Populus’s results are closest to ICM’s. Teams that are winner tend to stay winner, betting against them is to be totally prevented as this is very important. In short, how high are the waves on the electoral tide? Another key assumption is that the variations are essentially random – that an overshoot in a seat 2% further than the UNS would reach is as likely as an equal overshoot in a safe seat or hopeless seat. If Smithson pere is right and ICM is this accurate next time, Labour sellers sure as hell need to hope that Smithson fils’s seat prediction model is accurate. So for a seat which (adjusted) UNS says should be reduced to a 6% Labour majority, then your baseline odds on it falling should be 5/1 before using your judgement on local factors. Work out how much swing is needed for the seat to fall. For a seat where the Tory should be swept in with a 6% majority (needs to undershoot the swing by more than 3% not to be taken), DominoQQ Online, the baseline odds should be 5/1 against the Labour incumbent holding.

The post from two weeks ago draws attention to Labour polling well before the general election. ICM have a great record in predicting election results and it would be foolish to ignore that when deciding which polls to pay most attention to. The golden rule is only tested at the point of an election. Vettel scraped a solitary point and Webber’s incident with Kubica has meant the Red Bull drivers have almost no chance of acquiring the Drivers’ title which seems to be an in-house fight between Barrichello and Button. All of this is now well accepted, but it’s all qualitative to this point. Yes, Constituency A which should have fallen on UNS didn’t (Dover, for example), but it’s okay – Constituency B, which shouldn’t have fallen (Putney, for example), did. It’s also important to know what shape the distribution is. In order to show the size of the statistical noise – the variability – of a distribution of numbers (like the distribution of swings across all constituencies), mathematicians tend to use “standard deviation”.

In this case, you’re betting on things like who will win a division or who will win a championship well in advance. All things considered, this is not good news for anyone. After all, you know this team as well as anyone and you should have a good idea how they will fare in certain games. This will be most helpful in making a good decision. There’s one more rather minor assumption – that the UNS (which is the overall swing from one party to another over the entire country) will be equal to the average swing of all constituencies. For Con-Lib swings: standard deviations again about 3% (but very fractionally higher than Lab-Con swings, on average). 99.73% of results are within 3 standard deviations of the average. INCORRECT ASSUMPTION 2: Fluctuations are random around the average. INCORRECT ASSUMPTION 1: Uniform spread of marginality so fluctuations cancel out. In the tables below, I’ve presented suggested “fair baseline odds” of the fluctuations being that large (if it were random).

Interestingly, the odds for a potential draw in all 380 ties were above the 2.618 threshold suggested as the lower limit by Archontakis and Osborne. Injuries and other concerns can come up last-minute and ruins bettor’s odds. So, in terms of odds. Randolph and Cassini Value was the tie of the weekend in terms of points gained, 7.78 between them, but Everton’s 90th minute equalizer at Liverpool tipped the balance in favour of Randolph. Before the series, at plus money, the Raptors were an even better value to win the series. Not sure if it was in response to my comments on twittering or not, but bizarre that win or lose today, so many people think a man who can’t be trusted on social media is fit to be President. 15 if they win. It is kind of like they are rooting extra hard for their team by placing a bet for them to win, even though they know in their heart they will probably lose that day. That kind of stuff. This post was created with GSA Content Generator Demoversion!