Thread Rating:

bigfoot66
bigfoot66
  • Threads: 54
  • Posts: 1582
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
October 8th, 2020 at 12:31:40 AM permalink
Deleted
Vote for Nobody 2020!
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1497
  • Posts: 26687
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
October 9th, 2020 at 5:24:29 PM permalink
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.



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.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
Torghatten
Torghatten
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 121
Joined: Feb 3, 2012
October 10th, 2020 at 7:09:45 AM permalink
Exchange site:

Biden: Bid 1.51 - Ask 1.52
Trump: Bid 3.00 - Ask 3.05

Matched Ä129 million
redietz
redietz
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 767
Joined: Jun 5, 2019
October 14th, 2020 at 4:41:10 PM permalink
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.
"You can't breathe dead hippo waking, sleeping, and eating, and at the same time keep your precarious grip on existence."
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1497
  • Posts: 26687
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
Thanked by
FinsRule
October 14th, 2020 at 7:08:55 PM permalink
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.



I disagree. Biden is almost a lock to win the popular vote. Personally, I would rather lay only 2 to 1 on Biden directly.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
DRich
DRich
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 12045
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
October 14th, 2020 at 7:11:16 PM permalink
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.



Yes, probably a much better bet.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
redietz
redietz
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 767
Joined: Jun 5, 2019
October 14th, 2020 at 8:07:40 PM permalink
You guys are right. It's essentially the same bet as the Biden -220, which is the current line. Only you're laying -225, which makes no sense if you have a -220.

The only way it makes any sense is as an add-on bet if you've hit your limits at -220 at a site and can circumvent the limits with this variation.
"You can't breathe dead hippo waking, sleeping, and eating, and at the same time keep your precarious grip on existence."
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1497
  • Posts: 26687
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
October 15th, 2020 at 12:04:26 PM permalink
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.



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.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
Ace2
Ace2
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 2706
Joined: Oct 2, 2017
October 20th, 2020 at 1:40:36 PM permalink
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.

Which implies Trump has a 1 - .6633 = .3367 chance

Which would mean the juice on Trump is 1 - .3367 * 2.84= 4.4% and on Biden 1 - .6633 * 1.476 = 2.1%.

I think the juice % should be the same no matter who you bet on
Itís all about making that GTA
Torghatten
Torghatten
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 121
Joined: Feb 3, 2012
October 21st, 2020 at 4:18:18 AM permalink
Possible "surewins" atm as i find 4.00 for Trump and 1.57 for Biden.
Edit: gone, looks like Trump's odds was an mistake.
Last edited by: Torghatten on Oct 21, 2020
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1497
  • Posts: 26687
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
October 27th, 2020 at 1:02:01 PM permalink
Here is a preview of my newsletter on betting the election.

Wizard of Odds Newsletter Ė October 27, 2020 Ė Betting the 2020 Election
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
ams288
ams288
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 6624
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
October 27th, 2020 at 1:51:29 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

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

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



You say:

ďEven some states that were not considered battlegrounds, like Minnesota, went Trumpís wayĒ

That is incorrect. He lost MN.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1497
  • Posts: 26687
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
October 27th, 2020 at 3:01:03 PM permalink
Quote: ams288

You say:

ďEven some states that were not considered battlegrounds, like Minnesota, went Trumpís wayĒ

That is incorrect. He lost MN.



Thank you ! I stand corrected and will make that change.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
Lando
Lando
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 54
Joined: Aug 14, 2014
October 27th, 2020 at 5:40:08 PM permalink
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
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 129
  • Posts: 3917
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
October 27th, 2020 at 6:47:52 PM permalink
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



Iím glad to be back, if only for the election.

Itís interesting that political talk is banned. Iím guessing ďMAGAĒ 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 itís Biden for me at -200 or better.

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

Finally, I have Republicans to hold Senate at +175. Itís about 50/50, so obviously I like the side of the bet I have.
redietz
redietz
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 767
Joined: Jun 5, 2019
October 27th, 2020 at 7:25:03 PM permalink
I'm sitting pretty as I have Biden at -130, as I reported a couple of weeks ago. I was only able to get three digits on it, however, so it seems a waste to auto-profit the thing for a steak dinner. I'll just sit with it.

I disagree with the folks who think it's an electoral win for Trump.

I did use Trump in some states in a formal contest that had Trump listed as a small underdog where I don't think he is an underdog. We'll see. I had to spread five plays from a collection of about 15 props with various moneylines. To give you an example, I took Trump in Georgia at +110 because I think he should be a favorite, not a dog. Blame my selection on my driving through Georgia after graduating high school in Pennsylvania in 1975. I took a road trip and made a turn on a large four-lane Georgia state road. Around the turn was a huge drive-in theater with a monster sign. In big block letters were the names of the two movies playing -- "N****r Lover" and "Run, N****r, Run." Yes, Toto, I was no longer in Pennsylvania. Anyway, I have never forgotten.

Those who think the pricing favors a Trump wager are, I think, overlooking the unique historical context. People were shocked, shocked I tell you, that Trump beat Hilary in 2016. There is the kind of fear baked into the odds that pollsters don't know what they're doing. So, in a sense, the anti-science of the Trump supporters may be extending to their respect for the science of polling. So much the better. This is a historic opportunity. Biden really should be in the -450 range by the most conservative of the polls.
"You can't breathe dead hippo waking, sleeping, and eating, and at the same time keep your precarious grip on existence."
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1497
  • Posts: 26687
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
Thanked by
Lando
October 27th, 2020 at 8:03:52 PM permalink
Quote: Lando

MAGA



Good post overall, but warning issued for that political statement at the end.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1497
  • Posts: 26687
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
October 27th, 2020 at 9:29:03 PM permalink
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.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
redietz
redietz
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 767
Joined: Jun 5, 2019
October 27th, 2020 at 10:14:49 PM permalink
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.



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.
"You can't breathe dead hippo waking, sleeping, and eating, and at the same time keep your precarious grip on existence."
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 129
  • Posts: 3917
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
October 28th, 2020 at 4:55:45 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

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



There was a very small typo on the 4th page when you wrote ďwhereĒ instead of ďwereĒ

Thank you for writing this up. Makes me feel more confident in my wagering strategy.
Lando
Lando
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 54
Joined: Aug 14, 2014
October 28th, 2020 at 7:02:52 AM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

Iím glad to be back, if only for the election.

Itís interesting that political talk is banned. Iím guessing ďMAGAĒ 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 itís Biden for me at -200 or better.

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

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


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.
Lando
Lando
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 54
Joined: Aug 14, 2014
October 28th, 2020 at 7:04:58 AM permalink
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.



Wiz, why did you do that?

What scared you?
Lando
Lando
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 54
Joined: Aug 14, 2014
October 28th, 2020 at 7:09:37 AM permalink
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.



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).
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1497
  • Posts: 26687
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
October 28th, 2020 at 7:19:10 AM permalink
Quote: Lando

Wiz, why did you do that?

What scared you?



I get into it in my newsletter, which I posted a link to yesterday.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
Ace2
Ace2
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 2706
Joined: Oct 2, 2017
October 28th, 2020 at 8:14:12 AM permalink
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.

That may be true but the winner was a 5 to 1 underdog last time. Itís going to take a few more elections for people to forget about that huge exception

I believe we are in uncharted territory and anything could happen
Itís all about making that GTA
Ace2
Ace2
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 2706
Joined: Oct 2, 2017
October 28th, 2020 at 8:20:28 AM permalink
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.

Isnít that a violation of one of the Ten Commandments?

ďThou shalt not hedge thy bets ď
Itís all about making that GTA
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 129
  • Posts: 3917
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
October 28th, 2020 at 8:33:32 AM permalink
Quote: Ace2

Isnít that a violation of one of the Ten Commandments?

ďThou shalt not hedge thy bets ď



I think itís different because information has changed. The odds of craps doesnít change over time.
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 129
  • Posts: 3917
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
October 28th, 2020 at 8:34:52 AM permalink
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.



If there is data that says Trump is ahead I would love to see it. Iíve been looking and I canít find it. I just see a lot of ďfeelingsĒ
Ace2
Ace2
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 2706
Joined: Oct 2, 2017
October 28th, 2020 at 8:46:16 AM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

I think itís different because information has changed. The odds of craps doesnít change over time.

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 donít consider anything ďhedgingĒ on the craps table. Youíre just spreading more money around

Why would you hedge something where the odds donít ever change? You place your bet and then you win or lose
Itís all about making that GTA
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
  • Threads: 122
  • Posts: 11146
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
Thanked by
FinsRule
October 28th, 2020 at 8:53:33 AM permalink
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 donít consider anything ďhedgingĒ on the craps table. Youíre just spreading more money around



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.
redietz
redietz
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 767
Joined: Jun 5, 2019
Thanked by
FinsRule
October 28th, 2020 at 9:26:49 AM permalink
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).




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.
"You can't breathe dead hippo waking, sleeping, and eating, and at the same time keep your precarious grip on existence."
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1497
  • Posts: 26687
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
Thanked by
FinsRule
October 28th, 2020 at 9:32:33 AM permalink
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
Last edited by: Wizard on Oct 28, 2020
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 129
  • Posts: 3917
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
October 28th, 2020 at 9:48:11 AM permalink
I just bet $400. For me, thatís a lot. The biggest single wager I have ever made actually...
mcallister3200
mcallister3200
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 3670
Joined: Dec 29, 2013
October 28th, 2020 at 10:31:24 AM permalink
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.



They might have got a whiff of Silverís NBA trash modeling and carried that opinion over to his election stuff.
Ace2
Ace2
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 2706
Joined: Oct 2, 2017
October 28th, 2020 at 10:34:46 AM permalink
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.

Good point, I hadnít considered the fire bet. And I guess the All Tall/Small bets would be similar

However I donít see why youíd hedge them. I assume the max bet is low, so it wouldnít be a life changing amount of money if you hit it.
Itís all about making that GTA
ams288
ams288
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 6624
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
October 28th, 2020 at 10:53:44 AM permalink
I found this to be very helpful. There will have to be a much larger polling error than in 2016 for Trump to win, and of course the polling error could turn out to be in Bidenís favor (a la 2012):

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
redietz
redietz
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 767
Joined: Jun 5, 2019
Thanked by
FinsRule
October 28th, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM permalink
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




You talked me into it. I found a -190, but don't have enough money there, so I'll use a -193. What the hell. I really do see this as a -450 minimum appropriate line if no court challenges loomed.

I just want to add, if Trump is having a rally today in Bullhead City (AZ), the election is a lock. Why would anyone schedule a rally in Bullhead City? May as well head to Frackville (PA), my hometown of 6,000, or Centralia, the town down the road with the famous mine fire and six current residents.
Last edited by: redietz on Oct 28, 2020
"You can't breathe dead hippo waking, sleeping, and eating, and at the same time keep your precarious grip on existence."
Lando
Lando
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 54
Joined: Aug 14, 2014
October 28th, 2020 at 12:11:24 PM permalink
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.



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.
Lando
Lando
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 54
Joined: Aug 14, 2014
October 28th, 2020 at 12:15:25 PM permalink
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.
billryan
billryan
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 16282
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 28th, 2020 at 12:22:36 PM permalink
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.



Why not put a bet on Biden instead of surrendering?
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 129
  • Posts: 3917
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
October 28th, 2020 at 12:22:41 PM permalink
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.



Itís just hard to believe someone when they say there is no path to a Biden victory. Youíre literally the only person Iíve seen that has said that.
terapined
terapined
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6399
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
October 28th, 2020 at 1:28:59 PM permalink
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.


?????????
Did you actually read the newsletter
Obviously not because the Wiz never mentions CNN in the analysis, simply as a source at the end.
I never watch CNN myself and am extremely confident of the Wizards analysis
What does CNN have to do with anything?
Why not discuss the analysis in detail regarding the numbers instead of making this political with the CNN comment which was totally unnecessary.
We are discussing numbers, not the boob tube.
Pick the analysis apart and explain how the Wiz is wrong. Thats what this thread is for. Not political statements regarding CNN
Man up, let's hear your response regarding the wizards math
Its just a forum. Nothing here to get obsessed about.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1497
  • Posts: 26687
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
October 28th, 2020 at 1:37:35 PM permalink
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.



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.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
unJon
unJon
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 4661
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
October 28th, 2020 at 1:57:13 PM permalink
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.



He will be back just in time to brag or disappear forever.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
redietz
redietz
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 767
Joined: Jun 5, 2019
October 28th, 2020 at 1:59:40 PM permalink
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.



I have no real expertise myself regarding this. I simply subordinate my personal thoughts to people who do it for a living. 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.

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?
"You can't breathe dead hippo waking, sleeping, and eating, and at the same time keep your precarious grip on existence."
DRich
DRich
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 12045
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
Thanked by
Minty
October 28th, 2020 at 2:27:14 PM permalink
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?



Redietz, please don't do that. I like your posts and we know he would just come back as a sock anyway.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
mcallister3200
mcallister3200
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 3670
Joined: Dec 29, 2013
Thanked by
RogerKint
October 28th, 2020 at 2:38:50 PM permalink
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.



Very strange flex but ok.
ams288
ams288
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 6624
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
October 28th, 2020 at 5:36:26 PM permalink
Quote: redietz

Do we have a wager?



Doubtful seeing as heís not allowed to post here again till the day after the election is over.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
terapined
terapined
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6399
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
Thanked by
RogerKint
October 28th, 2020 at 6:30:33 PM permalink
Quote: ams288

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


Both parties should take it over to DT
Its just a forum. Nothing here to get obsessed about.
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 129
  • Posts: 3917
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
October 31st, 2020 at 11:21:34 AM permalink
Anyone have any thoughts on the over/under 160 million votes? The under seems to be a lock, so Iím thinking of throwing a few bucks on it.

Iíd like to hear some opinions.
  • Jump to: