Political Betting Thread

[Oblivian]

My point with the Obama example was to show that his % chance to win was fairly large although it was only a 4% margin. Romney basically had no chance to win at greater than 1%. People like SBJJ honestly do not understand what they are looking at if they don't think Obama was incredible value last year.

Now look at this election. Let's look at a margin up to 3%. What do you think each candidates % chance is along these margins?
0-1%
1-2%
2-3%

I'm obviously not saying Trump doesn't have a chance to win as I clearly think he does, but if he does, he'll likely just squeak by. Clinton clearly has a good chance at winning by a very thin margin, but she has a chance at winning more comfortably at 1-2%. It's also not out of the question that she wins 2-3%. I think a lot of people chasing Trump at this point are doing it for the fact that he may be able to keep this to a close margin, but has his chance to win really changed that much? IMO, no, you just have a far more likelihood of losing in the 0-2% range.

 

[SBJJ]

Appreciate you proving my point. Congrats on the e-meltdown.

Ok Barry. Keep betting dem pennies bro

 

[SBJJ]

what has knowing who marcin held is got to do with anything? I don't have a clue who half the prelim fighters are these days and that doesn't make any difference to my betting or analysing other fights. hell I'm doing better than ever.

there's still a lot of good discussion in these threads, just because half the old posters broke their bank and stopped posting doesn't change that. maybe EzFlyer could be a little bit more trigger happy with the dubs, that might help a little. also a lot of posters don't have time to read through the threads every week now also, I know I don't a lot of the time atm.
Also MMA betting has changed a LOT over the last few years and a lot of the opportunities and value simply aren't there any more so that is bound to have an effect for some people also.

this conversation is about the % chance of winning which we have been discussing in here for weeks. not exclusively what the polls say. they are 2 different thing's, and you have to account for that with betting lines.
I don't understand the obama question tbh, not only is it a tremendously different election than the last one for obvious reasons but the chance of those examples would of differed greatly from time to time. Even if I wanted to answer I can't remember half the shit that that was happening 4 years ago to factor into my answer.

I get what your saying about people not analsying thing's correctly but there was a lot of bad analysing when these threads were started also, and lots of bad bet's being made...that's what discussion in here is for, it's a learning experience come join us instead of whining about "the good ol days"

It's the knee jerk reaction to think because someone not knowing Marcin Held makes them ignorant while making him more enlightened. Just looking for reasons to prop his ego up.

I'll take bad analyzing over no analyzing and complaining. Or worse yet plain false and untrue posts like a couple of dudes in here. Like posting wrong polls and wrong battleground posts. All just to try to sway others opinions because they back one candidate. At least those guys stopped posting.

 

[Gambling Man]

Ok Barry. Keep betting dem pennies bro

You are really not coming across well here. Oblivian was the guy who started the betting threads before this sub-forum even existed and has made valuable contributions for years, back before I made my account and was merely lurking.

I think you are taking things too personally and responding way too emotionally. Take a deep breath, relax and focus on the analytical side of the discussion, that's the part that makes this forum so valuable.

 

[KP6982]

Haha, you can tell he's just been seething about it the past two days. Take your meds bro.

 

[Oblivian]

The funny thing is that SBJJ's reading comprehension is so bad that he thinks I'm knocking people playing Trump. I don't think it's the right side, but that's not how this conversation has gone. I was just explaining why I think Clinton has become playable.

What I am making fun of is statements like these below

And why are u acting as if a 3.9% popular win is huge. It's actually not. It's essentially saying a 116-112 scorecard in boxing is a blowout.

Or it's like saying a competitive 3 round mma fight where u bet the slight fave was the line of the year.

Anyone who thinks that honesty has no clue what they are analyzing. SBJJ, here is a clue, how about "u" read this instead of hammering away on your keyboard more. You'll see that the 2012 election was not close at all.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...012-presidential-election-results-arent-close

 

[SBJJ]

T

Haha, you can tell he's just been seething about it the past two days. Take your meds bro.

The Lurker who posts false info returns

 

[SBJJ]

You are really not coming across well here. Oblivian was the guy who started the betting threads before this sub-forum even existed and has made valuable contributions for years, back before I made my account and was merely lurking.

I think you are taking things too personally and responding way too emotionally. Take a deep breath, relax and focus on the analytical side of the discussion, that's the part that makes this forum so valuable.

Go read Oblivians posts/attacks on here. Then go read the discussions in here between myself and others.

 

[SBJJ]

The funny thing is that SBJJ's reading comprehension is so bad that he thinks I'm knocking people playing Trump. I don't think it's the right side, but that's not how this conversation has gone. I was just explaining why I think Clinton has become playable.

What I am making fun of is statements like these below



Anyone who thinks that honesty has no clue what they are analyzing. SBJJ, here is a clue, how about "u" read this instead of hammering away on your keyboard more. You'll see that the 2012 election was not close at all.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...012-presidential-election-results-arent-close

Do u understand value is subjective. If u had a full proof value system you'd be rich.

 

[SBJJ]

Alright, take her easy and good luck to those in here I conversed with and found great spots to hit this election. A new group of lurkers/complainers have arrived. Have a ball

 

[KP6982]

T

The Lurker who posts false info returns

I'm still waiting on that Wikileak that Hillary has Parkinson's. Quality post!

Do u understand value is subjective. If u had a full proof value system you'd be rich.

You would mess that up.

 

[Oblivian]

Do u understand value is subjective. If u had a full proof value system you'd be rich.

When it comes to a fairly concrete event such as a presidential election, it's not really that subjective. It's not as open for interpretation as a fight or sporting event. The results and facts are there.

And lol at pulling out a strawman. I may very well be wrong on this Clinton/Trump. I'm wrong on fights all of the time. My conversation here hasn't really been in regards to that. It's been in regards to misinterpreting how close an election is based off of a margin of victory or where you expect that margin of victory to land. That's why I bet Clinton - you are the one that asked me why I did and I'm explaining. It just kept going over your head.

 

[Joseph Budden]

Cmon guys we're all American here (except a handful of those cheeky Brits). Lets get this thread back on track with some pics to celebrate that fact

 

[SBJJ]

I'm still waiting on that Wikileak that Hillary has Parkinson's. Quality post!



You would mess that up.

Called auto correct bro. Good luck on your plays!

 

[Bradillac]

All of a sudden NH, CO, PA, and even NM and MI are looking winnable for Trump.

 

[Slohog]

Various post

Are you talking % of the popular vote or X of electoral votes? Seems to me it'd be easy to come up with tons of examples when a 4% margin or whatever would be fairly close or fairly huge either way. Not claiming to be an expert but just on top of my head.


I think thread has been slight +ev for those who hedged (which I do not, more or less as a matter of principle) and I still feel happy about my Trump bets as of now, especially since even prediction sites such as fivethirtyeight now gives him a better chance then the odds. However, one problem with it is groupthink and it's probably since I've been the least enthusiastic about Trump chances of the people who has posted here for a bit. A lot of the pro-Clinton voices has been flaming, saying fairly ugly things about us with Trump bets and such for not very good reasons and I feel that it might've been fairly detrimental to our quest of keeping this discussion intelligent rather then being a Trump betting circle-jerk with the occasional neo-nazi accusation from whoever happens to feel that anyone betting on Trump must hate his minority of choice.

Lastly I would like to point out that Oblivian as far as I can see (which isn't much, I'm hung over) haven't said anything out of line so this is not pointed at him at all.

 

[PUO3]

Go read Oblivians posts/attacks on here. Then go read the discussions in here between myself and others.

I did, and you sound like a jackass. Let it go. Ignore his posts or leave the insults out.

 

[Roads55]

When it comes to a fairly concrete event such as a presidential election, it's not really that subjective. It's not as open for interpretation as a fight or sporting event. The results and facts are there.

And lol at pulling out a strawman. I may very well be wrong on this Clinton/Trump. I'm wrong on fights all of the time. My conversation here hasn't really been in regards to that. It's been in regards to misinterpreting how close an election is based off of a margin of victory or where you expect that margin of victory to land. That's why I bet Clinton - you are the one that asked me why I did and I'm explaining. It just kept going over your head.

gotta say im surprised at this, ofc value is subjective, even if the election is "fairly concrete" (which is subjective in itself) the price would be juiced to hell to compensate, making the value very subjective. then you go on too say you bet clinton in the least concrete election in recent memory. nothing wrong with betting clinton but your making it seem as if the only reason you did so was the polls which is subjective also, as we know they can be flawed, all the while not accounting for other factors. could be wrong on the last point which would be fair enough, but value is about the price you take in relation to the current chances, doesn't matter if the market is predictable.

anyways I'm getting out of this silly convo, this thread has already fallen of a cliff.

current odds:

hillary 1.28
trump 4.6

seems like trump's momentum is slowing, and hillary's had relatively few scandals made public the last couple of days, although I've not kept up with it for a few days as my internet was down, and was busy with the ufc and other sports yesterday. hillary's still got a lot of possible ways to win compared to drumpf

 

[Oblivian]

gotta say im surprised at this, ofc value is subjective, even if the election is "fairly concrete" (which is subjective in itself) the price would be juiced to hell to compensate, making the value very subjective. then you go on too say you bet clinton in the least concrete election in recent memory. nothing wrong with betting clinton but your making it seem as if the only reason you did so was the polls which is subjective also, as we know they can be flawed, all the while not accounting for other factors. could be wrong on the last point which would be fair enough, but value is about the price you take in relation to the current chances, doesn't matter if the market is predictable.

anyways I'm getting out of this silly convo, this thread has already fallen of a cliff.

current odds:

hillary 1.28
trump 4.6

seems like trump's momentum is slowing, and hillary's had relatively few scandals made public the last couple of days, although I've not kept up with it for a few days as my internet was down, and was busy with the ufc and other sports yesterday. hillary's still got a lot of possible ways to win compared to drumpf

Her odds on 5dimes have moved about to where I capped her a few days ago (over -400) when I grabbed her at -300. I still don't know what was/is so hard to understand about my stance. The reason that I waited as long as I did to play is because it was a crazy election. On November 1st, things started becoming more and more clear and easier to predict. Could a huge swing happen? Sure, but I did not cap it as very likely. Like I said, Trump has a chance to make it close, but his main chance of victory is a very slim margin. Clinton has more of a chance at a very slim victory, and she's got a hell of a lot more chance to win above and beyond a very slim victory. -300 was a good line on November 1st, plain and simple.

 

[Roads55]

Her odds on 5dimes have moved about to where I capped her a few days ago (over -400) when I grabbed her at -300. I still don't know what was/is so hard to understand about my stance. The reason that I waited as long as I did to play is because it was a crazy election. On November 1st, things started becoming more and more clear and easier to predict. Could a huge swing happen? Sure, but I did not cap it as very likely. Like I said, Trump has a chance to make it close, but his main chance of victory is a very slim margin. Clinton has more of a chance at a very slim victory, and she's got a hell of a lot more chance to win above and beyond a very slim victory. -300 was a good line on November 1st, plain and simple.

not disagreeing with your analysis there at all, I think that's a perfectly sound strategy you explained there, I just disagreed with your description of the subjectivity of value. but it's just semantics at this point. -300 was actually pretty decent line for a bookie on oct 1st, but she was -263 on the exchanges. are you able to use them from your location? I think matchbook might be accessible from US but the others are blocked I think except betfair for us horse racing.

do you see trump taking any of the close battleground states that were traditionally democratic?