Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 124
  • Posts: 12957
December 23rd, 2019 at 6:44:58 AM permalink
Greetings!

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/articles/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.
Vultures can't be choosers.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1351
  • Posts: 22432
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146michael99000Forager
December 23rd, 2019 at 8:01:13 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

EXAMPLE 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.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
MaxPen
MaxPen
Joined: Feb 4, 2015
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 3634
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
December 23rd, 2019 at 8:35:46 AM permalink
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 124
  • Posts: 12957
December 23rd, 2019 at 8:47:11 AM permalink
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.
Vultures can't be choosers.
billryan
billryan 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 175
  • Posts: 9911
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
December 23rd, 2019 at 9:39:27 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

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.



If this isn't political, what is? If MDawg wrote a third of this, he'd be gone.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 124
  • Posts: 12957
December 23rd, 2019 at 9:42:21 AM permalink
Quote: billryan

If 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.
Vultures can't be choosers.
TigerWu
TigerWu
Joined: May 23, 2016
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 4022
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
December 23rd, 2019 at 9:50:11 AM permalink
I 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 %).
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 124
  • Posts: 12957
December 23rd, 2019 at 10:08:54 AM permalink
Quote: TigerWu

I 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.
Vultures can't be choosers.
michael99000
michael99000
Joined: Jul 10, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2112
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146Forager
December 23rd, 2019 at 10:54:24 AM permalink
Quote: billryan

If this isn't political, what is? If MDawg wrote a third of this, he'd be gone.



In that case Id love to hear MDawgs analysis of the impeachment hearings
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 108
  • Posts: 7182
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
December 23rd, 2019 at 10:58:23 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

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.



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%.

  • Jump to: