When Politics Isn't Politics; It's Gambling

Quote: Wizard

Not much change in the election odds over the past four days. Here they are now.

In the European format:

Trump: 2.53
Biden: 1.555

To convert that to American odds:

Trump: +153
Biden: -180

Taking out the juice, it implies Biden has a 62.5% chance of winning.

Quote: redietz

I saw an intriguing prop offshore today. Will the popular vote winner win the electoral college? "Yes" is -225. I think that's a good wager.

Quote: Wizard

I disagree. Biden is almost a lock to win the popular vote. Personally, I would rather lay only 2 to 1 on Biden directly.

Quote: Oct 9 odds

Let's take another look three days later:

In the European format:

Trump: 2.76
Biden: 1.5

To convert that to American odds:

Trump: +176
Biden: -200

Taking out the juice, it implies Biden has a 65.28% chance of winning.

Quote: Wizard

Let's update that with the Oct 15 odds:

In the European format:

Trump: 2.84
Biden: 1.476

To convert that to American odds:

Trump: +184
Biden: -210

Taking out the juice, it implies Biden has a 66.33% chance of winning.

Quote: Wizard

Here is a preview of my newsletter on betting the election.

Wizard of Odds Newsletter – October 27, 2020 – Betting the 2020 Election

Quote: ams288

You say:

“Even some states that were not considered battlegrounds, like Minnesota, went Trump’s way”

That is incorrect. He lost MN.

Quote: Lando

Wizard, I don't know why you are losing confidence. The reason why this is the best bet of the year for us sports bettor type guys is that the information is ridiculously off and skewed, and we can easily point to recent history to prove it. Why shouldn't that be the case again, especially when the propaganda from news outlets and fake news/soft coups against the president are common, and all failures?

I have the same amount of money as you on it, and I am not worried at all. Trump is going to win the Electoral College decisively.

If you can get particular states (I'm seeing if I can), I would bet so many it is crazy, because you don't get people mispricing events like this very often. You should know that infrequent events and large movements or social change/media propaganda can easily explain bad polling; that's what we have again here.

People, if you don't want to make the easy money wizard and I will on this election, at least bet these:

Florida -140 at Pinny
Georgia -149
North Carolina -106
Pennsylvania +167
Michigan +298
Texas -330

I got all of these mostly at .40 or .50 better a couple weeks back (or at a less savvy site) ... but I'd still recommend all of them. My personal line on all of those states, if you wanted to know is:

FL: -200
GA: -300
NC: -200
PA: -130
MI: -120
TX: -3000 (actually higher but you'll think it's obnoxious so I'll stop there. Biden has at best a 5-10% chance in TX)

MAGA

Quote: Lando

MAGA

Quote: Wizard

I had one $5000 at +110 odds on Trump. I just paid $1,500 to surrender it. Time will tell if it was a good decision.

Quote: Wizard

Thank you ! I stand corrected and will make that change.

Quote: FinsRule

I’m glad to be back, if only for the election.

It’s interesting that political talk is banned. I’m guessing “MAGA” is too?

Anyway, it sure seems like Biden is the better bet. He needs to win PA, and if the polls are as wrong as they were last time, Biden still wins.

If Biden happens to lose PA he still has a shot to win if another state (AZ) breaks his way.

Trump at +155 is starting to be tempting, but it’s Biden for me at -200 or better.

I have Biden from a while ago at +115, but I’m looking for more if I can get it at the odds I previously stated.

Finally, I have Republicans to hold Senate at +175. It’s about 50/50, so obviously I like the side of the bet I have.

Quote: Wizard

I had one $5000 at +110 odds on Trump. I just paid $1,500 to surrender it. Time will tell if it was a good decision.

Quote: redietz

I think it was. None of the models give Trump more than about a 15% chance of winning right now. I think the 2016 election has skewed all of the numbers and everyone's confidence in them.

Here's one for you: Prior to the last election, during the week of the American election, the UK books have favored the proper candidate every year since I've been doing sports. So ignoring the favorite is at one's own peril.

Quote: Lando

Wiz, why did you do that?

What scared you?

Quote: redietz

Here's one for you: Prior to the last election, during the week of the American election, the UK books have favored the proper candidate every year since I've been doing sports. So ignoring the favorite is at one's own peril.

Quote: Wizard

I had one $5000 at +110 odds on Trump. I just paid $1,500 to surrender it. Time will tell if it was a good decision.

Quote: Ace2

Isn’t that a violation of one of the Ten Commandments?

“Thou shalt not hedge thy bets “

Quote: Lando

How is Biden the better bet when Trump is actually ahead and you are getting + money?

Biden has NO shot if he loses PA. None whatsoever (which is why he is going to lose).

At least you have R senate.

I would bet $100k against a D sweep if anyone would book it.

Quote: FinsRule

I think it’s different because information has changed. The odds of craps doesn’t change over time.

Quote: Ace2

Most hedging examples deal with changing odds. Like you bet on a team to win the Super Bowl at 100 to 1 at the beginning of the season, then cash out at 10 to 1 toward the end.

I don’t consider anything “hedging” on the craps table. You’re just spreading more money around

Quote: Lando

It's funny to me that people don't think something else is going on and the historical methods not only are wrong but they can't capture what and why; yet it's easy for us who see the fraud of the Nate Silver's of the world.

If you think Joe Biden/Kamala Harris ticket wins against an incumbent, you better be getting money. I can give you all sorts of historical precedents (Primary model, woman on ticket, incumbent) that are MAJOR factors that are being disregarded based on pure politics and propaganda. Still, I wouldn't make too much fun of a bet on them.

To suggest that Joe Biden is going to win 80+ elections out of 100 is pure insanity.

I'll come back either way, but it will be to gloat since this is by far the best bet of the year. If not for coronavirus, it would have been among the best bets of my lifetime (and I cashed Trump at 100-1 in 2015 and 4-1 before the 2016 election).

Quote: redietz

Well, see, this is where my interest lies. Not with the election, but with the way people process information and overrate their own expertise.

So you have statistical models and people with survey doctorates and companies that have invested in doing this very kind of projection that were wrong (once) electorally, but dead accurate popular vote-wise. And then you have individuals who, for unknown or unfathomable reasons, decide they know better than the models and the experts and the companies.

So the real interest, for me, is why do people believe in their own expertise and not respect the actual experts? This seems to be a relatively new and snowballing phenomenon, and I'll plug Tom Nichols' book, The Death of Expertise, again.

People have overblown ideas regarding their own expertise, especially in subjects in which they have no actual expertise, and American culture has trained people in some sort of "believing makes it so" nonsense.

And I guess that's why we have casinos. LOL.

Now Lando in the post above is anonymous. So my other questions regard to what extent the explosion of anonymous communication has emboldened folks with no expertise to (1) believe they have expertise (2) ignore actual experts, and (3) state their theories or ideas in terms significantly more strident, kind of like proclamations, with much more degree of certainty, than what they would do if not anonymous. Graduates of the Stephen A. Smith School of Proclamation, more or less. How does online anonymous interaction create this certainty or the inclination to state certainty? And actual certainty versus stated or advertised certainty are of course very different things. So that's interesting on its own.

Quote: SOOPOO

You are describing the fire bet to a tee. When you place the bet you are thousands to one against. But after hitting 5 points the odds have changed significantly. By betting against the number you need for the fire bet, you can essentially cash out if you want.

Quote: Wizard

I just spent about another two hours revising my newsletter, to be more forceful in recommending betting Biden laying 2 to 1.

Here is the updated version.

Betting the 2020 Election

Quote: redietz

Well, see, this is where my interest lies. Not with the election, but with the way people process information and overrate their own expertise.

So you have statistical models and people with survey doctorates and companies that have invested in doing this very kind of projection that were wrong (once) electorally, but dead accurate popular vote-wise. And then you have individuals who, for unknown or unfathomable reasons, decide they know better than the models and the experts and the companies.

So the real interest, for me, is why do people believe in their own expertise and not respect the actual experts? This seems to be a relatively new and snowballing phenomenon, and I'll plug Tom Nichols' book, The Death of Expertise, again.

People have overblown ideas regarding their own expertise, especially in subjects in which they have no actual expertise, and American culture has trained people in some sort of "believing makes it so" nonsense.

And I guess that's why we have casinos. LOL.

Now Lando in the post above is anonymous. So my other questions regard to what extent the explosion of anonymous communication has emboldened folks with no expertise to (1) believe they have expertise (2) ignore actual experts, and (3) state their theories or ideas in terms significantly more strident, kind of like proclamations, with much more degree of certainty, than what they would do if not anonymous. Graduates of the Stephen A. Smith School of Proclamation, more or less. How does online anonymous interaction create this certainty or the inclination to state certainty? And actual certainty versus stated or advertised certainty are of course very different things. So that's interesting on its own.

Quote: Wizard

I just spent about another two hours revising my newsletter, to be more forceful in recommending betting Biden laying 2 to 1.

Here is the updated version.

Betting the 2020 Election

Quote: Wizard

I had one $5000 at +110 odds on Trump. I just paid $1,500 to surrender it. Time will tell if it was a good decision.

Quote: Lando

Quote: Wizard

I just spent about another two hours revising my newsletter, to be more forceful in recommending betting Biden laying 2 to 1.

Here is the updated version.

Betting the 2020 Election

I feel bad that CNN talked you out of winning 5 figures. Another sad day, another victim of CNN.

The extension of media propaganda and inability to understand polling is really funny around here.

I have $12k on Trump all at prices between +150 and +180. Believe it or not, I'm just telling you.

There is no path to Biden victory, and when I say that, I mean in only 5% of the elections is it squeaky close.

Quote: Lando

Quote: Wizard

I just spent about another two hours revising my newsletter, to be more forceful in recommending betting Biden laying 2 to 1.

Here is the updated version.

Betting the 2020 Election

I feel bad that CNN talked you out of winning 5 figures. Another sad day, another victim of CNN.

Quote: Lando

I feel bad that CNN talked you out of winning 5 figures. Another sad day, another victim of CNN.

The extension of media propaganda and inability to understand polling is really funny around here.

Quote: Wizard

You were warned in this post against making political statements.

I'm going to jump right to a second step in the Martingale with a seven-day suspension.

Quote: Lando

You are the other poster, along with Fins, that I have responded to on this - his posts are more about asking for data, while yours are rightly directed but you think incorrectly in the larger picture. I agree with you that on average, people overestimate all manner of things about themselves. But that's not what we are talking about. Nor are we talking about buzzwords that you associate with veracity, like "expert", "model" etc that mean nothing in and of themselves. Those of us who are intelligent (and I know you doubt this) look at experts and see what, and more importantly, WHY they are saying what they are saying.

To Fins and you on the data and "expert" idea or data: Why wouldn't you use Trafalgar? Most of your experts were embarrassingly wrong last time and when they were right it was because they got Obama's elections correct, lol. If you can't see through that, however long ago it is, you purposefully being closed minded, and mainly because you are a partisan, I have noticed 95%.

You don't know anything about my intelligence and qualification, you might be right on average again assuming XYZ, but funny enough, you are wrong here. Regardless, I still bet and won on the last Trump election. Hint: it wasn't luck.

If you don't know or see why polls like Quinnipiac, widely accepted AT LEAST in averages, are a joke ... YOU my friend haven't looked at the data, the experts, the bias, the fraud.

It's there. But you'll see again next Tuesday, and I'll be here. What will be silly is when you claim I don't deserve credit.

Quote: redietz

Having said all that, the degree of ignorance required of the experts for them to be far wrong on this would be extraordinary. So I propose a side wager. Since it's 2-1, how about if Trump wins, I refrain from posting here for two years. If Biden wins, you refrain for a year.

Do we have a wager?

Quote: redietz

Now, to put my ignorance in proper context, my late wife had two doctorates. One was in demography. The folks I hang out with here in Johnson City all have doctorates in sociology or anthropology or psych. One of them, who has taught social science math and designed surveys, is more than happy to critique each and every survey or poll with sword in hand. He breaks them all down pretty viciously, which is cool.

Quote: redietz

Do we have a wager?

Quote: ams288

Doubtful seeing as he’s not allowed to post here again till the day after the election is over.