Tips for Tikay

[tikay]

Excellent work last night people!

Didn't they do well!

[tikay]

Just for Ant......

Holoway confirmed.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20176036

[Tal]

Samuel Johnson Prize for Non Fiction.

The Steven Pinker book has been widely regarded as favourite (from the twittersphere).

Checked the odds, laddies 5/1 & Hills 2/1. A big difference.

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/other-specials/samuel-johnson-prize-for-non-fiction/winner

Tal or anyone, opinions?

It's not something I have particularly followed, other than reading a bit about it; I haven't read any of the books.

The chair of the judges is David Willets, the Universities Minister. He has said that the key criterion is that the winning book is one which will last for the ages, which perhaps implies a subject matter that extends across boundaries. The book about Edmund Hillary's ascent of Everest and World War I might therefore struggle to win.

Your pick is about the history of violence and that's something which will last for the ages.

The biggest story has been the sensational dropping of the longlist headliner Sir Salman Rushdie, who failed to make the final six, with David Willets commenting that "some [of the panel] found it a bit irritating".

The impression I get is that the six books left are the ones the panel considered the six best-written, which now leaves a decision over which the panel considered best fits the brief.

When the shortlist was announced, the most profiled was Katherine Boo's Behind the Beautiful Flowers which is about life in a Mumbai Slum. The money that has been taken by Hills on Pinker's book has left Boo out in the cold, seemingly. Ladbrokes don't seem convinced, mind!

Also on the judging panel is the Guardian's editor of non-fiction, which makes you think that Boo shouldn't be forgotten, given that this http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/oct/05/six-magisterial-shortlist-samuel-johnson-prize was the main subject of the article.  

I'm not much help here, I dont suppose. Any clues as to why Hills have moved so much?
 

[Ant040689]

Just for Ant......

Holoway confirmed.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20176036

 

[Tonji]

Hi Tal,

I've no idea on why Hills have Pinker at 2/1, while Laddies 5/1. Were their odds for the Booker similar?

Also not read any, just a quick scan of the Sunday reviews.

Boo's book seems to have similarities to previous winners.

The winner is not announced until the 12th, plenty of time to ponder & do a bit more digging.

[Waz1892]

Port Vale 11/10 looks good?

Leicester 5/4

middlesboro 19/10

small bet on the treble looks tempting?

[Doobs]

Hi Tal,

I've no idea on why Hills have Pinker at 2/1, while Laddies 5/1. Were their odds for the Booker similar?

Also not read any, just a quick scan of the Sunday reviews.

Boo's book seems to have similarities to previous winners.

The winner is not announced until the 12th, plenty of time to ponder & do a bit more digging.

If it is a genuine rick you really don't have much time to ponder.

[Tonji]

Hi Tal,

I've no idea on why Hills have Pinker at 2/1, while Laddies 5/1. Were their odds for the Booker similar?

Also not read any, just a quick scan of the Sunday reviews.

Boo's book seems to have similarities to previous winners.

The winner is not announced until the 12th, plenty of time to ponder & do a bit more digging.

If it is a genuine rick you really don't have much time to ponder.

Doesn't look like a rick. Looks like each compiler has used different criteria & come up with differing opinions.

[Tal]

Hi Tal,

I've no idea on why Hills have Pinker at 2/1, while Laddies 5/1. Were their odds for the Booker similar?

Also not read any, just a quick scan of the Sunday reviews.

Boo's book seems to have similarities to previous winners.

The winner is not announced until the 12th, plenty of time to ponder & do a bit more digging.

If it is a genuine rick you really don't have much time to ponder.

Doesn't look like a rick. Looks like each compiler has used different criteria & come up with differing opinions.

Would our odds compiling Elders advise as to whether there is a viable plan here to take 5-1 and lay it off when the exchanges put up prices? Let us assume for the sake of argument we are essentially expecting this book to be in the top 3.

[redarmi]

No - there is no liquidity which is probably why they have made the rick in the first place they actually had to compile a price instead of copying it!!

[Tal]

So there's nothing we can do here to take advantage of a significant difference of opinion?

[Tal]

Sorry for the de-rail. I will move it back to Crystal Palace shortly

[OverTheBorder]

Not sure if Bazza has a thought on this but I think the 7/4 Bet365 on Craig McEwan to win the Prizefighter tonight is pretty good.

Was with Freddie Roach for years fighting on Golden Boy promotion cards against some real class opponents.  I think he is in a different league to this lot, but outside boxing circles nobody will have heard of him.  interested in Bazza's view but I see him walking this.  He is not a banger and over 3 rounds I dont see any of them outpointing him.  Second favourite has only boxed twice, he would not be near a ring with McEwan at this stage outside of this sphere.

[Doobs]

So there's nothing we can do here to take advantage of a significant difference of opinion?

Just back the pinker book.  The book (in the bookmaking sense) is currently fairly close to 100% over the two bookies.  That looks unlikely to last, and it won't be there after any significant pondering.  So we look for the biggest divergence, which is 2/1 vs 5/1 and take the 5/1.  I guess it helps if it is viewed as favourite by some geeks on twitter.

This looks way more solid reasoning than most bets here.

We aren't planning on laying off.

I haven't read any of these books, or any reviews, am just hoping the 2/1 guy has.

[Tonji]

The shortlist has been chosen by the Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister for Universities and Science (chair of judges); writer and biographer Patrick French; Paul Laity, non-fiction books editor, The Guardian; Bronwen Maddox, editor, Prospect magazine; and philosopher, poet, physician and cultural critic Professor Raymond Tallis.

Seems the panel may have a scientific/philosophy bias. Pinker's book fits imo to be chosen as the winner.

I've taken a bit at 5/1.