A few weeks ago I wrote about the Smarkets market on whether the government would reimpose covid restrictions before the new year. The market, put up shortly prior to the end of restrictions in July, is called ‘Any Covid restrictions to be re-introduced in England during 2021‘. The ‘subheading’ then reads ‘Will the government re-introduce any legally enforceable restrictions on social contact in England before the end of 2021?‘

There have been three clarifications in the detailed rules provided by Smarkets. One states that rules which are not England-wide do not count, referring specifically to TfL’s mask rules. The second, alluded to in my previous article, says that vaccine passports for visiting nightclubs do count. Now a third has appeared, stating that vaccine passports for working in a care home do count, and if the government bring them in (as they have announced) then the market will be settled for ‘Yes’. Personally, I think this is a step too far.

Smarket’s rationale for their decision lies in the initial full rules, which state than the market will settle for ‘Yes’ if ‘the UK government re-introduces any legally enforceable restrictions on social contact in England related to the spread of coronavirus [..]‘. From this they state (in the clarifications) there are 4 criteria for any rule:

• Mandatory;
• Government-imposed;
• England-wide; and
• Legally enforceable.

As a vaccine requirement to work in a care home is all of those four things, they feel the market rules are met.

I have two issues with this. The first is that I think it ignores the wording in both the rules and the market subheading that the rule relates to ‘social contact‘. I don’t think it is reasonable to say working in a care home is a social activity. Certainly I don’t think it is what punters had in mind when they placed bets before this clarification.

My second issue is that I think it simply drags the market too far from the context in which is was created – and bets were placed. The market asks whether measures will be ‘re-introduced‘, and while the rules say they do not have to ‘exactly replicate previous restrictions‘ I think that wording quite heavily implies they have to be at least modestly similar.

To me it boils down to a simple question: Would a reasonable punter placing a bet when the market was opened have realised that vaccine passports for working in care homes would trigger the result? I don’t think they would, and I certainly didn’t.

The reaction of the market would seem to vindicate me on this. Since being launched in July the market has seen a few big moves, but none bigger than when this clarification was made. Clearly punters were taken by surprise. I feel this undermines the fairness of the market, and people’s bets placed before such significant rule clarifications should have the option of being voided.

I have put this to Smarkets, and they replied with a statement I reproduce below. In this case it may well turn out to be moot, since the worsening hospitalisation and death numbers mean the government may well introduce much broader measures anyway. But I do feel the main event on this market has been how the rules have changed – not the situation we are betting on – and that does leave a bad taste in my mouth.

As ever though, this is a matter of subjective judgement. Do you feel the clarification was true to the original wording, or has changed the nature of the market? On a purely pragmatic interpretation, the 1/6 still available on ‘Yes’ would seem to be free money given Smarkets have basically told us the result.

Pip Moss posts on Political Betting as Quincel. He had bets on no re-introduction of restrictions at roughly 7/4 but has now closed the position out for a loss. You can follow him on Twitter at @PipsFunFacts

Smarkets statement on this point is as follows:

The government’s guidelines state that “From 11 November 2021, all care home workers, and anyone entering a care home, will need to be fully vaccinated, unless they are exempt under the regulations.” Even if we were to ignore the market clarification on care workers, the government guidelines state that *anyone entering a care home*, not just those who work there, will be mandated to be vaccinated. The first line in the market rules states that “This market relates to whether the UK government re-introduces any legally enforceable restrictions on social contact in England related to the spread of coronavirus”. We don’t see how it could reasonably be argued that mandatory vaccines for both care workers and visitors do not satisfy those criteria (govt implemented, legally enforceable, mandatory, England-wide and related to COVID).