Betting Talk

2016 Presidential Election & Primaries

2456710

Comments

  • Dave MasonDave Mason Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    Hard to believe that it may come down to these 4. YIKES!
  • TortugaTortuga Moderator
    edited January 2016
    Dave Mason wrote: »
    THE DONALD now -200 to win the nomination

    Is this real life?
  • TommyLTommyL Super Moderator
    edited January 2016
    Dave Mason wrote: »
    I just doubled checked at BOVADA . -200

    While it's extremely high at -200, I wouldn't put any stock in a number like that since, in looking at the futures, their hold is astronomically high. And it's not like they're offering a counter-market on the "no" on Trump. Instead, they've just juiced him up a ton to take advantage of any sucker that would be dumb enough to play it there.
  • Dave MasonDave Mason Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    Yep, wouldn't touch it
  • Dave MasonDave Mason Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    TRUMP now -230 to win IOWA on BODOG. Easy money?
  • cpech56cpech56 Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    Dave Mason wrote: »
    TRUMP now -230 to win IOWA on BODOG. Easy money?

    Yes. I've been saying it for 2 weeks now. He'll cruise to an easy W here in Iowa.

    He already had the majority of voters leaning his direction and his decision to tell Fox News to fuck tomorrow night and instead hold a benefit for wounded soldiers here in Iowa will only gain him more support.
  • Casper WareCasper Ware Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    TommyL wrote: »
    Anyone have thoughts after another 6 weeks?

    The 5Dimes line on Hillary to win Iowa (-210) seems a little short based on Silver's current numbers (83% using his full forecast, or 70% using only polls), especially since it beats BM's no-vig line of -213 (currently -260/+195 with vig). Still only a $100 limit though (at least for me).

    Trump obviously continues to gain steam, down to +163 at BM to get the Republican nod (and -180 on the "no" at 5D). Some interesting stuff from Silver this afternoon (link below) on the fact that the establishment of the Republican party seems to be even more anti-Cruz than anti-Trump. If you had told me 4-6 months ago that I'd be able to get Trump at -180 at some point to not get the nod, I would have been giddy. But with the way things keep trending, I'm passing as it's becoming a real possibility that Trump will be on the ballot in November.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one-big-reason-to-be-less-skeptical-of-trump/

    Silver is the most overrated prognosticater of all time
  • Dave MasonDave Mason Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    Perhaps but his record in the last election was spot on
  • Casper WareCasper Ware Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    Dave Mason wrote: »
    Perhaps but his record in the last election was spot on
    which was also a correleated parlay, and that was the last thing he was right about, he is 0 for his last 100 predictions

    ,
  • Dave MasonDave Mason Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    I believe 1-98 and had a push
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    Silver is the most overrated prognosticater of all time

    Get lost racist
  • TommyLTommyL Super Moderator
    edited January 2016
    which was also a correleated parlay, and that was the last thing he was right about, he is 0 for his last 100 predictions

    ,

    If he's been so bad, you must have some proof to back it up. Any links, actual facts, etc? I really only follow him when it comes to presidential elections, but it would be tough to find anyone that was more accurate in 2012 and 2008 (and I can actually back that up with links and facts if you'd like).
  • duritodurito Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    TommyL wrote: »
    If he's been so bad, you must have some proof to back it up. Any links, actual facts, etc? I really only follow him when it comes to presidential elections, but it would be tough to find anyone that was more accurate in 2012 and 2008 (and I can actually back that up with links and facts if you'd like).

    There's other election stuff that's just as good. Their sport stuff these days is laughably bad (I changed this to their because I have no idea how much of those models are actually nate's vs other people working there) They publish predictions on world cup, nfl etc that are off gambling markets by 40% and think they are accurate. ie they had Brazil at 78% or something to beat Germany in quarter-final when pinny had pk -103/103 and 500k limits.
  • TommyLTommyL Super Moderator
    edited January 2016
    durito wrote: »
    There's other election stuff that's just as good. Their sport stuff these days is laughably bad (I changed this to their because I have no idea how much of those models are actually nate's vs other people working there) They publish predictions on world cup, nfl etc that are off gambling markets by 40% and think they are accurate. ie they had Brazil at 78% or something to beat Germany in quarter-final when pinny had pk -103/103 and 500k limits.

    Thanks for providing an actual example. I've never really read much of the 538 sports stuff, though I do recall some of the World Cup stuff where it seemed like they were giving way too much "home field advantage" to Brazil.

    What other election stuff is "just as good" that you've found? All that I've really checked out thru the years is RCP, that Princeton site, and Silver. Silver has been the most accurate of those three thru the last two election cycles, but I'm always interested in checking out new stuff.

    No idea how Silver will do this time around, but I remember as he was nailing the 2012 cycle, we heard from a lot of people about how bad he was and how his predictions always have a liberal bias. Yet he's hit 99 of 100 states over the last 2 elections, with his only miss being Indiana in 2008 (he predicted it would go Red, and Obama won it).
  • duritodurito Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    Maybe not quite as good but the Princeton site seems to have similar predictions.

    I'm not really sure what to make of things like 99% obama wins re-election day of vote when you could bet 30k at -300 morning off. But, there may be some money driving down those lines that's not sharp. I'm not sure predicting the presidential election is terribly difficult. I'd except him to get almost every state right again next year. It's not a sporting event, there's not too many random issues that come up. That and the demographics make it pretty straightforward I guess.
  • TommyLTommyL Super Moderator
    edited January 2016
    I'd think that a lot of the issues predicting elections comes down to how heavy to weigh each of the polls, how to interpret any trends in the data (obviously shrinks in importance -> Election Day), what other factors to consider, etc. There are certainly aspects of the election that Silver got correct that I assume weren't "terribly easy" either (ie Obama winning Florida when you could have gotten +220 on it the morning of the election), or even just how big Obama won as most saw it as a much closer race in the days and weeks heading into the election.

    And I agree that the Princeton site giving Obama a >99% chance of winning in the days leading up to the Election seemed crazy based on the pricing, but Silver with Obama at 92% heading into Election Day seemed pretty realistic in hindsight.
  • BetThemDogsBetThemDogs Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    Very depressing reading this kind of stuff, as it reminds those of us stuck in this backward, 18th Century, Puritan country just how much we are missing that normal people worldwide can bet on. :thumbdown:
  • Casper WareCasper Ware Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    Very depressing reading this kind of stuff, as it reminds those of us stuck in this backward, 18th Century, Puritan country just how much we are missing that normal people worldwide can bet on. :thumbdown:

    I think it is legal in vegas, managers too lazy
  • Dave MasonDave Mason Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    Hilary down to -200 in Iowa
  • RonbetsRonbets Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    Santorum and Huckabee have endorsed Trump. The good 'ole boys are getting nervous.
  • Dave MasonDave Mason Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    That won't help him
  • RonbetsRonbets Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    Blago just endorsed Hillary from a federal prison in Colorado:laugh:
  • BobyosaiBobyosai Member
    edited January 2016
    Its not legal to bet elections in Vegas.
  • CoolsCools Senior Member
    edited February 2016
    Trump now at -110 odds for YES/NO to win the Republican candidacy. Time to fire away at "NO" or is this a waiting game?
  • Dave MasonDave Mason Senior Member
    edited February 2016
    What site?
  • Obi OneObi One Senior Member
    edited February 2016
    Cools wrote: »
    Trump now at -110 odds for YES/NO to win the Republican candidacy. Time to fire away at "NO" or is this a waiting game?

    No value on the NO right now, his chances of winning the Republican candidacy look indeed like 50/50 right now, he might even have a slight edge on the rest.

    Wondering about others thoughts.......
  • Dave MasonDave Mason Senior Member
    edited February 2016
    He has ZERO chance. What site is offering this nugget?
  • Obi OneObi One Senior Member
    edited February 2016
    Dave Mason wrote: »
    He has ZERO chance. What site is offering this nugget?

    LOL, market says 50/50 but you say zero,
    go sell that house Dave!
    Drop it on the NO.
    Good Luck
  • Dave MasonDave Mason Senior Member
    edited February 2016
    The party knows they have no chance if that nut runs.
    They will do whatever is necessary to stop him. The 50% is based upon the public vote.
    If I was him I wouldn't go near a grassy knoll
  • Dave MasonDave Mason Senior Member
    edited February 2016
    Hey Cools,
    Where are you seeing these odds?
Sign In or Register to comment.