Now to the issue of relationship between the results for each seat. We know that each of the individual contests are not independent of each other; if there is a movement in the electorate to go one way – a swing – then all the seats, to some extent, will be affected. Yes, there will be some seats that will have issues that affect them only, but electorate “mood” will have a say in a general shift for or against the government that each seat has to contend with.

My advice, for what it is worth, to those having a bash at the Glug contest is to first make a prediction on the general swing, or lack of it, you think will occur. Then, as you go down the list, consider how your predicted swing will effect that seat, modifying your final decision by any electorate-specific issues you think should be considered. Then, I think the probability you assign should be a “brave” one: either in the nineties, or below 10. I think this will give you the best prospect of winning the competition. You have to be correct in your predictions, of course, but if you are you will gain maximum points. On this I differ from Peter Brent’s approach which was to assign probability scores the way he saw the actual probability occurring (http://www.mumble.com.au/). If Peter gets close, I think he will be beaten by someone with the same, or close to the same, predictions but who was more “confident”.

Whatever, this is good stuff. I hope Glug publish the whole results because I would love to see how close (or far away) I actually get.

The Centrebet market is quite interesting, and there is probably money to be made even now by covering the central possibilities. Mind you I can’t loose! I put $50 on labor at $1.12 early on in the piece. If I get nervous I’ll cover this by putting $2 on labout to win less than 50 seats at $20. (You’d be mad to bet on a Coalition victory at $9 when you can get $20 covering a slightly larger part of the probability space!)