\u201cThe truth is that bookies do not offer markets on political events to help people forecast the results,\u201d said Ladbrokes\u2019 head of political betting, Matthew Shaddick, in an official statement this morning. \u201cWe do it to turn a profit (or at least not lose too much) and in that respect, this vote worked out very well for us.<\/p>\n
\u201cNobody at Ladbrokes\u2019 HQ will be criticizing the predictive powers of our odds, they\u2019ll be looking at the money we made,\u201d he said.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\nAnd therein lies the answer. There were signs, largely overlooked by the press, which suggest bookmakers may have been expecting a “Leave” vote all along. Which begs the question: why didn\u2019t the betting odds reflect that?<\/p>\n
Last week, William Hill spokesman Graham Sharpe described the markets as \u201cvolatile\u201d due to the fact that while 66 percent of all the money his company had taken had been for \u201cRemain,\u201d 69 percent of individual wagers had been for \u201cLeave.\u201d<\/p>\n
“Remain” Bettors More Affluent<\/strong><\/h2>\nIt was a huge clue. Since voters only get to vote once, it\u2019s only the individual bets that count, but because bookmakers calculate their odds in relation to the volume of money they handle, the odds had to be shortened based on the total amounts staked.<\/p>\n
The \u201cVote Leave\u201d campaign was at its strongest in poorer areas of England, such as the Northeast, Yorkshire, and the East Midlands, and at its weakest in affluent London. Those who bet on and supported “Remain”simply had more money to gamble with.<\/p>\n
\n
Should we now distrust betting markets as predictors of political outcomes? Well, no. Brexit produced an unusual set of circumstances, unlikely ever to be replicated. And as every gambler knows, sometimes the outsider just wins, especially in a volatile market.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\u201cWhilst I see no evidence that the betting was deliberately \u2018manipulated\u2019 by big money, I think there\u2019s something to be considered in the fact that the most affluent sections of society were generally behind remain,\u201d said Shaddick. \u201cMaybe there just aren\u2019t enough dispassionate investors out there to correct that possible bias, even in a multi-million pound market like the referendum.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
With the Brexit shock decision for the UK to leave the European Union, many are wondering about repercussions for the global economy. And on High Street, bookies may be wringing their hands today, wondering why they got it so wrong. But wait, are they? The betting markets have proved to have an unerring ability to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":42,"featured_media":36910,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,13],"tags":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Brexit Passes: Why Did Bookies Get it Wrong?<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n