WatchBecause by telling everyone he'll win, I'll make everyone want to vote for him! Humans are stupid.
If you want to know the real odds, go to a gambling site. When money is on the line, the odds are accurate and everyone agrees on them. Think about it, if there were two gambling sites, A and B, and they had different odds for the two candidates, you could make money risk free simply by betting on the "less likely" candidate on each site.
Site A: 60-40 Obama-Romney
Site B: 40-60 Obama-Romney
Bet $100,000 on Romney on site A and $100,000 on Obama on site B. Given that no third party is going to win, there are only two possible outcomes. If Romney wins, you lose $100K to site A, but win (60/40) * $100k or $150K on site B. Net profit: $50k. If Obama wins, you lose $100k to site B, but win $150k on site A. Net profit: still $50k.
Profit: 50%
Risk: 0%
The more the sites disagree, the wider the profit margins.
This is why gambling sites are more accurate than polls or supporters. Money is on the line.
This is also why none of the "I know Mr. X is going to win" people will put money where their mouths are, and why there are no partition gambling sites.
Follow
Befriend (4)
2 threads
787 comments
I'm puttin down 100K on you not winning the spelling bee....
Dan8267 says
Follow
Befriend (1)
250 threads
4,771 comments
Ruki says
With threats if need be.
Follow
Befriend
21 threads
581 comments
South Pasadena, CA
Dan, I tought you're better at math.
Would you have two sides as you stated with the predicted odds of:
"Site A: 60-40 Obama-Romney
Site B: 40-60 Obama-Romney"
it would mean that by betting 100k on the first one you would get back 150k thus winning 50k not 150k. On the second site you would bet 100k and loose them. I.e. net loss of 50k. Also some of your won 150k would be taken by the site itself.
To get the results you stated you would need a betting of 2 - 5 on the one site and 5 - 2 on the other one. Normalized to 100 that would mean bettings of about:
28.5 - 71.5 and
71.5 - 28.5
Considering the above, simultaniously betting 30 against 70 on Obama and the same on Romney would provide a nice profit. (You spend 60 on both bets, but surely win 70 on one of them.)
I wonder if such a betting is legal?
Follow
Befriend (7)
30 threads
1,222 comments
31 male
Premium
40% chance of winning = +150
So he was pretty much correct
If pinnaclesports has rmoney +150
And betfair has obama +150
You would bet 100k on each, win one lose won, for a net profit of 50k. However, your initial outlay was actually 200k, so your true realized profit is only 25%
Now you could argue that it is a riskless investment, seeing as how one of the two is going to win. Then your profit is actually infinite
But we all know there is no such thing as a riskless investment, and you certainly haven't been paying attention to what the usfedgov has done to those with accounts at these entities,,,,,
As to the question is this possible,,,well, kinda sorta before the arbitrage bots entered the game and swallowed all those spreads. So pinnacle being the most liquid market in the world, is your go to for "who will win" what, and as I posted in the other thread, the big money says that bama has near a 60% chance of being re-elected (which I've also said sounds a tad short).
Most all incumbents win re-elections in merica
And the biggest money spender always wins
While rmoney may have amassed larger personal fortune then bama, does he stand any chance at outspending the obama-goldman machine? Smart money thinks not,,,,and while americans can/will/do love a good underdog story, mitt doesn't exactly fit that mold
Follow
Befriend (16)
770 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
michaelsch says
It's not my math that's wrong, but your English. You misinterpreted what I say. Yes, the net profit is 50K.
michaelsch says
Perhaps, that's one business model. The site could also be ad revenue based or it could charge a flat fee per bet like ETrade does.
I left that part out because it's insignificant and does not add to the argument I'm making which is that political betting sites are efficient because if they were not, they would go out of business as soon as the first person does what I said. Hence, betting sites are more accurate than polls or posts of people's opinions.
michaelsch says
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002077117_bet30.html
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
errc - I always thought the politician who promises the most wins. The public can't read between the lies, but they can tell who promises to hand out the most!
Follow
Befriend (16)
770 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Honest Abe says
Wouldn't that be Ron Paul? He's the one with the most changes explicitly stated in his platform.
Follow
Befriend (28)
171 threads
4,227 comments
Premium
Hehehehehehe
Follow
Befriend (7)
30 threads
1,222 comments
31 male
Premium
Dan your link is from 2004,,,
Why are we speaking as if this is a hypothetical? These markets exist and are highly liquid
Pinnaclesports.com is the biggest/most trusted
Last election, americans were still able to utilize matchbook.com, where their model was just to pinch a penny or two for hosting the transaction, but the bettor/punter could play book and offer his own market on virtually anything. Or maybe they weren't, because I think the whole thing went kaput with Bush's housing bailout bill, there was a rider attached making electronic transfers for american bettors illegal.
Follow
Befriend (7)
30 threads
1,222 comments
31 male
Premium
http://www.pinnaclesports.com/ContestCategory/Politics/300~2A~+U~2E~S~2E~+2012+Presidential+Election/Winning+Party/Lines.aspx
If you have a canadian, or any non american friend to help you out, you can get down like charlie brown, and put your money where your mouth is.
Ahhh, how nice it must be to have the freedom to use a legitimate shop with high liquidity and fair market odds