimately, though, a rich history wasn’t enough to conserve Suffolk Downs, and, ironically and poignantly, the bill which was built to rescue this famous old racetrack appears to have killed it.
Donald Trump Poised to Simply Take Back Trump Atlantic City Casinos
Is Donald Trump intent on saving Atlantic City or is he just interested in publicity? (Image: AP)
Can heart of vegas slots casino itunes Donald Trump save Atlantic City? And can he?
The word from The Donald is he says he’s exactly what AC has been missing all these years that he can, and what’s more. As the Trump Plaza shuttered its doors this week and its non-Donald-related owner Trump Entertainment ready to register for bankruptcy, the billionaire real property mogul announced that he is ‚looking into‘ mounting a rescue attempt.
Expected by the Press of Atlantic City whether he would part of to save lots of The Trump Plaza as well as its at-risk sister property, the Trump Taj Mahal, the Donald said, ‚We’ll see what happens. If I can help the folks of Atlantic City I’ll do it.‘
Later on, on Twitter, and clearly warming to his theme, Trump said: ‚we left Atlantic City years ago, good timing. Now we may buy back in, at reduced expense, to conserve Plaza & Taj. They were run defectively by funds!‘
Trump was hugely critical of his former company Trump Entertainment in recent months, and has sought to distance himself from its stricken casino properties. In July, perhaps catching wind of impending bankruptcy, he launched legal procedures to have his name removed from the gambling enterprises so that they can safeguard their brand, of which he’s hugely protective.
‚Since Mr. Trump left Atlantic City numerous years ago,‘ states the lawsuit, ‚the license entities have allowed the casino properties to fall into an utter state of disrepair and have otherwise unsuccessful to operate and manage the casino properties in accordance with the high standards of quality and luxury needed under the license agreement.‘
Trump left the New Jersey casino industry in ’09, and Trump Entertainment was bought away by a group of hedge fund managers and bondholders that are corporate who had been allowed to retain the brand name in return for a 10 percent ownership stake for Trump in the reorganized business. He has received nothing to do with the casinos‘ day-to-day operations subsequently.
‚Does anyone notice that Atlantic City lost its secret once I left years ago,‘ Trump tweeted. ‚It can be so unfortunate to see just what has happened to Atlantic City. So numerous bad decisions by the pols over time: airport, convention center, etc.‘
In the very early ’80s, Trump embarked for a project that is joint getaway Inn and Harrahs to build the vacation Inn Casino resort. It was completed in 1984, in which he promptly bought out his business partners and renamed the property the Trump Plaza. It was the casino that is first ever owned, and this week it closed. Would it be that the notoriously cold-blooded home developer features a side that is sentimental? Or perhaps is it, simply, as many individuals think, that he can’t resist some good promotion?
Promotion Stunt a Possibility
Senator Jim Whelan (D-Atlantic) believes in the explanation that is latter.
‚Donald is really a guy who likes to see his name in the paper,‘ he said. ‚He’s never been shy about searching for publicity or obtaining publicity. The question is whether this is more publicity for Donald or whether he is seriously interested in coming back to Atlantic City in a real way. We are going to see down the road. Is Donald Trump seeking to get some publicity, or is he serious? And if he’s serious, come on in and compose some checks.‘
‚I am able to see Donald’s ego wanting him to return as a savior,‘ agreed gaming consultant Steve Norton. ‚ I don’t think Donald’s name would help the casinos that much,‘ he stated. ‚Our problem is, other casinos have opened up and cut off traffic from Philadelphia and New York.‘
Intriguingly, so when if to spite the naysayers, the Trump’s helicopter was seen arriving on the roof of the Taj on Tuesday. Could it be that Trump is really prepared to put his cash where his mouth is?