The Scottish referendum: Bookies had been predicting an 80 percent possibility of a ‘no’ vote, while the polls were contradictory and inaccurate.

Did bookies know the results for the Scottish referendum in advance, while polls were way off the mark? It sure looks that way.

Scotland has voted in which to stay 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 losing votes was as wide as ten percent; lots of polls had predicted that the result was too close to call and that the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns were split straight down the middle.

The simple truth is, polls were throughout the place: contradictory and fluctuating wildly. They ranged from a lead that is six-point the ‘yes’ vote up to a seven point lead for the ‘no’ vote in the weeks leading up to your referendum. And although they certainly were properly predicting a ‘no’ vote on the eve of the special day, they considerably underestimated the margin of the ‘No’ triumph.

Margins of mistake

Perhaps Not the bookies, though. It was had by them all figured away ages ago. As the pollsters’ predictions were see-sawing, online sports gambling outfit Betfair had already decided to spend bettors who had their money on a’no’ vote a few days before the referendum even occurred. And even though there was clearly a whiff of a PR stunt about this announcement, it was made from a position of supreme confidence, because the markets that are betting rating the probability of a ‘no’ vote at around 80 percent at least a week before the vote happened. It was a forecast that, unlike compared to the heavily swinging results of the pollsters, remained stable in the lead as much as the referendum.

But why, then, are polls so unreliable in comparison to the gambling areas, and exactly why is the media in such thrall with their wildly results that are unreliable? The polling organizations openly acknowledge that their studies are inaccurate, often advising that we ought to allow for a margin of error, commonly around five percent. This means that in a closely fought race, such as the Scottish referendum, their info is utterly useless. The existence of a 5 percent margin of error renders that survey useless in a race where one party, according to the polls, is leading by, say, 52 percent.

The questions that are wrong

You can find many factors which make polls unreliable, too many, in reality, to list here. Sometimes the test size of respondents is simply too low, or it’s unrepresentative of the populace. Sometimes they ask leading questions, or those that conduct them are sloppy or dishonest about recording information. But the ultimate, prevailing explanation why polls fail is they usually ask the question that is wrong. Instead of asking people who they’ll vote for, they should be asking the question that the bookies constantly ask: ‘Who do you think will win?’

Research conducted by Professor Justin Wolfers implies that this question 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 answers.’

Dishonest 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 an issue on the spot, it’s easier to express the perceived popular view. For the Scots, a ‘yes’ vote might express the appealing idea of severing ties with a remote and unpopular federal government in Westminster, but in addition means uncertainty and possible economic chaos.

As Wolfers says, ‘There is really a tendency that is historical polling to overstate the reality of success of referendums, perhaps because we are more prepared to tell pollsters we will vote for change than to actually do so. Such biases are less likely to want to distort polls that ask those who they think will win. Indeed, in offering their expectations, some respondents may even mirror on whether or not they believe polling that is recent.

A significant number of Scots apparently lied in short, when asked whether they would vote for an independent Scotland. Gamblers, having said that, were brutally honest.

Suffolk Downs to Close Wynn Everett License that is following Pick

Suffolk Downs in happier times: Horseracing attendance has fallen by 40 % in modern times. Now the choice of Wynn Everett for the East Massachusetts casino permit has sealed the racetrack’s fate.(Image:

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 license because of their Wynn Everett project, that will see the construction of a $1.2 billion casino resort in Everett, barring a casino that is unlikely vote in November.

Suffolk Downs is be the very first casualty with this week’s selection procedure. In favoring the Wynn bid over compared to the Mohegan Sun’s, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has hammered the final nail into the coffin of thoroughbred horseracing in hawaii. Suffolk is certainly one of just two horseracing tracks in Massachusetts, and the 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 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 prospective to generate jobs and start up brand new avenues of revenue for hawaii. Suffolk Downs COO Chip Tuttle made the announcement that the track will never have the ability to continue immediately after the Gaming Commission’s choice was made general public.

End for the Track

‘We are extraordinarily disappointed as this step is likely to cost the Commonwealth tens of thousands of jobs, small business and family farms,’ Tuttle said. ‘ We shall be meeting with employees and horsemen over the next several days to mention how we wind down racing operations, being a legacy that is 79-year of racing in Massachusetts will be coming to a finish, ensuing in unemployment and uncertainty for many hardworking people.’

The industry has been hit with a 40 per cent decrease in the last few years 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 necessity to safeguard Suffolk Downs had been one of many primary motivations for the 2011 Gambling Act, which expanded casino gaming in Massachusetts and created the east Massachusetts casino license, and the decision to go with Wynn has angered 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 reduce the jobs of 800 hardworking people.’

Deep History

Many industry workers feel betrayed by politicians as well as the Gaming Commission. ‘What’s depressing is we worked so hard to have that gaming bill passed with the proven fact that it would definitely conserve the farms and save racing in Massachusetts,’ said George F. Brown, the owner and manager of the breeding farm, who added that the ruling would ‘probably almost … put all of the farms like mine out of company.’

Suffolk Downs exposed in 1935, right after parimutuel betting was legalized in the state. In 1937, Seabiscuit won the Massachusetts Handicap here, breaking the background along the way. The race ended up being attended by 40,000 people. The track has hosted races featuring legendary racehorses like Whirlaway, Funny Cide, and Cigar over the years. In 1966, the Beatles played a concert right here in the track’s infield in front of 24,000 fans that are screaming.

Fundamentally, though, a history that is richn’t sufficient to save yourself Suffolk Downs, and, ironically and poignantly, the bill that has been built to rescue this famous old racetrack appears to have killed it.

Donald Trump Poised to Take Back Trump Atlantic City Casinos

Is Donald Trump serious about saving Atlantic City or is he just interested in publicity? (Image: AP)

Can Donald Trump save Atlantic City? And certainly 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. This week and its non-Donald-related owner Trump Entertainment prepared to file for bankruptcy, the billionaire real estate mogul announced that he is ‘looking into’ mounting a rescue attempt as the Trump Plaza shuttered its doors.

Expected by the Press of Atlantic City whether he would help to save The Trump Plaza and its particular at-risk sister home, the Trump Taj Mahal, the Donald said, ‘We’ll see what happens. If I can help the people of Atlantic City I’ll do it.’

Later on, on Twitter, and clearly warming to his theme, Trump said: ‘we left Atlantic City years back, good timing. Now we might purchase back, at reduced expense, to save your self Plaza & Taj. They were run badly by funds!’

Trump has been hugely critical of his company that is former Trump in recent months, and has sought to distance himself from its stricken casino properties. In July, possibly catching wind of impending bankruptcy, he launched legal proceedings to have his name eliminated from the gambling enterprises so that they can protect their brand, of which he’s hugely protective.

Sentimental Side?

‘Since Mr. Trump left Atlantic City many years back,’ states the lawsuit, ‘the license entities have allowed the casino properties to fall under a state that is utter of and have otherwise unsuccessful to operate and manage the casino properties in accordance with the high criteria of quality and luxury needed under the permit contract.’

Trump left the nj-new jersey casino industry last year, and Trump Entertainment was bought away by a small grouping of hedge fund managers and corporate bondholders, who were permitted to retain the brand name in return for a 10 percent ownership stake for Trump in the reorganized business. He has already established nothing related to the casinos’ day-to-day operations subsequently.

‘Does anyone notice that Atlantic City lost its magic when I left years ago,’ Trump tweeted. ‘It is really sad to see just what has happened to Atlantic City. Therefore many decisions that are bad the pols through the years: airport, convention center, etc.’

Within the early ’80s, Trump embarked on a joint project with getaway Inn and Harrahs to build the vacation Inn Casino resort. It absolutely was completed in 1984, in which he immediately bought out his company partners and renamed the property the Trump Plaza. It was the casino that is first ever owned, and this week it closed. Can it be that the notoriously cold-blooded property developer features a sentimental side? Or perhaps is it, simply, as many folks think, that he can’t resist some publicity that is good?

Publicity Stunt a Possibility

Senator Jim Whelan (D-Atlantic) believes in the latter explanation.

‘Donald is a guy who likes to see his title in the paper,’ he stated. ‘He’s never ever been shy about searching for publicity or getting publicity. Issue is whether this is more promotion for Donald or whether he could be seriously interested in coming back to Atlantic City in a way that is real. We will see down the road. Is Donald Trump looking to get some promotion, or is he serious? And if he’s serious, come on in and write some checks.’

‘I can see Donald’s ego wanting him to come back as a savior,’ agreed gaming consultant Steve Norton. ‘ I don’t think Donald’s title would help the casinos that much,’ he said. ‘Our issue is, other casinos have opened up and cut off traffic from Philadelphia and New York.’

Intriguingly, and as if to spite the naysayers, the Trump’s helicopter was seen arriving on the top of this Taj on Tuesday. Could it be that Trump is really prepared to put his cash where his mouth is?

Leave a reply