Similarities between betting patterns in the run-up to the US Presidential Election and the EU Referendum is leading investors to question whether another surprise result could be on the cards.
More money is backing Hillary Clinton to win the race to the White House and bookmakers' odds indicate the Democratic candidate is most likely to win.
But the vast majority of individual wagers are favouring Donald Trump - the same pattern as in the run-up to the surprise Brexit result, according to a Bloomberg report.
FAVOURITE-LONGSHOT BIAS
Unusual? Not really, admits industry veteran Graham Sharpe at William Hill in an interview with Shares. Punters with small stakes tend to prefer long-shots, a feature academics have identified in many markets including finance as favourite-longshot bias.
'You can explain it quite easily,' says Sharpe. 'If you have someone betting £10 on a binary race you will probably tend to back the underdog - there's not much point betting that amount on a heavy favourite.'
Smaller though more numerous bets were placed on a 'Leave' vote in the EU Referendum than the larger, less frequent bets on 'Remain' which ultimately lost.
But the same trend was also present in the Scotland Independence Referendum vote when the underdog 'Leave' position lost.
SCOTTISH REFERENDUM
'It was similar in the Scotland Referendum to be honest going back that far and it was pretty close but ultimately the favourite won,' adds Sharp.
'There have been some big political upsets recently like the UK General Election. You could still back the Conservatives at long odds on the day of voting. In the Labour leadership election Jeremy Corbyn was a complete outsider.
'Certainly, in the Brexit vote there were more close parallels to the US election than many others and one factor is not necessarily being considered. With Brexit, you had a Westminster elite that were trying to pour scorn on people associated with the Leave campaign and so people perhaps felt less comfortable telling pollsters how they would be voting.
'Trump has been demonised by the media, particularly in this country and depending on your view how neutral the media should be... as a former journalist myself I have been a little uncomfortable about that.
'People in the US say it is the same over there, so voters may not bring up their intentions to vote for Trump in polls. And that could be a factor when the votes are cast and in the post mortem after the result.'
Bets for Trump versus Clinton at William Hill recently have been in the region of 70% in favour of the Republican by volume.
CLINTON WIN FAVOURS BOOKIE
Sharpe claims William Hill will lose money if Trump becomes President and make money on a vote for Clinton - an unusual situation for a bookmaker. Bookmakers are generally believed to lose money when favourites win and make money on underdog victories.
Large early bets - the market for 2016 President was opened four years ago - on Trump at long odds mean it's unlikely the company's book will be balanced at the final result, Sharpe says.
He adds there was a similar situation when Leicester won the Premier League last year. William Hill lost money on the Foxes' surprise title win, Sharpe claims, because so many people backed Leicester at long odds early in the season.
The difference in William Hill's US election book on both sides is around €300,000 (£265,000) on a total take of €550,000, Sharpe confirms.
Part of the reason for this will be because a larger volume of bets were placed on Clinton at shorter odds, meaning a smaller pay-out for William Hill. Earlier bets on eliminated candidates are included in the total.
