Election Betting
Quote: EvenBobQuote: FinsRuleMy lock for this election is that most people will say afterwards “The polls were wrong.”
link to original post
For Trump the polls are always wrong because they tremendously over sampled the Democrats in 2016 and in 2020. You can bet they are doing the same thing this time. So yes the polls will be wrong just like they were wrong in 1980 when Carter was in a dead heat with Reagan four days before the election and Carter lost in one of the biggest landslides in American history. But not according to the polls.
link to original post
Fun fact: no political party has even been underestimated in three consecutive Presidential cycles.
Source: https://x.com/forecasterenten/status/1851252060131307672?s=46
Maybe, but the polls in the swing states in 2020 were remarkably accurate (e.g., NV and PA off by only 0.01% and 0.04% points), except in WI where the error was 6 points in Trump's favor. If the polls are as accurate/inaccurate as last time, Harris has lost. As per my state tracker, in PA she's behind by 0.5 points, and in WI (where there was a big polling error last time) she's ahead by only 0.7 points.Quote: FinsRuleMy lock for this election is that most people will say afterwards “The polls were wrong.”
link to original post
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cGIgNGnq8ws
You had to tease me with "29 Freaking Awsome Gadgets"Quote: TinManThis is from about 2 months ago. I saved a screenshot because I noticed that the author doesn’t understand how to interpret betting odds. Says Harris is favored to win over Trump when her odds were +112 and Trump was -102. The odd part is the author seems to understand that the -323 for Clinton indicated that she was a betting favorite.
link to original post
Quote: ams288Interesting to hear what the campaigns are seeing vs. what the betting markets are thinking.
link to original post
Warning. I don't like to see people just throw out a link and ask how it is affecting betting market as a way to bypass the rules for this thread. You can can discuss the matter all you want at DT.
Quote: WizardQuote: ams288Interesting to hear what the campaigns are seeing vs. what the betting markets are thinking.
link to original post
Warning. I don't like to see people just throw out a link and ask how it is affecting betting market as a way to bypass the rules for this thread. You can can discuss the matter all you want at DT.
link to original post
What part of the link breaks the rules of this thread? The article is explicitly about how the campaigns are doing in the swing states.
It certainly gives us a better view into who’s winning than the betting markets or RCP.
Quote: ams288What part of the link breaks the rules of this thread? The article is explicitly about how the campaigns are doing in the swing states.
It certainly gives us a better view into who’s winning than the betting markets or RCP.
link to original post
I just don't like it in general when people throw out a link and say "discuss." It's lazy. For a post to be kosher in this thread it should DIRECTLY be about betting the election. It is not kosher to discuss events leading up to the election and throw out the question at the end "I wonder how this affects the betting market."
Quote: WizardQuote: ams288What part of the link breaks the rules of this thread? The article is explicitly about how the campaigns are doing in the swing states.
It certainly gives us a better view into who’s winning than the betting markets or RCP.
link to original post
I just don't like it in general when people throw out a link and say "discuss." It's lazy. For a post to be kosher in this thread it should DIRECTLY be about betting the election. It is not kosher to discuss events leading up to the election and throw out the question at the end "I wonder how this affects the betting market."
link to original post
Okay, and where is EB’s warning for this weird pointless post?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/online/34308-election-betting/23/#post939955
Quote: AxelWolfYou had to tease me with "29 Freaking Awsome Gadgets"Quote: TinManThis is from about 2 months ago. I saved a screenshot because I noticed that the author doesn’t understand how to interpret betting odds. Says Harris is favored to win over Trump when her odds were +112 and Trump was -102. The odd part is the author seems to understand that the -323 for Clinton indicated that she was a betting favorite.
link to original post
link to original post
How many times did you try to click the (non-)link? I tried twice, just to make sure I couldn’t follow it!
Quote: camaplQuote: AxelWolfYou had to tease me with "29 Freaking Awsome Gadgets"Quote: TinManThis is from about 2 months ago. I saved a screenshot because I noticed that the author doesn’t understand how to interpret betting odds. Says Harris is favored to win over Trump when her odds were +112 and Trump was -102. The odd part is the author seems to understand that the -323 for Clinton indicated that she was a betting favorite.
link to original post
link to original post
How many times did you try to click the (non-)link? I tried twice, just to make sure I couldn’t follow it!
link to original post
Did I read that right? +112 is a favorite over -102?
Quote: TinManThe only thing I can think of is that when they originally drafted the article Harris was a small favorite in the betting market. Then the line moved and an editor updated the numbers shortly before publication without realizing it didn’t make sense with the text of the article.
link to original post
Thanks, at least I did not read it wrong. Could indeed be links changing.
I'm still trying 🙆♂️Quote: camaplQuote: AxelWolfYou had to tease me with "29 Freaking Awsome Gadgets"Quote: TinManThis is from about 2 months ago. I saved a screenshot because I noticed that the author doesn’t understand how to interpret betting odds. Says Harris is favored to win over Trump when her odds were +112 and Trump was -102. The odd part is the author seems to understand that the -323 for Clinton indicated that she was a betting favorite.
link to original post
link to original post
How many times did you try to click the (non-)link? I tried twice, just to make sure I couldn’t follow it!
link to original post
https://heebrand.com/coolest-gifts/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_id=21806049746&utm_content=169140053215&utm_term=cool%20gifts&creativeId=717084988316&adgroupid=169140053215&targetid=kwd-12080381&gclid=Cj0KCQjw1Yy5BhD-ARIsAI0RbXaRzTevvM5xvWKaBFkxzdDcySBadJSmij7HBfIuAKeE-M1ymSYf0XQaAgSMEALw_wcB&gad_source=1
Quote:Marist polls
Pennsylvania Harris +2
Wisconsin Harris +2
Michigan Harris +3
Quote: ams288Marist (gold standard pollster) out with their final “blue wall” state polls.
Quote:Marist polls
Pennsylvania Harris +2
Wisconsin Harris +2
Michigan Harris +3
link to original post
What makes a gold standard pollster? How accurate were they in 2020 in those states with their final poll? What about 2022?
Quote: unJonQuote: ams288Marist (gold standard pollster) out with their final “blue wall” state polls.
Quote:Marist polls
Pennsylvania Harris +2
Wisconsin Harris +2
Michigan Harris +3
link to original post
What makes a gold standard pollster? How accurate were they in 2020 in those states with their final poll? What about 2022?
link to original post
They did pretty damn good on PA in 2022. They were one of the only ones to show the Oz-Fetterman race wasn’t as close as everyone thought.
Since WW1, over a hundred years ago, Wall Street has almost always gone up when the administration is expected to go another four years and has declined when it seemed a new regime would be taking over. Wall St. loves continually and certainty.
It's not a perfect barometer, but it usually tells us which way the winds are blowing. Some will argue that the uptick is in anticipation of a new leader, but that isn't the historic interpretation
As I said earlier, the poll average in most swing states was remarkably accurate last time, and if it's the same accuracy this time, Harris will lose.
Quote: billryanWhile gamblers are flooding the books with bets on Trump, Wall Street seems to be counting on a Harris win.
link to original post
Actually, no.
Wall Street has priced in a Trump win for some time.
Wall Street has already priced in a Trump victory—just look at European stocks and the inflation market
The Trump Trade: Why Wall Street Is Betting on a Trump Win
Trump’s stock surges as traders predict an election victory
It is only in recent days that there have been some sell offs as uncertainty is building up.
In November 2016, when Trump won, the initial reaction election night was a meltdown in DOW futures, triggering stops in fact. By morning, this had settled to around -200 and the DOW roared from there on. But the Nasdaq was pummeled for some time, tech stocks crashing day after day, until the Nasdaq and tech stocks too, eventually went up.
But the market is more or less at all time highs now, so it really doesn't seem to matter much who is President, in the long term.
Quote: billryanWhile gamblers are flooding the books with bets on Trump, Wall Street seems to be counting on a Harris win.
Since WW1, over a hundred years ago, Wall Street has almost always gone up when the administration is expected to go another four years and has declined when it seemed a new regime would be taking over.
link to original post
Biden out either way so, closer to regime change in comparison to the data set. Maybe not closer to regime change as just saying there’s essentially no historical sample to draw from. If we consider it a continuation of the same administration, then Kamala would be quite an outlier/edge case in the historical data set with only George Bush Sr as a comparable case.
Surprisingly, Bush Sr. is the first and last president since 1840 to be elected immediately after serving as VP. All other prior VP’s serving as president since then either replaced after a death/resignation, or had a pause between VP/presidency like Biden.
Quote: MichaelBluejayMarist doesn't seem "gold standard" to me. I found only two state polls close to the 2020 election. In NC, they were off by a whopping 7.35 points. In PA, they were off by 3.34 points.
As I said earlier, the poll average in most swing states was remarkably accurate last time, and if it's the same accuracy this time, Harris will lose.
link to original post
Which average are you talking about?
Does this average weigh polls based on how good they are? Any average that weighs crap polls like Rasmussen, Tralfagar, InsiderAdvantage, etc. the same as real pollsters is kinda worthless.
Quote: ams288Quote: MichaelBluejayMarist doesn't seem "gold standard" to me. I found only two state polls close to the 2020 election. In NC, they were off by a whopping 7.35 points. In PA, they were off by 3.34 points.
As I said earlier, the poll average in most swing states was remarkably accurate last time, and if it's the same accuracy this time, Harris will lose.
link to original post
Which average are you talking about?
Does this average weigh polls based on how good they are? Any average that weighs crap polls like Rasmussen, Tralfagar, InsiderAdvantage, etc. the same as real pollsters is kinda worthless.
link to original post
Not if it supports your positions.
Quote: ams288Quote: MichaelBluejayMarist doesn't seem "gold standard" to me. I found only two state polls close to the 2020 election. In NC, they were off by a whopping 7.35 points. In PA, they were off by 3.34 points.
As I said earlier, the poll average in most swing states was remarkably accurate last time, and if it's the same accuracy this time, Harris will lose.
link to original post
Which average are you talking about?
Does this average weigh polls based on how good they are? Any average that weighs crap polls like Rasmussen, Tralfagar, InsiderAdvantage, etc. the same as real pollsters is kinda worthless.
link to original post
I recommend you go to the RealClearPolitics site and study it and the polls that underly the RCP averages that are cited.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: ams288Quote: MichaelBluejayMarist doesn't seem "gold standard" to me. I found only two state polls close to the 2020 election. In NC, they were off by a whopping 7.35 points. In PA, they were off by 3.34 points.
As I said earlier, the poll average in most swing states was remarkably accurate last time, and if it's the same accuracy this time, Harris will lose.
link to original post
Which average are you talking about?
Does this average weigh polls based on how good they are? Any average that weighs crap polls like Rasmussen, Tralfagar, InsiderAdvantage, etc. the same as real pollsters is kinda worthless.
link to original post
I recommend you go to the RealClearPolitics site and study it and the polls that underly the RCP averages that are cited.
link to original post
I’ve made my feelings about RCP very clear repeatedly in this thread.
They suck. Extremely biased.
this Washington Post story from yesterday afternoon indicates that polling shows Harris with a large lead among early voters
https://archive.ph/hqRWB
.
Quote: mcallister3200Quote: billryanWhile gamblers are flooding the books with bets on Trump, Wall Street seems to be counting on a Harris win.
Since WW1, over a hundred years ago, Wall Street has almost always gone up when the administration is expected to go another four years and has declined when it seemed a new regime would be taking over.
link to original post
Biden out either way so, closer to regime change in comparison to the data set. Maybe not closer to regime change as just saying there’s essentially no historical sample to draw from. If we consider it a continuation of the same administration, then Kamala would be quite an outlier/edge case in the historical data set with only George Bush Sr as a comparable case.
Surprisingly, Bush Sr. is the first and last president since 1840 to be elected immediately after serving as VP. All other prior VP’s serving as president since then either replaced after a death/resignation, or had a pause between VP/presidency like Biden.
link to original post
I remember that bring big news back then. Party fatigue usually sets in making it a hard run.
I see the Pinnacle lines are:
Trump: -173
Harris: +154
Meanwhile, PredictIt has it dead even.
Such huge arbitrage opportunities this election.
If any trusted forum member will give me Harris +150, let me know.
Well, here in the actual reality, RCP average was dead on the money in 2020, e.g. having PA at 1.2 points and Biden winning PA by...1.2 points. And extremely close in almost all the other swing states (and in the state they were off, they overestimated Biden's support, not Trump's). And RCP's average includes your despised Rasmussen, which actually had Biden up by 3 points. Yeah, shocking amount of bias towards Trump there.Quote: ams288Which average are you talking about?
Does this average weigh polls based on how good they are? Any average that weighs crap polls like Rasmussen, Tralfagar, InsiderAdvantage, etc. the same as real pollsters is kinda worthless.
...
I’ve made my feelings about RCP very clear repeatedly in this thread. They suck. Extremely biased.
link to original post
So, you can squawk all you want about how the extremely accurate polls are supposedly biased and incompetent, but that says more about you than the integrity of the polls.
Quote: MichaelBluejayWell, here in the actual reality, RCP average was dead on the money in 2020, e.g. having PA at 1.2 points and Biden winning PA by...1.2 points. And extremely close in almost all the other swing states (and in the state they were off, they overestimated Biden's support, not Trump's). And RCP's average includes your despised Rasmussen, which actually had Biden up by 3 points. Yeah, shocking amount of bias towards Trump there.Quote: ams288Which average are you talking about?
Does this average weigh polls based on how good they are? Any average that weighs crap polls like Rasmussen, Tralfagar, InsiderAdvantage, etc. the same as real pollsters is kinda worthless.
...
I’ve made my feelings about RCP very clear repeatedly in this thread. They suck. Extremely biased.
link to original post
So, you can squawk all you want about how the extremely accurate polls are supposedly biased and incompetent, but that says more about you than the integrity of the polls.
link to original post
Have you ever heard the expression “a broken clock is right twice a day?”
If you can’t admit that Rasmussen is a terrible pollster, I don’t know how to help you.
"In the 11 presidential elections since 1980, the only race where the winning candidate had worse odds than the losing candidate was in 2016, where both the betting markets and conventional polling failed to predict a Trump win." Newsweek magazine October 7th 2024
Quote: WizardI recently posted that I bet another $1,000 on Harris at +175. The way I did that was I sent a friend $1,000 with an account on Kalshi who then deposited it there. However, it took three days for the deposit to clear. By the time it did, the odds had fallen from +175 to +127. That is a huge drop in three days. I told him to forget it and return my $1,000.
I see the Pinnacle lines are:
Trump: -173
Harris: +154
Meanwhile, PredictIt has it dead even.
Such huge arbitrage opportunities this election.
If any trusted forum member will give me Harris +150, let me know.
link to original post
Curious question. What is your line between arbitrage and thou shall not hedge? Not an insult but for education. Use is for ask wizard if you like.
I find it impossible to have much confidence about anything (other than control of the Senate.)
And to confound the election fatigue that is gripping almost everyone, the ballot counting may take many days in some swing states (Pennsylvania and Arizona, for example). Perhaps we should be betting on which day the election will be called?
I’m the slightest lean toward Trump. But I could change that guess 10 times before Tuesday.
Quote: FinsRuleYou hit it on the head. There should be no confidence in which side will prevail. I don’t trust anyone who says they are sure.
I’m the slightest lean toward Trump. But I could change that guess 10 times before Tuesday.
link to original post
But -175 on Trump just seems like an awful bet. You’re much better off predicting how much he wins by and getting a price on that.
That’s why I think a lot of the money in these pools is not “smart money”
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymIs there any correlation between the actual NUMBER of bets placed vs the amounts of each bet? To further define my question, if there are more bettors wagering on one candidate than the other will that reflect a voting priority as well?
tuttigym
link to original post
in general those who accept bets don't provide that information
the exception is if and when there is a very large bet out there
tongues start wagging
it's pretty safe to assume that if one Candidate is leading by a lot that more bets have been placed on him than on his rival
I believe Harris is favored by women over Trump
and I believe more men make this type of bet than women - it is similar to a sports bet
so, I believe that the greater amount of betting for Trump may not be a true reflection of how the voting will go down
.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: WizardI recently posted that I bet another $1,000 on Harris at +175. The way I did that was I sent a friend $1,000 with an account on Kalshi who then deposited it there. However, it took three days for the deposit to clear. By the time it did, the odds had fallen from +175 to +127. That is a huge drop in three days. I told him to forget it and return my $1,000.
I see the Pinnacle lines are:
Trump: -173
Harris: +154
Meanwhile, PredictIt has it dead even.
Such huge arbitrage opportunities this election.
If any trusted forum member will give me Harris +150, let me know.
link to original post
Curious question. What is your line between arbitrage and thou shall not hedge? Not an insult but for education. Use is for ask wizard if you like.
link to original post
I would define arbitrage as betting on opposite events SIMULTANEOUSLY resulting in a guaranteed overall win.
I would define hedging as betting the second bet sometimes AFTER the first bet.
Quote: AZDuffmanA question I do not see anyone thinking on is, "is Trump's betting moneyline going down because all the money going on him is already in?"
link to original post
Of course not. All the money is NEVER in! If the odds are in your favor you will always find more money. Or at least the public will. Why would you think that Trump supporters put ‘all their money’ in already but Harris supporters haven’t?
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: tuttigymIs there any correlation between the actual NUMBER of bets placed vs the amounts of each bet? To further define my question, if there are more bettors wagering on one candidate than the other will that reflect a voting priority as well?
tuttigym
link to original post
in general those who accept bets don't provide that information
the exception is if and when there is a very large bet out there
tongues start wagging
it's pretty safe to assume that if one Candidate is leading by a lot that more bets have been placed on him than on his rival
I believe Harris is favored by women over Trump
and I believe more men make this type of bet than women - it is similar to a sports bet
so, I believe that the greater amount of betting for Trump may not be a true reflection of how the voting will go down
.
link to original post
I make these bets not on who I want to win, but which candidate I think, GIVEN THE ODDS, is a good bet. I think Harris will win. Give me 3-1 and I’ll bet a boatload on Trump. Give me 3-1 and I’ll bet a boatload on Harris.
Wiz has bets on both candidates, made at different times, depending on what odds were being offered at the time.
Quote: EvenBobI read that in the last 11 presidential elections since 1980 the person leading in the betting odds the day before the election won the election 10 out of 11 times. The only time they lost was when Trump beat Hillary in 2016. Right now Trump has a massive lead in the betting markets. He has a 23-point lead on the RCP site.
"In the 11 presidential elections since 1980, the only race where the winning candidate had worse odds than the losing candidate was in 2016, where both the betting markets and conventional polling failed to predict a Trump win." Newsweek magazine October 7th 2024
link to original post
The betting favorite won 91% of the time in the last 40 years. I would say that's a pretty good hit rate and not something I would bet against. Because there's money involved people are generally very thorough in their investigation of who to vote for and this seems to be as good as any poll. I know what caused the upset in 2016 but we're not allowed to talk about that in this thread.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AZDuffmanA question I do not see anyone thinking on is, "is Trump's betting moneyline going down because all the money going on him is already in?"
link to original post
Of course not. All the money is NEVER in! If the odds are in your favor you will always find more money. Or at least the public will. Why would you think that Trump supporters put ‘all their money’ in already but Harris supporters haven’t?
link to original post
All the money? No. But most? Trump was going up fast so that probably drew money in faster.
I hesitated about including the bit about Rasmussen because I suspected you would both miss the point as well as ignore the evidence that RCP's average is historically accurate. So, you're predictable, I'll give you that.Quote: ams288Have you ever heard the expression “a broken clock is right twice a day?”
If you can’t admit that Rasmussen is a terrible pollster, I don’t know how to help you.
link to original post
You declare that RCP "sucks" and is "extremely biased", despite their historical accuracy, because "a stuck clock is right twice a day". So, if we shouldn't use a pollster's actual track record to evaluate them, how should we actually evaluate them? Oh wait, you already answered, declare them to be "gold standard" if they give you the answer you want to hear.
Your criteria apparently applies even if the pollster is nearly NEVER accurate:
2020 Presidential Election
So, RCP "sucks" and just got lucky, and Marist is a "gold standard" and just got UNlucky? Somehow I'm unconvinced.
Quote: AZDuffmanCurious question. What is your line between arbitrage and thou shall not hedge? Not an insult but for education. Use is for ask wizard if you like.
link to original post
You should hedge if the hedge bet is positive or neutral. The commandment is more of a general statement.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: EvenBobI read that in the last 11 presidential elections since 1980 the person leading in the betting odds the day before the election won the election 10 out of 11 times. The only time they lost was when Trump beat Hillary in 2016. Right now Trump has a massive lead in the betting markets. He has a 23-point lead on the RCP site.
"In the 11 presidential elections since 1980, the only race where the winning candidate had worse odds than the losing candidate was in 2016, where both the betting markets and conventional polling failed to predict a Trump win." Newsweek magazine October 7th 2024
link to original post
The betting favorite won 91% of the time in the last 40 years. I would say that's a pretty good hit rate and not something I would bet against. Because there's money involved people are generally very thorough in their investigation of who to vote for and this seems to be as good as any poll. I know what caused the upset in 2016 but we're not allowed to talk about that in this thread.
link to original post
What betting favorites? As betting on the election is new to the US and most of its citizens, who cares about forty years ago. How much money do you think was wagered on the Reagn-Mondale race? How about the 1992 election? How many millions were wagered on Perot?
