Election Betting
Quote: MichaelBluejaySo, 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.
link to original post
[snipped for relevance to what I am responding to]
lol, actually I just use pollster rankings from aggregators who know how this stuff works.
Marist ratings:
FiveThirtyEight: 2.9/3
Silver Bulletin: A
VoteHub: A+
Pretty good, eh?
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
This race has factors that make it different.
More women are voting than past races. That's due to certain topics specific to womanhood which, without getting political, we all should be aware of.
Why that matters is females are also less prone to make wagers on betting odds period. This forum alone should be a good example of women's typical involvement with gambling online.
The point is the odds based on the amount of wagers being actually made is driven by men primarily. While this election cycle may very well be driven by females for the win.
And then there goes that 40 years of history that's been making you cream in your pants out the window.
Quote: MichaelBluejayI 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.
link to original post
Do these polls reveal response rate ?????????
Are they embarrassed by the response rate
Back when everybody had a land line, polls generally got a 60% response rate
Times have changed
Most pollsters won't reveal their response rate
Some do
New York Times/Siena College poll admits a 1 percent response rate
ONE PER CENT
ROTFL
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-election-polling-has-become-less-reliable/
Bottom line. Pollsters are desperate for responses 😅
Biden won PA by 80k
So far in PA, 100k NEW voters have already cast their ballots with more NEW voters voting everyday
Seems to me, these NEW voters will be the deciding factor if people that voted before vote the same way
Are pollsters reaching out to these NEW voters
Probably not
The majority of the 100k NEW voters in PA are registered Dem females. That 100k number goes up everyday
Quote: darkozQuote: 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
This race has factors that make it different.
More women are voting than past races. That's due to certain topics specific to womanhood which, without getting political, we all should be aware of.
Why that matters is females are also less prone to make wagers on betting odds period. This forum alone should be a good example of women's typical involvement with gambling online.
The point is the odds based on the amount of wagers being actually made is driven by men primarily. While this election cycle may very well be driven by females for the win.
And then there goes that 40 years of history that's been making you cream in your pants out the window.
link to original post
But then, they say that about every election, that this election is 'different' because of xy and z. Yet it's not really different at all and it's hard to argue with a 10 out of 11 track record especially when Trump is so far ahead in the betting averages. It will get tighter over the weekend but he's still going to have a commanding lead. But you go ahead and put all your money on Harris, there's a good lad..
Quote: WizardQuote: 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.
link to original post
Would it be truthful to say that in a arbitrage situation, it’s virtually always true that one side is a positive bet and the other is negative, but that often the information just isn’t available to make the distinction of which is which?
That in effect we are given up part of the theoretical maximum edge by taking an arbitrage position?
Huge movement in the odds the last 24 hours.
With the $1,000 in the account, I bet on Harris to win the popular vote at $0.74 per share, which equates to -285 odds.
Don't discount the smart money, people who factor in your good arguments.Quote: darkozQuote: 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
This race has factors that make it different.
More women are voting than past races. That's due to certain topics specific to womanhood which, without getting political, we all should be aware of.
Why that matters is females are also less prone to make wagers on betting odds period. This forum alone should be a good example of women's typical involvement with gambling online.
The point is the odds based on the amount of wagers being actually made is driven by men primarily. While this election cycle may very well be driven by females for the win.
And then there goes that 40 years of history that's been making you cream in your pants out the window.
link to original post
Do you need a pinnacle account(I might have access)?Quote: Wizard
Such huge arbitrage opportunities this election.
Can you get down large amounts?
Quote: darkozQuote: 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
This race has factors that make it different.
More women are voting than past races. That's due to certain topics specific to womanhood which, without getting political, we all should be aware of.
Why that matters is females are also less prone to make wagers on betting odds period. This forum alone should be a good example of women's typical involvement with gambling online.
The point is the odds based on the amount of wagers being actually made is driven by men primarily. While this election cycle may very well be driven by females for the win.
And then there goes that 40 years of history that's been making you cream in your pants out the window.
link to original post
Not so much on the more women voting. I’ve heard that so many times since 1984. It will not be enough to nskeca huge difference. Women already vote in numbers comparable to men.
This is about odds not a political statement.
Quote: Wizard
Huge movement in the odds the last 24 hours.
With the $1,000 in the account, I bet on Harris to win the popular vote at $0.74 per share, which equates to -285 odds.
link to original post
"More than $100 million has been legally wagered on the presidential race on the Kalshi platform, days out from Election Day. This explosion in legal betting comes after a federal appeals court earlier this month allowed KalshiEX LLC, an online-betting company, to open an election prediction market."
It has been allowed to take bets from Americans only for less than a month. It has absolutely no track record. 2 days ago it had Trump up by 30 points now it has Trump up by Five Points. What this means is somebody is dumping a ton of money on Kamala Harris. Why are they doing this, what has happened in the last 2 days to make her look like she's a favorite all of a sudden. Absolutely nothing has happened so the only conclusion would be this Market is being manipulated by whales. People just don't start betting wildly for no reason.
Quote: AxelWolfDo you need a pinnacle account(I might have access)?
link to original post
Lots of online books offer election betting. The trick is to bet on Harris at sports books and Trump at places that book player vs player bets, like Kalshi/PredictIt. The problem is most states don't allow offshore books, which are the ones that accept bets on the election.
Do you know the limits? Could you get down 50K+ on a few offshore books and 50K on Kalshi/PredictIt?Quote: WizardQuote: AxelWolfDo you need a pinnacle account(I might have access)?
link to original post
Lots of online books offer election betting. The trick is to bet on Harris at sports books and Trump at places that book player vs player bets, like Kalshi/PredictIt. The problem is most states don't allow offshore books, which are the ones that accept bets on the election.
link to original post
I have a nice list of offshore casinos/sportsbooks that pay and have good reputations I use them regularly without payment issues. Easy to fund and cash out.
Quote: AxelWolfDo you know the limits?
link to original post
Not much. I tend to think the sports books have limits of only $1,000 or so.
Quote: WizardQuote: AxelWolfDo you know the limits?
link to original post
Not much. I tend to think the sports books have limits of only $1,000 or so.
link to original post
Have you considered shorting DJT stock
I looked into it
I have a Schwab account
I was surprised to see that I'm currently not allowed to short any stock because you have to be approved 1st on the Schwab platform
It's kind of dangerous financially to buy puts and calls
Out of curiosity, I applied for options trading
The form asks a lot of questions regarding your history of trading, knowledge of trading, income, total liquid worth
, knowledge of options trading and how much options trading you have done on other platforms ect ect.
I'm not rich so probably won't get approved which is probably a good thing for me.
Besides. It takes 4 business days for Schwab to decide on approval and election 2 business days away
As for DJT options, there is a very high implied volatility there, but you could buy the puts. I think they are overpriced but am probably going to buy bear put spreads there. I have been trading in and out of DJT and lost a decent amount when it started its collapse about a month ago, but gained some of it back after this current collapse.
Exactly. If you IGNORE MARIST'S ACTUAL INACCURACY in the 2020 election, and use some criteria other than actual results, then they do indeed look pretty good.Quote: ams288lol, actually I just use pollster rankings from aggregators who know how this stuff works.
Marist ratings:
FiveThirtyEight: 2.9/3
Silver Bulletin: A
VoteHub: A+
Pretty good, eh? link to original post
And to repeat: you can snipe at RCP's average all you want, but the reality is that it was spot on the money in 6 of the 7 swing states last time.
Quote: MichaelBluejayExactly. If you IGNORE MARIST'S ACTUAL INACCURACY in the 2020 election, and use some criteria other than actual results, then they do indeed look pretty good.Quote: ams288lol, actually I just use pollster rankings from aggregators who know how this stuff works.
Marist ratings:
FiveThirtyEight: 2.9/3
Silver Bulletin: A
VoteHub: A+
Pretty good, eh? link to original post
And to repeat: you can snipe at RCP's average all you want, but the reality is that it was spot on the money in 6 of the 7 swing states last time.
link to original post
Is “last time” 2020 or 2022?
Trump: 53.8%
Harris: 45.8%
Tie: 0.4%
However, he made a bigger splash in an X interview where he mocked the various polling firms, accusing then of trying to make the race look close...
Quote: Nate SilverEvery state is a plus 1! Every single state's a tie!
No, you're f**ing cheating! Your numbers aren’t all going to come out at exactly one-point leads when you’re sampling 800 people over dozens of surveys. You are lying. You’re putting your f**ing finger on the scale.
If a pollster never publishes any numbers that surprises you, then it has no value.
He specifically calls out Emerson College (which shows a dead heat) polling as bad, but does praise the NYT/Siena polls.
It's fascinating how people in the same line of work or who have the same hobbies or interests can end up hating each other so much. Very human. Take gamblers, for example. If you put a bunch of them in an internet forum they all start to ... well, you know.
Well, since you were baselessly slamming RCP as useless regarding the upcoming PRESIDENTIAL election (which happens to be the topic of this thread), then obviously 2020. Duh.Quote: ams288Is “last time” 2020 or 2022? link to original post
Bottom line:
(1) You praised Marist as wonderful even though their 2020 accuracy was horrible, because they gave you the result you want to hear (that Harris is ahead).
(2) You slammed the RCP as horrible even though their 2020 accuracy was excellent, because you don't like their result (that Harris is losing).
I won't protest a penalty if mods think this crossed the line, I just think biased partisanship should be called out, no matter what side it's on.
Quote: MichaelBluejayWell, since you were baselessly slamming RCP as useless regarding the upcoming PRESIDENTIAL election (which happens to be the topic of this thread), then obviously 2020. Duh.Quote: ams288Is “last time” 2020 or 2022? link to original post
Bottom line:
(1) You praised Marist as wonderful even though their 2020 accuracy was horrible, because they gave you the result you want to hear (that Harris is ahead).
(2) You slammed the RCP as horrible even though their 2020 accuracy was excellent, because you don't like their result (that Harris is losing).
I won't protest a penalty if mods think this crossed the line, I just think biased partisanship should be called out, no matter what side it's on.
link to original post
So yeah, just pretend 2022 didn’t happen. Seems like a great idea for a guy who has a poll website. /s
Michigan Presidential Polling:
Harris (D): 49%
Trump (R): 48%
Rasmussen / Nov 1, 2024 / n=908
Maybe they are onto something this cycle. (I’m kidding. Every pollster has their outliers every now and then).
And there was a Miami U poll of Ohio today that had R+3. No idea what to make of that one.
Quote:BREAKING
The widely respected Des Moines Register/Selzer poll shows Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by THREE points in IOWA
Harris: 47%
Trump: 44%
I don’t want to risk any more of MichaelBlueJay’s wrath, but the Selzer poll of IA is *the* gold standard poll of IA. Anyone who tries to argue against that is wasting their time. Please do some Googling before trying to discredit Ann Selzer.
Quote: Nate SilverIt is incredibly gutsy to release this poll. It won't put Harris ahead in our forecast because there was also another Iowa poll out today that was good for Trump. But wouldn't want to play poker against Ann Selzer.
This did not happen 4 years ago.
PredictIt:
Harris 55% = -122
Trump 45% = +122
Pinnacle:
Harris +108
Trump -126
I hope somebody smarter than me is arbing these bets.
Man, how do you not get it? In a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, we're concerned about their accuracy with PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION polling. Duh!Quote: ams288So yeah, just pretend 2022 didn’t happen. link to original post
You're going to great lengths to justify a pollster that gives you the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION result you want to hear, despite their lousy accuracy in the last PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, and to deride a polling average that had excellent accuracy in the last PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION because you don't like their result.
No amount of spin will change that. Or maybe you do understand and you're just pretending not to.
Selzer did indeed have the most accurate call of Iowa in 2020 (listed as Des Moines Register), putting Trump at +7 when he actually won by +8.2. If they're right this time, that would be a seismic ∆11 point shift from the 2020 result.Quote: ams288WHOA. "The widely respected Des Moines Register/Selzer poll shows Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by THREE points in IOWA." ...
I don’t want to risk any more of MichaelBlueJay’s wrath, but the Selzer poll of IA is *the* gold standard poll of IA. Anyone who tries to argue against that is wasting their time. Please do some Googling before trying to discredit Ann Selzer.
Here's the article on the new poll.
FWIW, the RCP average was dead on they money (off by 0 points) in PA and NV in 2020, and for 2024 the RCP average is Trump +4.5 and Trump +5.6, but I don't know if their 2024 averages use the same pollsters (and any weighting) as 2020.
MichaelBluejay:
earlier I posted this link from a couple of days ago that indicates Harris has a large lead in a survey of early voting
does that surprise you?
do you think it has any importance?
https://archive.ph/hqRWB
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
MichaelBluejay:
earlier I posted this link from a couple of days ago that indicates Harris has a large lead in a survey of early voting
does that surprise you?
do you think it has any importance?
https://archive.ph/hqRWB
.
link to original post
Earlier voters are not representative of voters is the problem.
Quote: unJonQuote: lilredrooster.
MichaelBluejay:
earlier I posted this link from a couple of days ago that indicates Harris has a large lead in a survey of early voting
does that surprise you?
do you think it has any importance?
https://archive.ph/hqRWB
.
link to original post
Earlier voters are not representative of voters is the problem.
link to original post
I think an exit survey of early voters is more valid then a phone survey where only 1% participate
Who are the 1 per centers and why do they participate
Why do people think the 1 per centers are representative?
Is anybody doing exit surveys?
Quote: lilredrooster.
MichaelBluejay:
earlier I posted this link from a couple of days ago that indicates Harris has a large lead in a survey of early voting
does that surprise you?
do you think it has any importance?
https://archive.ph/hqRWB
.
link to original post
You should drop it before you get MB upset and he goes into one of his tantrums. It's not worth it. Just accept he is right, snd move on. you'll be much better off. does anyone need a poll ,at this point?
Quote: unJonQuote: lilredrooster.
MichaelBluejay:
earlier I posted this link from a couple of days ago that indicates Harris has a large lead in a survey of early voting
does that surprise you?
do you think it has any importance?
https://archive.ph/hqRWB
.
link to original post
Earlier voters are not representative of voters is the problem.
link to original post
That is an assumption based on past results. 2024 has had a much larger early voting response than previous years and it remains to be seen if early voters will skew differently than in past elections. I think they will.
Quote: MichaelBluejaySelzer did indeed have the most accurate call of Iowa in 2020 (listed as Des Moines Register), putting Trump at +7 when he actually won by +8.2. If they're right this time, that would be a seismic ∆11 point shift from the 2020 result.Quote: ams288WHOA. "The widely respected Des Moines Register/Selzer poll shows Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by THREE points in IOWA." ...
I don’t want to risk any more of MichaelBlueJay’s wrath, but the Selzer poll of IA is *the* gold standard poll of IA. Anyone who tries to argue against that is wasting their time. Please do some Googling before trying to discredit Ann Selzer.
Here's the article on the new poll.
link to original post
I'm not surprised by Iowa
I spent some time is the state and was fascinated by how welcoming they have been to immigrants throughout the states history. Especially SE Asian immigrants in the 1970s
Also the biggest event in Iowa is a bike ride
RAGBRAI
The Wizard should participate
Registers (newspaper) annual great bike ride across Iowa
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.
g]
Such huge arbitrage opportunities this election.
This is not a true arbitrage opportunities in any meaningful sense because of the high probability of a disputed election with a non-binary outcome in the short term.
There is a small but significant possibility of one wager being voided while the other loses due to some procedural aberration.
In order to establish a risk-free opportunity exists you need to establish that in a range of scenarios rules will be standardized across both betting platforms which they are not. Even if they were then there are scenarios which could occur which haven't been conceived of yet. Bear in mind we have had one assassination attempt, and one of the candidates has clearly signaled his intent to contest the result of the the event of that candidate losing. Then we have a number of pollsters predicting a dead heat. This isn't a standard election. It is just a mess.
That isn't to say that hedging might not have some kind of useful mathematical properties in terms of variance reduction, but free money this is not.
Quote: terapinedQuote: unJonQuote: lilredrooster.
MichaelBluejay:
earlier I posted this link from a couple of days ago that indicates Harris has a large lead in a survey of early voting
does that surprise you?
do you think it has any importance?
https://archive.ph/hqRWB
.
link to original post
Earlier voters are not representative of voters is the problem.
link to original post
I think an exit survey of early voters is more valid then a phone survey where only 1% participate
Who are the 1 per centers and why do they participate
Why do people think the 1 per centers are representative?
Is anybody doing exit surveys?
link to original post
The article about early voter margins concluded with "Maybe we should just wait and see."
Two more days of this sanctimonious bellowing and then it will be Election Day. And we can count votes rather than opinions of 'the untrustworthy media.'
BTW, media reports on exit polling never seem to state how many people were actually polled. It could be like . . . some dude asked 12 people. It is also not reported whether the people who conducted the exit polling tended to predominately question pretty young women with large boobs who had just voted. And avoided asking elderly voters because they are "old" and they "smell yucchy." Or tended to approach different racial/ethnic groups of exiting voters with a different frequency. Indeed, exit polling seems to lack any scientific controls and should not be confused with information that is worth the attention of people who are intelligent and discerning.
As I already posted:Quote: lilredrooster.MichaelBluejay:
earlier I posted this link from a couple of days ago that indicates Harris has a large lead in a survey of early voting
does that surprise you?
do you think it has any importance? https://archive.ph/hqRWB link to original post
Quote: MichaelBluejayNate Silver's article today has a ton of evidence (his style) about why early voting demographics are a *horrible* predictor of actual results.
Quote: MDawgKamala Harris Takes First Lead Over Trump In Election Betting Odds
Waiting for Trump to win is like waiting for Godot - never going to happen. I assume the betting fairs always knew this and wanted to take in as much Trump money as possible, never expecting to pay it out.
link to original post
Quote: MDawgWaiting for Trump to win is like waiting for Godot - never going to happen. I assume the betting fairs always knew this and WANTED TO TAKE IN as much Trump money as possible, never expecting to pay it out.
I don't quite get your point - please explain
what difference would it make what they wanted to take in?
they have to accept whatever bets are placed with them
are you indicating that they actively solicited bets on Trump?
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: MDawgWaiting for Trump to win is like waiting for Godot - never going to happen. I assume the betting fairs always knew this and WANTED TO TAKE IN as much Trump money as possible, never expecting to pay it out.
I don't quite get your point - please explain
what difference would it make what they wanted to take in?
they have to accept whatever bets are placed with them
are you indicating that they actively solicited bets on Trump?
.
link to original post
Four years ago they couldn’t get any action on Biden. The more they made Trump a favorite, the more people bet on him. They just kept making more and more money. Even after the election! People were still convinced.
Quote: MichaelBluejayAs I already posted:Quote: lilredrooster.MichaelBluejay:
earlier I posted this link from a couple of days ago that indicates Harris has a large lead in a survey of early voting
does that surprise you?
do you think it has any importance? https://archive.ph/hqRWB link to original postQuote: MichaelBluejayNate Silver's article today has a ton of evidence (his style) about why early voting demographics are a *horrible* predictor of actual results.
link to original post
Even a big rally shouldn't move the needle. That's a small weight unless it's reported nationwide. Pollsters should also correlate the top 3 political news events nationwide everyday along the timeline regarding each candidate. At least in the lasts 2 or 3 months.
Don't ask how to do this, as I don't know.
Quote: FinsRuleQuote: lilredroosterQuote: MDawgWaiting for Trump to win is like waiting for Godot - never going to happen. I assume the betting fairs always knew this and WANTED TO TAKE IN as much Trump money as possible, never expecting to pay it out.
I don't quite get your point - please explain
what difference would it make what they wanted to take in?
they have to accept whatever bets are placed with them
are you indicating that they actively solicited bets on Trump?
.
link to original post
Four years ago they couldn’t get any action on Biden. The more they made Trump a favorite, the more people bet on him. They just kept making more and more money. Even after the election! People were still convinced.
link to original post
edit - delete - I looked this up and the point I was making was not valid - my bad
.
