Bet definitions are so important
In the last thread there was a lot of discussion about the precise definition of what particular markets mean. What exactly, for instance, is defined as Britain leaving the EU?
The definitions of political bets can often be problematical and can lead to arguments with bookmakers.
A current case involves a prominent PBer who has raised the question of how William Hill has settled its number of LAB MPs to resign in 2017 market which it opened at the start of the year. This is how he described it:
I’ve just discovered William Hill have settled my ‘6 or fewer Labour MPs to resign their seats in 2017’ bet as a loser. I asked them why, and they’ve treated MPs not standing in the snap election as resigning. I consider resigning as an MP to only count if you leave mid-term, and that those MPs simply retired when their term expired and didn’t seek to extend it.
As a result I wrote to Hills 8 days ago the following email:
I am writing a piece on the difficulties of settling a market you had at the start of the year on how many LAB MPs would resign their seats during 2017.
This, you will recall was in context with dissatisfaction with Corbyn and the MP for Copeland quitting Parliament and then Tristram Hunt doing the same his Stoke Central seat to take a job at the V&A. Thus creating two by elections. There was talk at the time of others following suit.
You put up a market on how many LAB would resign by the end of 2017. The lowest option was 6 MPs or fewer which you have now settled as a loser. Your reasoning was that several LAB MPs didn’t stand again at the general election thus taking it above the 6 threshold.
It can be argued that not standing again in an unforeseen general election is not the same as resigning during a parliament thus creating by-elections
Can I ask whether those who bet on more than 6 MPS resigning will be regarded as winners?
I have had no response from William Hill