Politics Betting
I suppose we had to find the lines of the rule sooner or later, but I have recently written an article pertaining to the odds of Trump being removed from office by the Senate, resigning or not finishing his term based on Predictit betting:
https://wizardofvegas.com/article/impeachment-now-what/
I would encourage everyone to keep in mind Rule 19 which states the following:
Quote:Controversial Speech: In an effort to keep the focus of the forum on gambling, Vegas, and math, comments of a political, racial, religious, sexual, or otherwise controversial nature are not allowed. We recommend taking such discussion elsewhere (Added 8/13/19).
However, Wizard made a clarification here:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/announcements/33451-new-rule/5/#post734566
Quote:Yes. As long as they don't degenerate into political statements. For example, I can say the odds on Andrew Yang to win the primary are x, but I can't state his positions or comment on them.
Thus, we can talk about aspects directly related to the betting as long as we don't get into general political positions or anything along divisive lines.
I would assume that this rule applies equally to the comment section of the article and I would encourage people to leave comments both there and in this thread, if you want to. In order to keep the focus on the betting and to keep it within forum rules, I would suggest trying to keep the conversation limited to objective facts as much as possible.
EXAMPLE ONLY
Objective Fact: Not a single Republican voted in favor of Impeachment.
Opinion: No Republicans voted in favor of Impeachment because this whole Impeachment showdown is BS because...
So, we can definitely discuss the betting prospects in the context of undeniable facts and be fully within the rules. If we say that such and such person SAID such and such thing in the Impeachment testimony, then that is a fact (as long as it is true), but if we discuss the implications of what they said, then that is an opinion.
I would also imagine that if we keep the focus on things that could affect the betting markets, even if we get into a light opinion on it, we should be fine. I think the main takeaway is we want this thread (and the comment section of the article) to be about the betting and not about Democrat v. Republican this or that, unrelated policies or politics, in general.
Quote: Mission146EXAMPLE ONLY
Objective Fact: Not a single Republican voted in favor of Impeachment.
The "no politics" rule has not been put the test in a borderline case yet, but I frown on even objective facts. People can easily string them together to form a political commentary.
If somebody offered a bet on anybody not voting with their party in the Senate, then I could quoting that objective fact. However, there needs to be a gambling reason to mention it.
I will be watching this thread, with my finger on the "ban" button.
Quote: Wizard
The "no politics" rule has not been put the test in a borderline case yet, but I frown on even objective facts. People can easily string them together to form a political commentary.
If somebody offered a bet on anybody not voting with their party in the Senate, then I could quoting that objective fact. However, there needs to be a gambling reason to mention it.
I will be watching this thread, with my finger on the "ban" button.
I agree with you completely! My position that the Senate will absolutely not vote to convict Trump is largely predicated upon the majority make up of the Republican Senate, the fact that 67/100 votes would be needed and the fact that not a single Republican in the House favored Impeachment. Like I said in the article, the Senate Republicans would kind of be throwing the House Republicans under the bus completely to go against what they did. The underlying subject matter of the entire article is the current betting odds on PredictIt and the post-Impeachment impact on same. I also touch on a few other politics betting lines.
Quote: Mission146I agree with you completely! My position that the Senate will absolutely not vote to convict Trump is largely predicated upon the majority make up of the Republican Senate, the fact that 67/100 votes would be needed and the fact that not a single Republican in the House favored Impeachment. Like I said in the article, the Senate Republicans would kind of be throwing the House Republicans under the bus completely to go against what they did. The underlying subject matter of the entire article is the current betting odds on PredictIt and the post-Impeachment impact on same. I also touch on a few other politics betting lines.
If this isn't political, what is? If MDawg wrote a third of this, he'd be gone.
Quote: billryanIf this isn't political, what is? If MDawg wrote a third of this, he'd be gone.
It is political, but it's about politics betting. See what I quoted from the Wizard in the OP of this thread. I'm not taking a position (here, anyway) as to whether or not the underlying subject matter of the Impeachment holds water, just stating the factors that influence my opinion from a betting standpoint.
Quote: TigerWuI think the odds are going to drastically change once the rules of the trial are set and the articles are sent over. Depending on what McConnell agrees to, we may even see a slightly higher chance he'll be removed (I mean like low single digit %).
I guess that's possible, but the betting markets had the YES at 10% ($0.10) as of the time I wrote that, which I thought was way too high. The, "Yes," seems to be hovering somewhere between $0.08-$0.09 today on that issue. The issue of Trump resigning has moved from $0.12 on the YES to $0.10-$0.11 on it. However, counterintuitively, the YES on him finishing his first term has gone from $0.86 to $0.85 despite the fact that the individual propositions that could lead to that not happening have moved the other way.
Binary markets are weird sometimes.
The market on Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination (mentioned in the article) has moved from $0.06 on the YES to $0.03-$0.05 just today after sitting flat for a few days prior to the article's publication. I couldn't understand in what world someone not even running is an implied 6% to win. I get it about the possibility of a contested convention and stuff like that, but even in that unlikely event, why would they pick someone who wasn't even running to begin with?
Buttigieg YES has gone from $0.15 to $0.13-$0.14, which runs contrary to my opinion of the value of that one. From a betting standpoint, I like the fact that he is leading in at least one early state right now, so if that goes that way for him, I could see an immediate market move in response. Buy low, sell high.
The $0.88 YES on Trump to be the Republican nominee moved to $0.90 at some point between when the article was written and published, but I feel like that's still too low. That's because I can't see the Senate moving to convict (for reasons already stated) and that Trump isn't even facing meaningful opposition at this time. In fact, my understanding is that Hawaii has already awarded its delegates to Trump and declared no need for a primary or caucus.
Quote: billryanIf this isn't political, what is? If MDawg wrote a third of this, he'd be gone.
In that case I’d love to hear MDawg’s analysis of the impeachment hearings
Quote: Mission146I guess that's possible, but the betting markets had the YES at 10% ($0.10) as of the time I wrote that, which I thought was way too high. The, "Yes," seems to be hovering somewhere between $0.08-$0.09 today on that issue. The issue of Trump resigning has moved from $0.12 on the YES to $0.10-$0.11 on it. However, counterintuitively, the YES on him finishing his first term has gone from $0.86 to $0.85 despite the fact that the individual propositions that could lead to that not happening have moved the other way.
Binary markets are weird sometimes.
The market on Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination (mentioned in the article) has moved from $0.06 on the YES to $0.03-$0.05 just today after sitting flat for a few days prior to the article's publication. I couldn't understand in what world someone not even running is an implied 6% to win. I get it about the possibility of a contested convention and stuff like that, but even in that unlikely event, why would they pick someone who wasn't even running to begin with?
Buttigieg YES has gone from $0.15 to $0.13-$0.14, which runs contrary to my opinion of the value of that one. From a betting standpoint, I like the fact that he is leading in at least one early state right now, so if that goes that way for him, I could see an immediate market move in response. Buy low, sell high.
The $0.88 YES on Trump to be the Republican nominee moved to $0.90 at some point between when the article was written and published, but I feel like that's still too low. That's because I can't see the Senate moving to convict (for reasons already stated) and that Trump isn't even facing meaningful opposition at this time. In fact, my understanding is that Hawaii has already awarded its delegates to Trump and declared no need for a primary or caucus.
Mission.... Trump will not be removed by this present impeachment. For all intents and purposes there is a zero percent chance of that happening. Him not finishing his term would be by him being assassinated, or naturally dying, or just deciding to not run, or new evidence of real impeachable crimes. I think that if you take all American presidents their chance of being assassinated approaches 10%.
As far as betting on Clinton being the nominee, I'll take a risk of suspension, but it is clearly because of the amazingly weak slate of candidates the Democrats have to choose between. I mention this only to explain to you why the odds on a candidate who is not even running are close to 10%.
Quote: michael99000In that case I’d love to hear MDawg’s analysis of the impeachment hearings
Just gotta wait until there's a streak of two impeachments, then bet double on the third one.
Quote: SOOPOOMission.... Trump will not be removed by this present impeachment. For all intents and purposes there is a zero percent chance of that happening. Him not finishing his term would be by him being assassinated, or naturally dying, or just deciding to not run, or new evidence of real impeachable crimes. I think that if you take all American presidents their chance of being assassinated approaches 10%.
As far as betting on Clinton being the nominee, I'll take a risk of suspension, but it is clearly because of the amazingly weak slate of candidates the Democrats have to choose between. I mention this only to explain to you why the odds on a candidate who is not even running are close to 10%.
I agree with that, in fact, I put the odds at precisely 0% in the article and pointed out that betting line not only removes the variables with other lines, but also that the betting line in question immediately wins should those variables happen.
Quote: AZDuffmanCan’t we avoid politics on festivus?
Politics is all about Airing of Grievances....
Quote: Mission146I agree with you completely! My position that the Senate will absolutely not vote to convict Trump is largely predicated upon the majority make up of the Republican Senate, the fact that 67/100 votes would be needed and the fact that not a single Republican in the House favored Impeachment. Like I said in the article, the Senate Republicans would kind of be throwing the House Republicans under the bus completely to go against what they did. The underlying subject matter of the entire article is the current betting odds on PredictIt and the post-Impeachment impact on same. I also touch on a few other politics betting lines.
You are issued an official warning against political statements, which I consider the above to be. I can see no gambling reason you bring this up.
Quote: TigerWuI think the odds are going to drastically change once the rules of the trial are set and the articles are sent over. Depending on what McConnell agrees to, we may even see a slightly higher chance he'll be removed (I mean like low single digit %).
You are dangerously close to crossing the line. Somebody show me anywhere a bet on this and we can discuss that bet. Just throwing out the word "odds" does not give you license to make political statements.
Quote: SOOPOOMission.... Trump will not be removed by this present impeachment. For all intents and purposes there is a zero percent chance of that happening. Him not finishing his term would be by him being assassinated, or naturally dying, or just deciding to not run, or new evidence of real impeachable crimes. I think that if you take all American presidents their chance of being assassinated approaches 10%.
As far as betting on Clinton being the nominee, I'll take a risk of suspension, but it is clearly because of the amazingly weak slate of candidates the Democrats have to choose between. I mention this only to explain to you why the odds on a candidate who is not even running are close to 10%.
This is definitely ban worthy, but since I gave two others warnings, I'll give you one too.
No more warnings, the next political statement, including objective facts, not tied to a specific bet offered somewhere, will result in a suspension.
Quote: WizardYou are issued an official warning against political statements, which I consider the above to be. I can see no gambling reason you bring this up.
There’s a widely posted line out there:
Trump lasts full term in office: -480
Trump does not last full term in office: +330
Quote: unJonThere’s a widely posted line out there:
Trump lasts full term in office: -480
Trump does not last full term in office: +330
Just because that bet is out there doesn't give license to make general statements pro or con on Trump. If two people want to negotiate a bet, that will be fine, but my patience is running thin on this matter.
Quote: WizardJust because that bet is out there doesn't give license to make general statements pro or con on Trump. If two people want to negotiate a bet, that will be fine, but my patience is running thin on this matter.
I’m not opposed to just having the thread closed if that’s fine. The statements I was warned for related back to the fundamental subject matter of my article, which was the Predictit lines.
Anyway, there’s no way to talk about it without talking about it, so probably better to lock the thread than anyone gets in trouble.
To me, it’s kind of like sports. I can say, “I think this is a beatable line because xxxx player is reported not to be playing and the line hasn’t changed.” There’s just no way to speculate on whether or not a line is good if facts can’t be offered.
Quote: WizardYou are dangerously close to crossing the line. Somebody show me anywhere a bet on this and we can discuss that bet. Just throwing out the word "odds" does not give you license to make political statements.
With all due respect, I believe that he’s referring to the PredictIt binary lines on this specific question referenced in the article. They have a Yes/No binary on the specific question of whether or not the Senate will remove him from office.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/5914/Will-the-Senate-convict-Donald-Trump-on-impeachment-in-his-first-term
Quote: Mission146With all due respect, I believe that he’s referring to the PredictIt binary lines on this specific question referenced in the article. They have a Yes/No binary on the specific question of whether or not the Senate will remove him from office.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/5914/Will-the-Senate-convict-Donald-Trump-on-impeachment-in-his-first-term
I'll just repeat what I said to UnJon
Quote: WizardJust because that bet is out there doesn't give license to make general statements pro or con on Trump. If two people want to negotiate a bet, that will be fine, but my patience is running thin on this matter.
Quote: Mission146Quote: WizardYou are dangerously close to crossing the line. Somebody show me anywhere a bet on this and we can discuss that bet. Just throwing out the word "odds" does not give you license to make political statements.
With all due respect, I believe that he’s referring to the PredictIt binary lines on this specific question referenced in the article. They have a Yes/No binary on the specific question of whether or not the Senate will remove him from office.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/5914/Will-the-Senate-convict-Donald-Trump-on-impeachment-in-his-first-term
I sprained both eyes rolling them at the OP. Talk about suspension bait. And it's gone about as badly as I thought it would.
Every bet of this sort is based on opinion. It's not possible to state objective fact, or even separate fact from spin, because everyone (politicians) is lying and trolling their political opponents.
You can always find a poll that will back your position. And there are wheels within wheels turning in all directions right now.
Per Wizard's rules, I would have had to suspend 4 people already. He was here modding first, and I agree with his rulings, but it's just too huge of a troll invitation to leave it open.
So I am closing this thread. Wizard can overrule me if he wishes to and re-open it, but I see no good coming of it from this point. I suggest anyone who wants to talk politics go visit http://Diversitytomorrow.com
Have a peaceful holiday, folks.
http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/3130/0/#post132055
