(08-26-2018 05:48 PM)Kronke Wrote: Good way to eliminate margin of error and cut through the partisan BS is to look at the betting markets.
Candidates that tom claims are in a “toss up” are trading at nearly 3/1 underdogs. Makes you wonder if he’d be willing to put his money where his mouth is.
LOL. What betting market are you referring to? Is it a really thinly traded betting pool overseas? Heck I threw down 20 bucks on Auburn winning the national championship a few years back. Didn't mean I really thought they'd actually win.
Predictit. Very reputable site, and research project of Victoria University.
Max exposure I believe is $750 per market, so you can get $750 x .3 = 2,500 shares of beto. When he wins, your profit will be $1,750. Feel free to screenshot and post your order confirmation.
..."LOL".
I know I am gonna catch some heat for this but I have to be fair here, so here goes:
Weren't the prediction markets in the tank for Clinton ?
I coulda swore a lot of them showed Clinton with ridiculously overwhelming odds of winning on Election Day morning ?
Of course, I knew those markets were wrong. Just look at the amount of people at Trump rallies and those at Clinton rallies. Re-align the polls for the actual electorate and I knew Clinton was in trouble.
Hell, I actually nailed all but ONE state in the EV count. I had Trump getting Nevada. I called him winning Penn, Michigan, and Wisconsin the weekend before.
I was called an idiot delusional moron.
And that I am. But it didn't mean I was wrong, lol...
spirit, no one knows anything for certain until it happens. The markets were wrong on Trump as well, but they were certainly much closer than the polls. Huffpo said it was 99/1 Clinton. Laughable. NYT I think was around 90/10.
(08-26-2018 07:02 PM)Kronke Wrote: spirit, no one knows anything for certain until it happens. The markets were wrong on Trump as well, but they were certainly much closer than the polls. Huffpo said it was 99/1 Clinton. Laughable. NYT I think was around 90/10.
Predictit was close to 60/40.
I know someone that bagged over 10 grand that night by betting on Trump. Sure wish I had that spare $$$$ lying around, lol...
(08-26-2018 07:07 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote: I know someone that bagged over 10 grand that night by betting on Trump. Sure wish I had that spare $$$$ lying around, lol...
Impressive. I thought Trump was a thin favorite, but was no where near confident enough to bet that kind of money.
I know our boy stink won a little bit, he posted his bet confirmations.
Again, what's the volume of betting on Predictit on these races? If its really thin, it could just be some homers betting on their favorites.
I spent years working in trading. I remember the NYMEX used to trade a natural gas for delivery in a non-standard location (Alberta). The price had nothing to do with the actual physical price. It turned out that 90 percent of the volume was just one Enron trader who would bid up his long position everytime he needed a MTM boost. It didn't predict physical natgas prices in Alberta. In other words, you could look at the markets all day long, but good luck trying to sell physical gas in Alberta for anywhere near what the NYMEX Alberta Delivery derivate settled at.
And I suspect the predictit market is little different. Its probably thin as hell. And no, I'm not breaking the law to wager via some thinly traded market that might have credit issues too.
But you are certainly free to post your betting confirmations on that market if you'd like.
(This post was last modified: 08-26-2018 09:19 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
The article says there are 29,000 active traders, and the average deposit is $100. You do the math.
If the volume was as low as you're implying, markets wouldn't be as efficient as they appear, and arbitrage opportunities would be everywhere. If it were just "homers betting on their favorites", a former trader should be able to clean up.
Excuse after excuse.
I won't be posting any confirmations, because I believe the market to be fairly priced. You're the one that says it isn't, but refuses to put the money down. I wonder why?
(This post was last modified: 08-26-2018 10:38 PM by Kronke.)
(08-26-2018 11:54 AM)Kronke Wrote: Paragraphs upon paragraphs of weak spin from tom, that no one is going to read.
hillary was supposedly the "most qualified" person to ever run for the presidency, and President Trump blew her out of the water. But he's going to struggle against some upstart, fringe figure like camila harris, or commie bernie (with the new rules, can he even run?), or creepy uncle joe?
President Trump may hit 350+ ECs in 2020. Maine, NH, Colorado, Virginia, and Minnesota are all in play.
Again, you are free to use something you present as a fair and efficient market as your confirmation of your assertion. I have no idea as to the fairness or efficiency of that market, and I doubt that there's a ton of action in those markets. I'm using actual data points (off year elections), polling, and the financing behavior of the candidates (which probably have the best information), as well as polling for my assertions.
Seriously, how many bets have been made on the Indiana Senate race and how much has been bet on it?
(This post was last modified: 08-26-2018 10:55 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
Trump is probably the favorite because he is expected to win the republican nomination. None of the others are nearly as certain to win the democrat nomination. That puts him one step ahead. Sort of like after one team wins its LCS but the other league is not yet decided, the odds on one team get much shorter that the odds on either of the other two, simply because the one team has taken a step that the other two still have to resolve.
That being said, as I look at the field, there is no democrat politician on that list whom I could support in 2020. Names I could: Haley, Cuban, Rand.
(08-26-2018 12:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: Trump will likely run for reelection in 2020. Here's why
1) He's got to stay in office so he can avoid going to jail
2) He might get impeached, but barring a 70+ seat win in the House with a corresponding 3 seat win in the Senate for the Dems, conviction in the Senate is unlikely. That scenario, while possible, is remote.
3) The GOP isn't going to provide him with a challenge in the primary. They've tied their horse and cart to him. He sinks, they sink.
Most likely result right now. Dems gain 30 or so seats in the House, and gain 1 seat in the Senate (GOP retains control with Pence).
---
Now if there's an economic recession, or proof that Trump broke the law, or a pardon of people seeking to obstruct justice, or a foreign policy disaster, then things could turn south for Trump running again, but as of today, he's running in 2020.
Hows that sinking economy working out for you guys?
(08-26-2018 05:28 PM)Kronke Wrote: The fact that you link to polls that are 2-4 months old says it all. You’re no longer interested in honest conversation, all you care about now is spreading faux-optimism and misinformation as if doing so will magically make it come true. It’s weird.
Well, to be fair to them repeating a lie often enough that it eventually becomes the truth is a tried and true tactic for the left.
![[Image: ka-trump-predictit-2016-chart-90-day.png]](https://i2.wp.com/keystoneaccountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ka-trump-predictit-2016-chart-90-day.png)
![[Image: temper-tantrum-o.gif]](https://ctworkingmoms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/temper-tantrum-o.gif)
Please do it.
