The Scottish referendum: Bookies were predicting an 80 percent chance of a ‘no’ vote, as the polls were contradictory and inaccurate.
Did bookies understand the results regarding the referendum that is scottish advance, while polls were way off the mark? It sure appears that way.
Scotland has voted to stay in the UK, with 55.3 per cent of voters determining against dissolving the union that is 300-year of 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 phone and that the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns had been split straight down the middle.
The simple truth is, polls were all over the place: contradictory and fluctuating wildly. They ranged from a lead that is six-point 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
Perhaps Not the bookies, though. It was had by them all figured away ages ago. Even though the pollsters’ predictions were see-sawing, online recreations betting outfit Betfair had already determined to pay out bettors who had their money on a’no’ vote several days ahead of the referendum even occurred. And even though there was clearly a whiff of a PR stunt about this announcement, it was made from the place of supreme confidence, because the wagering markets were rating the likelihood of a ‘no’ vote at around 80 percent at the very least a week before the vote took place. It was a forecast that, unlike that of the heavily swinging results of the pollsters, remained stable in the lead up to the referendum.
But why, then, are polls so unreliable in comparison with the wagering markets, and exactly why is the media in such thrall to their wildly results that are unreliable? The polling organizations openly acknowledge that their studies are inaccurate, frequently advising that we ought to enable a margin of mistake, commonly around five percent. Which means that in a closely fought race, such as the Scottish referendum, their information is utterly worthless. In a race where one party, in line with the polls, is leading by, say, 52 per cent, the presence of a 5 percent margin of error renders that survey useless.
The questions that are wrong
You can find many factors that make polls unreliable, too many, in fact, to list here. Sometimes the test size of participants is simply too low, or it’s unrepresentative of the populace. 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 that they usually ask the wrong question. Instead of asking people whom they will vote for, they should be asking the question that the bookies always ask: ‘Who do you consider will win?’
Research conducted by Professor Justin Wolfers shows that this concern yields better forecasts, because, to quote Wolfers, it ‘leads them to also think about the opinions of these around them, and maybe also since it may produce more honest responses.’
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 spot, it’s easier to express the perceived view that is popular. For the Scots, a ‘yes’ vote might represent the appealing proposition of severing ties with a remote and unpopular federal government in Westminster, but additionally means uncertainty and feasible chaos that is economic.
As Wolfers claims, ‘There is really a historical tendency for polling to overstate the chance of success of referendums, possibly because we are more prepared to inform pollsters we will vote for change than to do so. Such biases are less inclined to distort polls that ask people who they think will win. Indeed, in giving their objectives, some respondents may also mirror on whether or otherwise not they believe recent polling.
In a nutshell, when expected whether they would vote for an separate Scotland, an important quantity of Scots evidently lied. Gamblers, having said that, were brutally honest.
Suffolk Downs to Close Wynn Everett License that is following Choose
Suffolk Downs in happier times: Horseracing attendance has dropped by 40 per cent in recent years. Now the selection of Wynn Everett for the East Massachusetts casino license has sealed the racetrack’s fate.(Image: bloodhorse.com)
Suffolk Downs, the historic horseracing that is thoroughbred in East Boston, is to close, officials have announced. Meanwhile, Wynn Resorts celebrates securing the sole East Massachusetts casino permit for his or her Wynn Everett project, that may see the construction of a $1.2 billion casino resort in Everett, barring an unlikely casino repeal vote in November.
Suffolk Downs is be the very first casualty with this week’s selection process. In favoring the Wynn bid over compared to the Mohegan Sun’s, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has hammered the nail that is final the coffin of thoroughbred horseracing in their state. Suffolk is certainly one of just 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 very 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 start up new avenues of revenue for hawaii. Suffolk Downs COO Chip Tuttle made the announcement that the track will never be able to carry on soon after the Gaming Commission’s choice had been made general public.
End of this Track
‘We are extraordinarily disappointed as this course of action is likely to cost the Commonwealth tens of thousands of jobs, small business and family farms,’ Tuttle said. ‘ We are going to be meeting with employees and horsemen over the next several times to mention exactly how we wind down racing operations, being a 79-year legacy of Thoroughbred racing in Massachusetts will be coming to an end, resulting in unemployment and uncertainty for many hardworking people.’
The industry has been hit with a 40 percent decrease in modern times and Suffolk’s closure is likely to impact hundreds of thoroughbred breeders, owners, farriers and others who make their living in Massachusetts horseracing industry. The requirement to safeguard Suffolk Downs had been among the primary motivations for the 2011 Gambling Act, which expanded casino gaming in Massachusetts and created the Massachusetts that is east casino, and the decision to go with Wynn has angered lots of people.
‘Today’s decision to honor 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 minimize the working jobs of 800 hardworking people.’
Numerous industry workers feel betrayed by politicians while the Gaming Commission. ‘What’s depressing is we worked so hard to obtain that gaming bill passed with the proven fact that it would definitely save the farms and save racing in Massachusetts,’ said George F. Brown, the owner and supervisor of a breeding farm, who added that the ruling would ‘probably virtually … placed every one of the farms like mine out of business.’
Suffolk Downs exposed in 1935, immediately after parimutuel betting was legalized into the state. In 1937, Seabiscuit won the Massachusetts Handicap right here, breaking the history along the way. The race had been attended by 40,000 individuals. Over the years, the track has hosted events featuring legendary racehorses like Whirlaway, Funny Cide, and Cigar. In 1966, the Beatles played a concert here regarding the track’s infield in front of 24,000 screaming fans.
Fundamentally, however, a rich history wasn’t enough to conserve Suffolk Downs, and, ironically and poignantly, the bill that was made 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 seriously interested in saving Atlantic City or is he just interested in publicity? (Image: AP)
Can Donald Trump save Atlantic City? And will 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 prepared to register for bankruptcy, the billionaire real property mogul announced that he is ‘looking into’ mounting a rescue attempt.
Asked 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 home, the Trump Taj Mahal, the Donald said, ‘We’ll see what goes on. It. if I’m able to help the people of Atlantic City I’ll do’
Later on, on Twitter, and clearly warming to his theme, Trump stated: ‘I left Atlantic City years ago, good timing. Now I might buy back, at reduced expense, to save Plaza & Taj. They were run defectively by funds!’
Trump happens to be hugely critical of his former company Trump Entertainment in recent months, and has sought to distance himself from its stricken casino properties. In July, maybe catching wind of impending bankruptcy, he launched appropriate procedures to have his name removed through the casinos so that they can safeguard their brand, of which he is hugely protective.
‘Since Mr. Trump left Atlantic City many 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 criteria of quality and luxury needed under the license agreement.’
Trump left the nj-new jersey casino industry last year, and Trump Entertainment was bought away by a group of hedge fund managers and business bondholders, have real-money-casino.club been allowed to retain the brand name in return for a 10 % ownership stake for Trump in the reorganized business. He has had nothing regarding the casinos’ day-to-day operations since that time.
‘Does anyone notice that Atlantic City lost its secret once I left years ago,’ Trump tweeted. ‘It is really sad to see just what has occurred to Atlantic City. Therefore numerous bad decisions by the pols over time: airport, convention center, etc.’
In the early ’80s, Trump embarked on a project that is joint getaway Inn and Harrahs to build the vacation Inn Casino resort. It was completed in 1984, in which he quickly bought out his business partners and renamed the property the Trump Plaza. It was the first casino he ever owned, and this week it closed. Would it be that the notoriously cold-blooded property developer has a side that is sentimental? Or perhaps is it, just, as many individuals think, that he can’t resist some good publicity?
Publicity Stunt a Possibility
Senator Jim Whelan (D-Atlantic) believes in the explanation that is latter.
‘Donald is a guy who likes to see his name into the paper,’ he said. ‘He’s never ever been shy about searching for publicity or publicity that is obtaining. Issue is whether this is more promotion for Donald or whether he is serious about coming back to Atlantic City in a way that is real. We are going to see later on. 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 can see Donald’s ego wanting him to come back as a savior,’ agreed gaming consultant Steve Norton. ‘ I do not 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 for the Taj on Tuesday. Could it be that Trump is really prepared to put his money where his mouth is?