The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[The Camel]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

Professional gamblers have a tendency to overestimate these things though, precisely because they are more aware of them. I know a lot of professional poker players who call variance on everything in their life, basically as a way of deferring responsibility for those things or because they simply don't understand them.

Disagree.

Non gamblers under estimate this things more like.

Beat me in the fastest finger race!  So many examples of it with my friends.  I could go back to 2001 when people were leaving major bookies to join bet365 which was a massive gamble.  Their share options/pension pots/bonuses in 2015 are all pretty much down to luck in choosing 365 in 2001 (who were nothing in the betting world) as only the real top few management/owners who make the key decisions have had any input into the firms success.  They could easily have gone to work for luvbet/ukbetting/bowmans/bet direct (who i hear you ask - exactly) etc etc in 2001 who were just as irrelevant in the online betting market then and paying similar money.  These odds compilers had no idea whether joining 365 or ukbetting or bowmans was the best move for them long term.  They just went with it.  There was no skill involved in the decision.  The vast majority of them haven't played that big a role in the growth of the firm.  Their individual success and job security is largely down to luck of them choosing the 'correct' start up firm to join way back in the day.

Exactly.

And many of them will think their contribution is much more important than it really is!

There is no luck in the 'real world' though only in Sport according to the Right wingers. 

So many of them in the trading team for 15 years could have never been there and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference to the value of the company now.  As in any company only a handful of people make the key decisions which make or break a company long term.  This is where luck comes into life in the real world.

Pretty sure the reasons Bet365 is so successful are: by far the best software and advertising, have never become a PLC and (most importantly) are prepared to lay bets to Chinese people.

[AlunB]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

Professional gamblers have a tendency to overestimate these things though, precisely because they are more aware of them. I know a lot of professional poker players who call variance on everything in their life, basically as a way of deferring responsibility for those things or because they simply don't understand them.

Disagree.

Non gamblers under estimate this things more like.

Beat me in the fastest finger race!  So many examples of it with my friends.  I could go back to 2001 when people were leaving major bookies to join bet365 which was a massive gamble.  Their share options/pension pots/bonuses in 2015 are all pretty much down to luck in choosing 365 in 2001 (who were nothing in the betting world) as only the real top few management/owners who make the key decisions have had any input into the firms success.  They could easily have gone to work for luvbet/ukbetting/bowmans/bet direct (who i hear you ask - exactly) etc etc in 2001 who were just as irrelevant in the online betting market then and paying similar money.  Alternatively they could have chosen much 'safer' options like Stan james and Blue sq in 2001.  These odds compilers had no idea whether joining 365 or ukbetting or bowmans was the best move for them long term.  They just went with it.  There was no skill involved in the decision.  The vast majority of them haven't played that big a role in the growth of the firm.  Their individual success and job security is largely down to luck of them choosing the 'correct' start up firm to join way back in the day.

I think bowmans was bought by bet365 in the end

ukbetting is now skybet I think?

So basically you can't have made a bad choice

[AlunB]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

Professional gamblers have a tendency to overestimate these things though, precisely because they are more aware of them. I know a lot of professional poker players who call variance on everything in their life, basically as a way of deferring responsibility for those things or because they simply don't understand them.

Disagree.

Non gamblers under estimate this things more like.

Beat me in the fastest finger race!  So many examples of it with my friends.  I could go back to 2001 when people were leaving major bookies to join bet365 which was a massive gamble.  Their share options/pension pots/bonuses in 2015 are all pretty much down to luck in choosing 365 in 2001 (who were nothing in the betting world) as only the real top few management/owners who make the key decisions have had any input into the firms success.  They could easily have gone to work for luvbet/ukbetting/bowmans/bet direct (who i hear you ask - exactly) etc etc in 2001 who were just as irrelevant in the online betting market then and paying similar money.  These odds compilers had no idea whether joining 365 or ukbetting or bowmans was the best move for them long term.  They just went with it.  There was no skill involved in the decision.  The vast majority of them haven't played that big a role in the growth of the firm.  Their individual success and job security is largely down to luck of them choosing the 'correct' start up firm to join way back in the day.

Exactly.

And many of them will think their contribution is much more important than it really is!

There is no luck in the 'real world' though only in Sport according to the Right wingers. 

So many of them in the trading team for 15 years could have never been there and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference to the value of the company now.  As in any company only a handful of people make the key decisions which make or break a company long term.  This is where luck comes into life in the real world.

Pretty sure the reasons Bet365 is so successful are: by far the best software and advertising, have never become a PLC and (most importantly) are prepared to lay bets to Chinese people.

Call

[The Camel]

Lets reverse the question - I have a 3 y/o daughter, will her life be "better" if I send her to a private infant / primary school or to a state version?

I think the quality of her prospective teachers are much more important than the quality of the schools.

(Although I suppose a private school is more likely to attract better teachers as they pay better I assume).

[Woodsey]

Lets reverse the question - I have a 3 y/o daughter, will her life be "better" if I send her to a private infant / primary school or to a state version?

I think the quality of her prospective teachers are much more important than the quality of the schools.

(Although I suppose a private school is more likely to attract better teachers as they pay better I assume).

Smaller class sizes and more personal attention.

[The Camel]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

Professional gamblers have a tendency to overestimate these things though, precisely because they are more aware of them. I know a lot of professional poker players who call variance on everything in their life, basically as a way of deferring responsibility for those things or because they simply don't understand them.

Disagree.

Non gamblers under estimate this things more like.

Beat me in the fastest finger race!  So many examples of it with my friends.  I could go back to 2001 when people were leaving major bookies to join bet365 which was a massive gamble.  Their share options/pension pots/bonuses in 2015 are all pretty much down to luck in choosing 365 in 2001 (who were nothing in the betting world) as only the real top few management/owners who make the key decisions have had any input into the firms success.  They could easily have gone to work for luvbet/ukbetting/bowmans/bet direct (who i hear you ask - exactly) etc etc in 2001 who were just as irrelevant in the online betting market then and paying similar money.  These odds compilers had no idea whether joining 365 or ukbetting or bowmans was the best move for them long term.  They just went with it.  There was no skill involved in the decision.  The vast majority of them haven't played that big a role in the growth of the firm.  Their individual success and job security is largely down to luck of them choosing the 'correct' start up firm to join way back in the day.

Exactly.

And many of them will think their contribution is much more important than it really is!

There is no luck in the 'real world' though only in Sport according to the Right wingers. 

So many of them in the trading team for 15 years could have never been there and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference to the value of the company now.  As in any company only a handful of people make the key decisions which make or break a company long term.  This is where luck comes into life in the real world.

Pretty sure the reasons Bet365 is so successful are: by far the best software and advertising, have never become a PLC and (most importantly) are prepared to lay bets to Chinese people.

Call

Coral, Sportingbet and Ladbrokes websites are virtually unusuable.

Hills is just about ok, but too manty markets on every page IMO.

Betvictor and Sky are very good, but neither take a bet so are not exactly competition.

As for advertising, what a masterstroke using Ray Winstone. 100% the correct man for appealing to their target audience: 18-35 year old, male mug punters.

[arbboy]

Lets reverse the question - I have a 3 y/o daughter, will her life be "better" if I send her to a private infant / primary school or to a state version?

I think the quality of her prospective teachers are much more important than the quality of the schools.

(Although I suppose a private school is more likely to attract better teachers as they pay better I assume).

Smaller class sizes and more personal attention.

All this doesn't matter if she isn't motivated to achieve.  Parent's roles in motivating their kids and helping them out after school/supporting them is way more important than the school they go to imo.

[arbboy]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

Professional gamblers have a tendency to overestimate these things though, precisely because they are more aware of them. I know a lot of professional poker players who call variance on everything in their life, basically as a way of deferring responsibility for those things or because they simply don't understand them.

Disagree.

Non gamblers under estimate this things more like.

Beat me in the fastest finger race!  So many examples of it with my friends.  I could go back to 2001 when people were leaving major bookies to join bet365 which was a massive gamble.  Their share options/pension pots/bonuses in 2015 are all pretty much down to luck in choosing 365 in 2001 (who were nothing in the betting world) as only the real top few management/owners who make the key decisions have had any input into the firms success.  They could easily have gone to work for luvbet/ukbetting/bowmans/bet direct (who i hear you ask - exactly) etc etc in 2001 who were just as irrelevant in the online betting market then and paying similar money.  These odds compilers had no idea whether joining 365 or ukbetting or bowmans was the best move for them long term.  They just went with it.  There was no skill involved in the decision.  The vast majority of them haven't played that big a role in the growth of the firm.  Their individual success and job security is largely down to luck of them choosing the 'correct' start up firm to join way back in the day.

Exactly.

And many of them will think their contribution is much more important than it really is!

There is no luck in the 'real world' though only in Sport according to the Right wingers.  

So many of them in the trading team for 15 years could have never been there and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference to the value of the company now.  As in any company only a handful of people make the key decisions which make or break a company long term.  This is where luck comes into life in the real world.

Pretty sure the reasons Bet365 is so successful are: by far the best software and advertising, have never become a PLC and (most importantly) are prepared to lay bets to Chinese people.

Privately owned is the biggest factor for me alongside having their software developed in house from day 1.  Selling their betting shops at the top of the market just before the credit crunch was also a master stroke to invest that money into the online business. (luck or skill who knows!)  They also dealt to USA punters sports betting wise online for 2 years in their formative years as well which all their major uk rivals didn't because it was illegal to do so and the PLC big uk firms couldn't be seen to be doing it.

[AlunB]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

Professional gamblers have a tendency to overestimate these things though, precisely because they are more aware of them. I know a lot of professional poker players who call variance on everything in their life, basically as a way of deferring responsibility for those things or because they simply don't understand them.

Disagree.

Non gamblers under estimate this things more like.

Beat me in the fastest finger race!  So many examples of it with my friends.  I could go back to 2001 when people were leaving major bookies to join bet365 which was a massive gamble.  Their share options/pension pots/bonuses in 2015 are all pretty much down to luck in choosing 365 in 2001 (who were nothing in the betting world) as only the real top few management/owners who make the key decisions have had any input into the firms success.  They could easily have gone to work for luvbet/ukbetting/bowmans/bet direct (who i hear you ask - exactly) etc etc in 2001 who were just as irrelevant in the online betting market then and paying similar money.  These odds compilers had no idea whether joining 365 or ukbetting or bowmans was the best move for them long term.  They just went with it.  There was no skill involved in the decision.  The vast majority of them haven't played that big a role in the growth of the firm.  Their individual success and job security is largely down to luck of them choosing the 'correct' start up firm to join way back in the day.

Exactly.

And many of them will think their contribution is much more important than it really is!

There is no luck in the 'real world' though only in Sport according to the Right wingers. 

So many of them in the trading team for 15 years could have never been there and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference to the value of the company now.  As in any company only a handful of people make the key decisions which make or break a company long term.  This is where luck comes into life in the real world.

Pretty sure the reasons Bet365 is so successful are: by far the best software and advertising, have never become a PLC and (most importantly) are prepared to lay bets to Chinese people.

Call

Coral, Sportingbet and Ladbrokes websites are virtually unusuable.

Hills is just about ok, but too manty markets on every page IMO.

Betvictor and Sky are very good, but neither take a bet so are not exactly competition.

As for advertising, what a masterstroke using Ray Winstone. 100% the correct man for appealing to their target audience: 18-35 year old, male mug punters.

Ah you are talking about now. I was talking about what got them to where they are. I like to call it the PokerStars illusion.

But if we want to carry on this discussion we should probably do it somewhere else, as this definitely isn't politics.

[The Camel]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

Professional gamblers have a tendency to overestimate these things though, precisely because they are more aware of them. I know a lot of professional poker players who call variance on everything in their life, basically as a way of deferring responsibility for those things or because they simply don't understand them.

Disagree.

Non gamblers under estimate this things more like.

Beat me in the fastest finger race!  So many examples of it with my friends.  I could go back to 2001 when people were leaving major bookies to join bet365 which was a massive gamble.  Their share options/pension pots/bonuses in 2015 are all pretty much down to luck in choosing 365 in 2001 (who were nothing in the betting world) as only the real top few management/owners who make the key decisions have had any input into the firms success.  They could easily have gone to work for luvbet/ukbetting/bowmans/bet direct (who i hear you ask - exactly) etc etc in 2001 who were just as irrelevant in the online betting market then and paying similar money.  These odds compilers had no idea whether joining 365 or ukbetting or bowmans was the best move for them long term.  They just went with it.  There was no skill involved in the decision.  The vast majority of them haven't played that big a role in the growth of the firm.  Their individual success and job security is largely down to luck of them choosing the 'correct' start up firm to join way back in the day.

Exactly.

And many of them will think their contribution is much more important than it really is!

There is no luck in the 'real world' though only in Sport according to the Right wingers. 

So many of them in the trading team for 15 years could have never been there and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference to the value of the company now.  As in any company only a handful of people make the key decisions which make or break a company long term.  This is where luck comes into life in the real world.

Pretty sure the reasons Bet365 is so successful are: by far the best software and advertising, have never become a PLC and (most importantly) are prepared to lay bets to Chinese people.

Call

Coral, Sportingbet and Ladbrokes websites are virtually unusuable.

Hills is just about ok, but too manty markets on every page IMO.

Betvictor and Sky are very good, but neither take a bet so are not exactly competition.

As for advertising, what a masterstroke using Ray Winstone. 100% the correct man for appealing to their target audience: 18-35 year old, male mug punters.

Ah you are talking about now. I was talking about what got them to where they are. I like to call it the PokerStars illusion.

But if we want to carry on this discussion we should probably do it somewhere else, as this definitely isn't politics.

Winstone has been the face of Bet365 for 10 years or more.

And their website has always been among the best IMO. And continually improving.

[AlunB]

I am probably the biggest right winger on this site even more so than you Woodsey and you are saying i fit into the left wing camp on this.  It isn't that simple.  The vast majority of people in the world don't fully understand the longterm/variance/survival bias/being results orientated and sample sizes and get fooled into believing stuff which generally isn't true.  Luck plays a huge part in people's lifes/careers/relationships.  

Professional gamblers have a tendency to overestimate these things though, precisely because they are more aware of them. I know a lot of professional poker players who call variance on everything in their life, basically as a way of deferring responsibility for those things or because they simply don't understand them.

Disagree.

Non gamblers under estimate this things more like.

Beat me in the fastest finger race!  So many examples of it with my friends.  I could go back to 2001 when people were leaving major bookies to join bet365 which was a massive gamble.  Their share options/pension pots/bonuses in 2015 are all pretty much down to luck in choosing 365 in 2001 (who were nothing in the betting world) as only the real top few management/owners who make the key decisions have had any input into the firms success.  They could easily have gone to work for luvbet/ukbetting/bowmans/bet direct (who i hear you ask - exactly) etc etc in 2001 who were just as irrelevant in the online betting market then and paying similar money.  These odds compilers had no idea whether joining 365 or ukbetting or bowmans was the best move for them long term.  They just went with it.  There was no skill involved in the decision.  The vast majority of them haven't played that big a role in the growth of the firm.  Their individual success and job security is largely down to luck of them choosing the 'correct' start up firm to join way back in the day.

Exactly.

And many of them will think their contribution is much more important than it really is!

There is no luck in the 'real world' though only in Sport according to the Right wingers. 

So many of them in the trading team for 15 years could have never been there and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference to the value of the company now.  As in any company only a handful of people make the key decisions which make or break a company long term.  This is where luck comes into life in the real world.

Pretty sure the reasons Bet365 is so successful are: by far the best software and advertising, have never become a PLC and (most importantly) are prepared to lay bets to Chinese people.

Call

Coral, Sportingbet and Ladbrokes websites are virtually unusuable.

Hills is just about ok, but too manty markets on every page IMO.

Betvictor and Sky are very good, but neither take a bet so are not exactly competition.

As for advertising, what a masterstroke using Ray Winstone. 100% the correct man for appealing to their target audience: 18-35 year old, male mug punters.

Ah you are talking about now. I was talking about what got them to where they are. I like to call it the PokerStars illusion.

But if we want to carry on this discussion we should probably do it somewhere else, as this definitely isn't politics.

Winstone has been the face of Bet365 for 10 years or more.

And their website has always been among the best IMO. And continually improving.

Nope. Quick google says start of 2009 football season. By that time they were already very big. And don't get me wrong they were a big factor in going from £70m profit a year to £400m. But they weren't what got them to £70m.

Second point is far more subjective, but I'd probably agree. Definitely a factor. Not the prettiest, but it always worked. Just like PokerStars back in the day.

[DungBeetle]

Lets reverse the question - I have a 3 y/o daughter, will her life be "better" if I send her to a private infant / primary school or to a state version?

I think the quality of her prospective teachers are much more important than the quality of the schools.

(Although I suppose a private school is more likely to attract better teachers as they pay better I assume).

I don't agree with this.  The most important thing for a kid is being in an undisrupted environment where everyone wants to learn in my opinion.  You are more likely to get this at a private school purely because it's easier for them to expel trouble makers.

[Jon MW]

Lets reverse the question - I have a 3 y/o daughter, will her life be "better" if I send her to a private infant / primary school or to a state version?

I think the quality of her prospective teachers are much more important than the quality of the schools.

(Although I suppose a private school is more likely to attract better teachers as they pay better I assume).

I don't agree with this.  The most important thing for a kid is being in an undisrupted environment where everyone wants to learn in my opinion.  You are more likely to get this at a private school purely because it's easier for them to expel trouble makers.

Smart pupils do well in any environment. Pupils with supportive home life's tend to do well - private school at primary school level might be a bit 'nicer' and objectively better quality in some ways - but in the bigger scheme of things it's not going to make that much difference in the long term.

At secondary level - smart pupils will always do well (if they want to - not if they don't) - the difference is with the average student. An average student at a state school might do average and might do badly (depending on circumstances); but an average student at a private school is still likely to do well - with the obvious repercussions for their longer term life options.

[DaveShoelace]

Question of the day

Do you think most politicians are inherently untrustworthy? Maybe even bad people in some way or other? Is politics a field which attracts power hungry sociopaths, or are they mostly people trying to improve the world? Again, obviously we know there are the outliers on both sides, so no need to point that out, I'm talking about the majority.

[DungBeetle]

I think many politicians go in with good intentions, but once there reality hits home that if they don't win an election in 4/5 years then they are out of a job and this leads to short term decision making, and questionable actions.