Eleven three l global business news twenty four hours a day at Bloomberg dot com, the Radio plus Molobile lap and on your radio. This is a Bloomberg Business flag from Bloomberg World Handquaters. I'm Charlie Pellett. Stocks plunge the most in ten months. We are brought to you by the American Arbitration Association, the International Trade or Business Dispute Resolve Faster with the International Center for Dispute Resolution, the leader in Alternative Dispute resolution around the world. I see
d R dot org. US stocks joined us sell off in global risk assets on speculation that the UK decision to leave the European Union will hamper worldwide growth. Equities sank to session lows in afternoon trading that now got down more than six hundred fifty points. It ends the Friday session at seventeen thousand, three hundred ninety nine, down six hundred eleven points, a decline today of three point
four percent. SMP five hundred index down seventy six so dropped there of three point six percent, Stack down four point one percent. The tenure yield now at one point five six percent. Gold surged fifty seven dollars the ounce one again there of four point six percent. Sterling got to a thirty year low. I'm Charlie Pellett. That's a Bloomberg business flash. You're listening to taking Stock with Pim Fox and Kathleen Hayes on Bloomberg Radio. There are analysts,
there are strategists, and then there are bookmakers. Steve Boudden is the chief executive of pick nation dot com. He's also the vice president of Gaming Nation and uh Well. Pick Nation is the world's largest online pay per view analysis site in the sports handicapping industry. Here to help us explain what went right and what went wrong in handicapping the vote for Brexit. Steve Boudin from Miami Beach. Steve, thanks for being with us. It's so good to be
with you. So we've keep kind of characterizing it is what did the bookmakers get wrong? But it's not really the bookmakers correct. It's those people placing the bets. You know you got it right that you know, it's so funny. The biggest misconception in the bookmaking business is that every bookmaker has some Chinese guy in the back room with a syllabus and a calculator trying to figure out what the odds of the games are going to be. But just like any market in the world, the odds are
not determined by the oddsmakers. The odds are determined by the betters. And for instanance football, the lines come out the night after the games, with the same night to the games end Sunday the games and Sunday night the new lines for the next week come out and those lines get bet all week long until Sunday, and you could start every game and pick them, but by the time it got the Sunday, that line is going to be the correct line according to the market. So, uh.
The There's a lot of people talking though about how the bookies got it wrong when it comes to this political vote, which is not exactly like um, you know, not a like uh like a sporting event, although I guess it is. There's a story in the Independence saying the guy who is the head of political betting at lad lad Brokes, he just says people were over confident
on Ron remaining. But does this just kind of show the the folly of relying on something like the odds the bookies are caring to determine whatever outcome is going to happen when it comes to America, and in the past, the bookies have never been wrong in predicting a president. Only, like I said, saying that like you're the host initially said and alluded to saying that the bookies predict anything is just in and of itself disingenuous because it doesn't happen.
The it's the who didn't, who got it so wrong, or the betters, And I believe the unique scenario here was there was a genuine disconnect between the people um in Britain that actually have access to bookmakers and disposable income to bet with bookmakers and time in their day to talk to their friends about what they think they're gonna bet on and then actually go down take time out of their day to go down to the place
to make the bet. Well, those people all probably we're going to vote remain because remaining probably helped those people in life or didn't hurt those people as much. But the rest of the country, who's hurting and who needs change and who doesn't like the direction of the country and it doesn't have the disposable income and the means and the wherewithal in the mindset to go down and actually place a bet with a bookmaker and take that kind of time out of their day for a luxury
activity like that. Well, they're all the people that were betting out and exit, and they weren't being represented in the bookmaking vote like they normally are during the soccer games because they didn't have time to make a bet on political outcomes. This outcome was much more than just a bet for them, you know, in their minds, it's
their whole life and livelihood. And I don't think for the first time, I don't think that that vote was represented in the betting because those people just don't have the time to bet. Steve, you bring up an interesting point because whether it is a sports book or in this case, betting on a political outcome, it is the
constituency of who is actually part of the event. For example, if you're talking about a team, you can analyze a team from the outside, but if you are in fact part of the electorate, and as you just described, don't participate in the bookmaking process, it's not as if anything is wrong. It just means that you don't have a really decent and coherent sample. Is that accurate? That's exactly correct. That is exactly correct. In this case, the people that
were betting, we were disproportionately represented. So can you apply that to other things? So, for example, if you're betting on other types of events, or indeed on the other types of sports events, you don't want to really know about the event. You want to know about the other who are betting and participate. That's exactly correct. And that's the difference between what we call in our business knowing sharp money versus sucker money. And by the way, sucker
is a derogatory term. That doesn't really mean something so derogatory. It just means that somebody is behind the bookmaker on the information chain. If the game moves from four to four and a half, the bookmaker knows it before the customer. If the customer knows it before the bookmaker, he's a wise guy. He's not a he's a he's a sharpie. He's not a sucker. If he knows it after the bookmaker, he's a sucker, meaning that he's a retail customer versus
a wholet sale customer. You know, if here, but if very would have been great for people to hear this conversation before the vote, because it seems to me the logical conclusion is if you'd realize that there's a very limited pool of people who might be voting to leave, who are betting, you could have made money saying Aha, that's not a great gauge. I'm going to take those odds right and vote to leave. I could have made a lot of money. Well, let me tell you something.
As an analyst who makes his money analyzing games before the game start, I can tell you it is so much easier to analyze something after it's happened than before it starts. So in this case we get the luxury of seeing the cause and effect and then going and saying, Wow, why did this happen? And that's always a lot easier to figure out than trying to figure it out before
it happened. Um, and I think in this case, you know, it's shocked everybody that you know that it was so wrong, and searching for that answer, we figured out that hey, wait a second, these people that are voting exit, they're not being represented in this book making call. Steve Booton, thank you so very much. We'll look forward to talking to you again as the presidential racing United States heats up. The CEO picnation dot Com joining us from Miami Beach.
This is taking Stock on Bloomberg Radio. Coming up on taking Stock, we're going to take stock of oil and energy with fuddel Gate, Managing director, oil and gas analysts for Oppenheimer and Company. You're listening to taking Stock on Bloomberg Radio.