Election Betting
Quote: EvenBob
Because 95% of the companies that do the polling always over sample Democrats if it's tied or Trump has a slim lead it actually means Trump has a substantial lead. The closer we get to the election as always the polls will tighten up because everybody wants to be as accurate as possible close to the election so they don't get laughed at and lose business.
link to original post
Absolutely correct. They call it "scientific polling," but science requires testing, and only the last poll before an election is ever tested. Thus that is the only one they can be held accountable for.
Polling companies offer private polls in elections for candidates, and those are paid for by the campaign and are not shared. The fact that campaigns would need to pay for private polls and not just use the ones published openly on websites suggests those latter are BS and everyone knows it.
This leads me to believe that the type of people who Like Trump are more likely to be the betting type.
Quote: DeucekiesWhat do the books base these betting lines on? Is it possible for them to be 100% objective without reflecting the bookmaker's personal bias?
link to original post
it is not possible for a bookmaker to offer a bet that is not based on their biases.
Quote: AxelWolfI find it hard to believe the odds should be.... Trump -160 and Harris +140
This leads me to believe that the type of people who Like Trump are more likely to be the betting type.
If the "betting type" make their bets based on certain personal preferences, their money shouldn't be moving a market.
Quote: TomGQuote: AxelWolfI find it hard to believe the odds should be.... Trump -160 and Harris +140
This leads me to believe that the type of people who Like Trump are more likely to be the betting type.
If the "betting type" make their bets based on certain personal preferences, their money shouldn't be moving a market.
link to original post
Just as significantly, in this special case of elections the market moves the results. It's a feature of human psychology that they like to choose winning teams. It's safer and provides more opportunities. And they fear being associated with the unpopular. It is the stock-in-trade of the [self-censored] Party to exploit this effect, to convince people "Everyone is voting for us." "People will think you're weird and hate you if you vote for the other guy!" And then the really dark one- "Look how unfairly and unreasonably we treated that candidate, and he can't even defend himself. What makes you think he can defend you? He can't. Unless you want us to do to you what we did to him, join us." That's why they seek out celebrity endorsements and especially those of alleged comedians, who pour out ridicule on the opposition with an undertone of "You will be subjected to the same ridicule if you openly support that party or candidate." [People in a particular age group] and members of the [self-censored] sex are especially sensitive to bullying, targeting, social ostracism and exclusion, and thus they tend to support the [self-censored] Party.
On the other side you have the kind of guy who believes pop culture and its icones are inferior to him, that they all seem to have a particular feature to their wrists, and that their scorn is a badge of honor. Those people tend to support the [self-censored] Party, with its messaging of individual merit and laissez-faire risk taking.
What this all has to do with betting is when people see these markets favoring one candidate, that "Vote for [the other candidate] or everyone will laugh at you" angle gets blunted quite effectively, being money talks and we all know what walks and the money backing that candidate weighs more than words. It even reverses it to a degree- "If you don't vote for the favorite, all these rich guys betting on the favorite will think you're a loser too." I find that troubling because these markets are relatively small by global macroeconomic standards, and a foreign state with a lot to gain/lose from a US election result could swamp those markets with their cash to create the illusion of inevitability for their preferred candidate. I suspect this is what happened in 2016 when the markets were even smaller and less regulated, and the "inevitable" candidate was a betting favorite to a degree that looked absurd to anyone walking around Main Street, USA with their eyes open.
Quote: AutomaticMonkey
Just as significantly, in this special case of elections the market moves the results.
What data is there supporting this theory?
Quote: DeucekiesWhat do the books base these betting lines on? Is it possible for them to be 100% objective without reflecting the bookmaker's personal bias?
link to original post
I doubt the bookies care at all. If $60 are bet on candidate A for every $40 bet on candidate B then candidate A is leading by 20. RCP does do some tweaking to convert the raw numbers into percentages, but it's still basically the money talking.
Note that, unlike a poll or an election where it's one person = one vote, in a pool it's one dollar = one vote. So a pool can theatrically be manipulated for propaganda reasons. In fact, I've read a few articles where such accusations have been made. But do such accusations hold water? After all, rich people are allowed to bet big and betting markets quickly self correct.
Suppose a pool has three rich punters who all bet on candidate A for a total of $30 million. The other 3,000 people in the pool each bet $100 on candidate B for a total of $300k. So the money says that candidate A wins in a landslide while the percentage of voters says the opposite.
In this scenario the bookies would have no choice but to quickly offer candidate B huge odds to try and balance the books. Now suppose that you looked at the candidates, the polls, the news and calculate that candidate A has 52% chance of winning and pays peanuts while candidate B has a 48% chance of winning while paying 100 to 1. The choice is a no brainer and who cares what your personal political affiliation is.
How much?Quote: SOOPOOI’m still willing to take Harris if anyone will give me even money. It seems someone could make an AP move by taking Harris at plus odds somewhere…..
link to original post
Quote: TomGQuote: AutomaticMonkey
Just as significantly, in this special case of elections the market moves the results.
What data is there supporting this theory?
link to original post
There isn't enough data from the era of public and widely accepted election betting markets to be useful. But just as "being famous for being famous" is a thing, so is being popular for being popular. Polls wouldn't be used as campaign propaganda if that wasn't so, and concepts like "Top 40" as a genre of music ("I like it because I've been told everyone else likes it, and I want to fit in.") wouldn't exist.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyThere isn't enough data from the era of public and widely accepted election betting markets to be useful. But just as "being famous for being famous" is a thing, so is being popular for being popular. Polls wouldn't be used as campaign propaganda if that wasn't so, and concepts like "Top 40" as a genre of music ("I like it because I've been told everyone else likes it, and I want to fit in.") wouldn't exist.
There is lots of data within music production about things that can make a song a hit. Given the amount of money in politics, if there is no data about the effect of markets on voters, that itself is very interesting.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyThere isn't enough data from the era of public and widely accepted election betting markets to be useful. But just as "being famous for being famous" is a thing, so is being popular for being popular. Polls wouldn't be used as campaign propaganda if that wasn't so, and concepts like "Top 40" as a genre of music ("I like it because I've been told everyone else likes it, and I want to fit in.") wouldn't exist.
There is lots of data within music production about things that can make a song a hit. Given the amount of money in politics, if there is no data about the effect of markets on voters, that itself is very interesting.
Quote: GialmereI doubt the bookies care at all. If $60 are bet on candidate A for every $40 bet on candidate B then candidate A is leading by 20. RCP does do some tweaking to convert the raw numbers into percentages, but it's still basically the money talking.
If a bookmaker counts every dollar equally, they could be taking less profits in exchange for less risk, which represents a definite bias.
And if don't do that and instead profile where each dollar is coming from and where the rest of the market stands to build their position, there must also be a bias in how they use that to set their lines.
Quote: AutomaticMonkey
Polling companies offer private polls in elections for candidates, and those are paid for by the campaign and are not shared. The fact that campaigns would need to pay for private polls and not just use the ones published openly on websites suggests those latter are BS and everyone knows it.
link to original post
It always cracks me up the campaigns use the public polls in their campaigns like they are gospel when they know full well they're all crap. If they were gospel they would use them privately and none of them do. They all have expensive private paid for polling that gives them a very accurate picture of what's going on but we're not allowed to see that. All we get to see is the BS polls until about the last week of the election. Never in my life have I heard anybody say I'm voting for so and so because they're high in the polls. Nobody thinks that way.
Quote: AxelWolfHow much?Quote: SOOPOOI’m still willing to take Harris if anyone will give me even money. It seems someone could make an AP move by taking Harris at plus odds somewhere…..
link to original post
link to original post
Not enough to probably interest you! I’ll go $50. Heck, even $100 if you want.
Quote: SOOPOOI’m still willing to take Harris if anyone will give me even money. It seems someone could make an AP move by taking Harris at plus odds somewhere…..
link to original post
I texted you. I'm very interested. I respect those who offered before me, but I'll take as much as action as you're likely to want.
Quote: WizardQuote: SOOPOOI’m still willing to take Harris if anyone will give me even money. It seems someone could make an AP move by taking Harris at plus odds somewhere…..
link to original post
I texted you. I'm very interested. I respect those who offered before me, but I'll take as much as action as you're likely to want.
link to original post
Wiz didn’t remember, but we have a bet already. I win $75 against my either $225 or $300. I’ll have to somehow find it. We also have a $25 bet specifically on Georgia. So we added $25 at even money today.
Quote: TomG
There is lots of data within music production about things that can make a song a hit. Given the amount of money in politics, if there is no data about the effect of markets on voters, that itself is very interesting.
link to original post
That's true, but what makes a song a hit doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the composition of the song. If it did, then the performers would know this and they would all only write songs that are hits. At the very least, they would constantly be trying to one-up each other using this formula and the quality of music would be steadily improving over the years just like the reliability of cars has but... no, that is not what has happened with music!
There's nothing as effective at making a song a hit as public perception that it is a hit. (How else would one explain Adele?) That's how the Payola Scandal worked. They knew that if people heard this song on the radio a lot, they would think "This must be what the cool kids are listening to. I had better buy the album too so I'm not left out." How it works now with the way music is sold, God knows, I don't listen to what these kids are into now. But judging by what I hear coming out of car windows these days it certainly isn't talent or art.
Certain principles of marketing transcend all applications of marketing, and the people selling us the crap candidates are pretty much the same kind of people who are selling us the crap music, movies, products etc.
Quote: EvenBob
...Never in my life have I heard anybody say I'm voting for so and so because they're high in the polls. Nobody thinks that way.
link to original post
Ah, "say it" does not equal "think it" or "rationalize it subconsciously."
It's a pretty simple calculus. If something or someone is popular, associating yourself with it will make you popular too. We've all seen it with ball caps. I see mostly Yankees and Dodgers walking around this week. Sometime early in November we will be seeing a lot more of one than the other.
This effect of perceived popularity also explains why third party candidates don't stand a chance. Sometimes there are a lot of them and I would expect there is someone down on that ballot for all of us that we agree with more than the major party candidate. And there are certain people who are very proud and outspoken and willing to be different, who will jump right up and say they're for the LP or the Greens or one of the others. But most will not, as we have an instinct where we perceive being on anything but the winning side is risky. Historically it has been. You don't want to be on the losing side of a civil war.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyThat's how the Payola Scandal worked. They knew that if people heard this song on the radio a lot, they would think "This must be what the cool kids are listening to. I had better buy the album too so I'm not left out." How it works now with the way music is sold, God knows, I don't listen to what these kids are into now. But judging by what I hear coming out of car windows these days it certainly isn't talent or art.
This is a perfect example of having data about what will make hit music and then using that data to help make hit music. Again, it is interesting that politicians and the political parties won't do the same thing, according to what you've said.
Quote: MDawgI could see some people not bothering to vote though, thinking What's the use - if the polls were very lopsided in one direction. But this might apply more to say, a Proposition, than a human candidate.
link to original post
I don't vote anymore. What's the point? I live in California so I know that the governor, both senators and all statewide elected offices will go to the blue team. My work has me living in a red part of the state so I know that my US representative, my state house and senate members along with the mayor of my town and the city council will be on the red team.
That takes us down to the school and hospital board levels. But I know nothing of them and would end up throwing darts at a board. My wife once voted for a guy because the voter book listed that he stood seven feet tall. She thought that was funny.
Then we reach the propositions. A while back, one that passed was challenged in court. Who defends it? You'd think that those who wrote the prop would, but the court (I think correctly) ruled otherwise. Since it passed, it was now the law and therefore only the state had standing to defend it. Except that, the powers that be in Sacramento didn't like it, and therefore sent nobody to defend it. With no defense, the judge had no choice but rule the new law null and void.
It was at this moment that I turned into late era George Carlin. I was a sucker. No matter where I looked in my corner of the country I was only being offered the illusion of choice, like a magician offering me to pick a card, any card.
So I don't vote. Admittedly there's some tragedy of the commons risk to my outlook, but not much. It's like one of those Wizard calculations between the advanced strategy and the perfect strategy of a casino game. The difference is so far past the decimal point that only gaming mathematicians would find it useful, as a study.
Unfortunately, the one advantage of leaving the voter rolls has eluded me. I got summoned to jury duty earlier this year.
Quote: TomGQuote: AutomaticMonkeyThere isn't enough data from the era of public and widely accepted election betting markets to be useful. But just as "being famous for being famous" is a thing, so is being popular for being popular. Polls wouldn't be used as campaign propaganda if that wasn't so, and concepts like "Top 40" as a genre of music ("I like it because I've been told everyone else likes it, and I want to fit in.") wouldn't exist.
There is lots of data within music production about things that can make a song a hit. Given the amount of money in politics, if there is no data about the effect of markets on voters, that itself is very interesting.
link to original post
There is lots of data within music production about things that can make a song a hit. Given the amount of money in politics, if there is no data about the effect of markets on voters, that itself is very interesting.
link to original post
In music that is why bankable artists get certain songs. A producer might hear it from a studio band and realize the song has "it." But far easier to just have a bankable act do it and it becomes a hit than some nobody you have to give push to.
In politics they do use known things to try to get their candidate ahead. A whole industry of advisors is out there. Too much of it, though, can be from useless to backfires. In 2016 Hillary used "Stronger Together" as her theme. Rumor has it that this was after a 10-20 ideas were focus grouped to find the "right" fit. Trump used "Make America Great Again" which sounds like something a few guys got after spitballing ideas in an evening drinking session (except Trump doesn't drink, just making the point.) Everything Hillary did or said appeared to have been poll-tested. But all that data did not move the needle.
Music, cars, politics, the big guys have a ton of data. In the end when you use this method you get a middling product that the general public does not despise but usually does not love.
Quote: TomGQuote: GialmereI doubt the bookies care at all. If $60 are bet on candidate A for every $40 bet on candidate B then candidate A is leading by 20. RCP does do some tweaking to convert the raw numbers into percentages, but it's still basically the money talking.
If a bookmaker counts every dollar equally, they could be taking less profits in exchange for less risk, which represents a definite bias.
And if don't do that and instead profile where each dollar is coming from and where the rest of the market stands to build their position, there must also be a bias in how they use that to set their lines.
link to original post
I didn’t think prediction markets had bookmakers. I thought it was a pari mutual or stock market system just matching bids and asks and taking a cut.
I’m not sure there’s sufficient liquidity in prediction markets to assert that the efficient market hypothesis applies.
How often has the betting odds predicted the correct president?Quote: EvenBobRealClearPolitics has Trump at 60 and Kamala at 38. Polymarket which is Nate Silver's favorite has Trump ahead by almost 30 points.
link to original post
Mehhh!!!!!!!Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AxelWolfHow much?Quote: SOOPOOI’m still willing to take Harris if anyone will give me even money. It seems someone could make an AP move by taking Harris at plus odds somewhere…..
link to original post
link to original post
Not enough to probably interest you! I’ll go $50. Heck, even $100 if you want.
link to original post
Not enough to make it worth remembering, transferring money, etc. $500+ ill be interested in...
Quote: AZDuffman
In music that is why bankable artists get certain songs. A producer might hear it from a studio band and realize the song has "it." But far easier to just have a bankable act do it and it becomes a hit than some nobody you have to give push to.
In politics they do use known things to try to get their candidate ahead. A whole industry of advisors is out there. Too much of it, though, can be from useless to backfires. In 2016 Hillary used "Stronger Together" as her theme. Rumor has it that this was after a 10-20 ideas were focus grouped to find the "right" fit. Trump used "Make America Great Again" which sounds like something a few guys got after spitballing ideas in an evening drinking session (except Trump doesn't drink, just making the point.) Everything Hillary did or said appeared to have been poll-tested. But all that data did not move the needle.
Music, cars, politics, the big guys have a ton of data. In the end when you use this method you get a middling product that the general public does not despise but usually does not love.
link to original post
"Make America Great Again" was actually a cover song. It was the ending of a thrilling and memorable speech by Rep. Guy Vander Jagt at the 1980 Republican convention. It would be fair to say that if political speeches were songs, that one would have been "Bohemian Rhapsody." I was too young to vote but I remember it. And it really marked the beginning of Reagan being a political and cultural superstar. The candidate who uses it now is known for a good memory and feel for "what works" and I'm certain he remembered it and also how people reacted to it.
I also feel that the focus-grouping goes too far and takes you in the wrong direction. I've seen focus groups in action and they're like any other group, in that 1 or 2 people with dominant personalities more or less take it over and guide the rest. Now in a cynical sense, isn't that all politics is after all? But I don't think it translates well to popularity because it gives you material with all the appeal of a toothpaste commercial, and people like to be challenged a little bit with a political message. A challenge makes you feel like an active participant in the process when you respond to the challenge, as opposed to the "safe" type of messaging that makes you feel like a potted plant.
An on-the-ground-of-a-battlegorund-state update that I know is meaningless. In Pittsburgh Metro the lawn signs are fairly even in Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh sits. But in the counties south it is about 10-1 Trump signs.
USA Today poll (I guess they still exist!) has Trump up 49-38 among Latinos. If that is true it is huge.
Quote: AZDuffmanJust saw I think Polymarkets has it 64-34. At this rate it will be 2:1 by the weekend barring any big news cycles.
An on-the-ground-of-a-battlegorund-state update that I know is meaningless. In Pittsburgh Metro the lawn signs are fairly even in Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh sits. But in the counties south it is about 10-1 Trump signs.
USA Today poll (I guess they still exist!) has Trump up 49-38 among Latinos. If that is true it is huge.
link to original post
So the question is whether the $30m is enough to unbalance the action such the markets are not efficient right now and Democrat wagering is +EV. Was it “smart money”, “dumb money” or money playing a game of $30m being a fair price for advertising given all the stories that are now running with Republicans getting mileage of being the favorite in the betting markets.
An interesting situation for an AP to analyze.
Quote: unJonInteresting phenomenon right now. I read a story few days back about $30m has come into election betting markets all on the Republican side of the action. It’s been traced back to three bitcoin accounts on Kraken but then no one knows.
So the question is whether the $30m is enough to unbalance the action such the markets are not efficient right now and Democrat wagering is +EV. Was it “smart money”, “dumb money” or money playing a game of $30m being a fair price for advertising given all the stories that are now running with Republicans getting mileage of being the favorite in the betting markets.
An interesting situation for an AP to analyze.
link to original post
The line might have moved because of all the action, but that does not mean it is now a good value to go the other way. It just as well means the big money got in at the right time.
Trump just came off one of the best weeks in POTUS campaigns that I remember at the same time Kamala came off one of the worst. This week is starting the same so anyone wanting to bet Kamala might do well to wait.
anybody know why the betting odds are so much different than the polls ?
the betting odds show Trump way ahead
the polls show them about even
I don't get it
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
anybody know why the betting odds are so much different than the polls ?
the betting odds show Trump way ahead
the polls show them about even
I don't get it
.
link to original post
Right now, the Dodgers are favored to win the World Series. If I place a 30 million dollar bet on the Yankees, the odds will change, and the Yankees will be favored. Some huge bets being made on Trump are changing the odds, but not the polling. I think someone is trying to use the betting odds to discredit the polls.
Quote: lilredrooster.
anybody know why the betting odds are so much different than the polls ?
the betting odds show Trump way ahead
the polls show them about even
I don't get it
.
link to original post
Because the polls are a measure of what % of the vote a candidate will get, the odds are the % chance of winning.
If a candidate is polling at 51% they have maybe a 60% chance of winning. If they are polling at 55% they have maybe a 90% chance of winning.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: lilredrooster.
anybody know why the betting odds are so much different than the polls ?
the betting odds show Trump way ahead
the polls show them about even
I don't get it
.
link to original post
Because the polls are a measure of what % of the vote a candidate will get, the odds are the % chance of winning.
If a candidate is polling at 51% they have maybe a 60% chance of winning. If they are polling at 55% they have maybe a 90% chance of winning.
link to original post
this link from 2 hours ago averages all of the polls and shows Harris ahead by 1.7%
so your answer doesn't seem to fly
Bill's answer that a big bettor may be trying to discredit the polls seems to me more likely
my suggestion for an answer is that those who favor Harris might be less likely to make bets on the outcome
Harris has a larger lead with women, and women gamble less than men
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/harris-trump-polls-tracker-election-campaign-latest-b2632912.html
.
Harris is NOT ahead, because U.S. presidents aren't chosen by the popular vote, they're chosen via the electoral college (the sum of the states' electoral votes). Hillary Clinton won the 2016 popular vote by 2.5 points but lost the election because she lost the electoral college. Here's my table showing who's ahead based on state-by-state polling. It updates automatically 3x/day. In that tally, Harris is losing.Quote: lilredroosterthis link from 2 hours ago averages all of the polls and shows Harris ahead by 1.7%
so your answer doesn't seem to fly link to original post
Quote: MichaelBluejayHarris is NOT ahead, because U.S. presidents aren't chosen by the popular vote, they're chosen via the electoral college (the sum of the states' electoral votes). Hillary Clinton won the 2016 popular vote by 2.5 points but lost the election because she lost the electoral college. Here's my table showing who's ahead based on state-by-state polling. It updates automatically 3x/day. In that tally, Harris is losing.Quote: lilredroosterthis link from 2 hours ago averages all of the polls and shows Harris ahead by 1.7%
so your answer doesn't seem to fly link to original post
link to original post
Are you using the "Real Clear Politics" polling?
Which polling, in your opinion, seem to be the most accurate?
tuttigym
Because if a line shift does change the emotional state of the electorate, than the $30 million in mystery money might be an attempt to change the US presidential election by influencing voter turnout. Not by a candidate, I think, but by a wealthy nation state that feels like it has a stake in the American presidential election. (just doing some blue sky imagining.) You know, Israel, Russia, China, Iran for example.
Quote: MichaelBluejayHarris is NOT ahead, because U.S. presidents aren't chosen by the popular vote, they're chosen via the electoral college (the sum of the states' electoral votes). Hillary Clinton won the 2016 popular vote by 2.5 points but lost the election because she lost the electoral college. Here's my table showing who's ahead based on state-by-state polling. It updates automatically 3x/day. In that tally, Harris is losing.Quote: lilredroosterthis link from 2 hours ago averages all of the polls and shows Harris ahead by 1.7%
so your answer doesn't seem to fly link to original post
link to original post
yes, I accept the point you made
it's worth noting that in the so called "battleground" states the margin favoring Trump is very small - less than 1% in 3 states
and in the other 3 states less than 2%
and in the 2 where Harris is favored it is less than 1%
based on the link the margin of error is fairly large
my understanding is the smaller the no. of participants, the greater the margin of error
so, that would mean the margin of error re the states is greater than the margin of error re the raw national count
would you agree with that______?
and what is your estimation of the margin of error in the battleground states__________?
thanks
edit - the 2nd link has some interesting info on why polls were incorrect in some ways in 2016 and 2020
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/09/08/understanding-the-margin-of-error-in-election-polls/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-polls-were-mostly-wrong/
.
Quote: lilredrooster
yes, I accept the point you made
it's worth noting that in the so called "battleground" states the margin favoring Trump is very small -
link to original post
The fact that Trump is ahead at all is significant because like I said before all these polls over sample Democrats, sometimes by a large amount. Nobody ever oversamples Republicans. For example even though this is the national results in 2020 Joe Biden led Donald Trump by eight points before the election. He won the election by four points which is not even close to what the polls said. So if Trump is ahead now by a small amount in the Battleground States you can safely add a couple points to that, possibly even more. I think that's what we're seeing reflected in the betting, why Trump is ahead by 30 points at polymarket.
It's not my estimation, every pollster publishes the margin of error with their polls. It's typically 1-3%. So yes, the election could go either way, because Trump's lead is within the margin of error.Quote: lilredroosterwhat is your estimation of the margin of error in the battleground states
I stopped reading SA at the first paragraph when they harped on how the polls were "wrong" in 2016. They weren't, the results were within the margin of error. And in 2020, the difference between actual results and polling results in NV was 0.01 points (not 1% point, 0.01 points). In PA it was 0.04. In AZ and GA it was 0.59 and 0.76, less than 1 point. Only in WI was it wildly off, 6.07 points.Quote: lilredroosterthe 2nd link has some interesting info on why polls were incorrect in some ways in 2016 and 2020
When there is a polling error, it's generally that it underestimates Trump's support. Trump tends to do very slightly better than his polling, but very slightly better is enough to win elections.
This year the election might end up just as close, and the current polls could support a victory in either direction.
What were the 2016, polls right before the election in PA, MI and WI anyway? How about in 2020?
Quote: billryanQuote: lilredrooster.
anybody know why the betting odds are so much different than the polls ?
the betting odds show Trump way ahead
the polls show them about even
I don't get it
.
link to original post
Right now, the Dodgers are favored to win the World Series. If I place a 30 million dollar bet on the Yankees, the odds will change, and the Yankees will be favored. Some huge bets being made on Trump are changing the odds, but not the polling. I think someone is trying to use the betting odds to discredit the polls.
link to original post
There's a very nonlinear relationship between polling results and outcomes, being the outcomes are binary.So if the polling results were plus or minus 20% the night before the election the betting odds aren't going to be 60-40, they're going to be more like 99-1.
Trying to avoid writing in a partisan manner because I know it isn't welcome... many people view the results of the 2020 election as an artifact, created with some very bold and ruthless moves that were unprecedented in the US. How we ended up with one candidate in their current position is also unprecedented. In my opinion, the betting odds represent a battle between those predicting "They're going to pull it off again" and "No way, not this time and with candidates and positions this offensive."
I would love to know what betting sites would allow 3 accounts to get down 30m in BTC on one side.Quote: unJonInteresting phenomenon right now. I read a story few days back about $30m has come into election betting markets all on the Republican side of the action. It’s been traced back to three bitcoin accounts on Kraken but then no one knows.
So the question is whether the $30m is enough to unbalance the action such the markets are not efficient right now and Democrat wagering is +EV. Was it “smart money”, “dumb money” or money playing a game of $30m being a fair price for advertising given all the stories that are now running with Republicans getting mileage of being the favorite in the betting markets.
An interesting situation for an AP to analyze.
link to original post
I'm highly skeptical of their story.
Quote: AxelWolfI would love to know what betting sites would allow 3 accounts to get down 30m in BTC on one side.Quote: unJonInteresting phenomenon right now. I read a story few days back about $30m has come into election betting markets all on the Republican side of the action. It’s been traced back to three bitcoin accounts on Kraken but then no one knows.
So the question is whether the $30m is enough to unbalance the action such the markets are not efficient right now and Democrat wagering is +EV. Was it “smart money”, “dumb money” or money playing a game of $30m being a fair price for advertising given all the stories that are now running with Republicans getting mileage of being the favorite in the betting markets.
An interesting situation for an AP to analyze.
link to original post
I'm highly skeptical of their story.
link to original post
Reports identify the four accounts and list the bets. One account Theoxxxxx made over 2500 individual bets, and a Freda account, previously linked to Theos account made almost the identical bets. Business Week has the breakdown.
"There's $628.5 million wagered on Trump, compared with $416.6 million wagered on a Harris victory" referring to the Polymarket betting market.
"Kalshi, another betting market that recently received approval from a US federal appeals court to operate and take election wagers from US-based bettors, is also skewed heavily toward Trump, at 57% versus 43% for Harris.
So, it's unclear that the $30 million of coordinated betting on Trump makes an enormous difference in the line.
