https://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/

Any of you blokes in on this? It looks like some sweet action!

Looks like Romney owners are looking for takers...

I've seen Romney quoted at 11:5. Those odds aren't too bad really, because it puts his chances at only about 30% or so. It has to represent decent value for a bet, although I won't be doing it.

How is that legal in the States btw ? Surely it's just gambling.

Sassenach wrote:I've seen Romney quoted at 11:5. Those odds aren't too bad really, because it puts his chances at only about 30% or so. It has to represent decent value for a bet, although I won't be doing it.

How is that legal in the States btw ? Surely it's just gambling.

It is legal as far as I can tell. For those predicting a stock market jump with a Romney victory (or whatever), one could certainly use it to hedge risk.

Gambling is legal in the USA. Just not for certain things, or outside the right places. Besides, the difference between investing and gambling is usually the viewpoint of the individual.

I'm aware of the US gaming laws, but what's going on here doesn't strike me as being any different to what happens on Betfair, except that they're pretending it represents a share purchase where in reality it's just individuals offering odds and other individuals accepting them. I don't have a problem with it being legal, I just find it a little weird they can get away with being so blatant about it.

As regards betting on the election btw, I do think that odds of a little over 2:1 represent fantastic value in a two horse race, especially one like this where the polls have been running neck and neck. I do happen to agree that Obama is the more likely winner, but Romney surely has a better chance than those odds are giving him, which makes it attractive for a cheeky punt.

The thing is we'll never know how accurate these odds are for this race. Romney will either win or lose, and it's going to be a tight race whichever. All it does is show how 'people' think the election will go (with 'people' being a self-selecting group who are trying to profit from it). Also, the trading process means that people are also likely to be hedging

In horse racing, the favourite will often win, but they certainly don't always win.

I did see an interesting poll the other day (I think it was by Gallup), asking US voters what they thought the outcome would be. It was about 55:35 to Obama, with 10% don't knows. Which puts the 'wisdom of crowds' odds at about 40% for Romney. So the30% Intrade odds look good (but of course will only be good if he wins, or you can find a way to hedge with better odds for Obama).

Here's the perfect trade ...

Choose Obama and bet 1:1 with Dr. Fate

Then go to Instatrade and bet Romney with 2 to 1 odds

If you bet the same amount and Obama wins, you break even. If Romney wins you double your money.

The thing is we'll never know how accurate these odds are for this race. Romney will either win or lose, and it's going to be a tight race whichever. All it does is show how 'people' think the election will go (with 'people' being a self-selecting group who are trying to profit from it). Also, the trading process means that people are also likely to be hedging

Sure, but my point was that 2:1 about Romney represents excellent value, which is what you're looking for when you pick out a bet (or should be). The uncertainty factor actually works in favour of the bet as well, because if there is any error in the projections that are driving the odds then it's likely to be in Romney's favour rather than Obama's. It's not something that really interests me because I'd need to betting quite a bit to make it worthwhile betting at all, and I don't really have that to risk at this time of year, but nevertheless it does seem an attractive bet based solely on the value you're getting.

Ray Jay, actually you'd only make 50% if Romney wins with that set up. The optimum hedge would be to bet 50% more with DF than with Intrade. That way you'd be guaranteed to make 20% profit whoever wins the election.

($15 on Obama with DF and $10 on Romney at 2-1 would return $30 for $25 outlay, a $5 profit).

Sass, I agree that 2-1 is very good odds for Romney. Certainly 1-2 on is a very poor bet on Obama.

danivon wrote:Ray Jay, actually you'd only make 50% if Romney wins with that set up. The optimum hedge would be to bet 50% more with DF than with Intrade. That way you'd be guaranteed to make 20% profit whoever wins the election.

($15 on Obama with DF and $10 on Romney at 2-1 would return $30 for $25 outlay, a $5 profit).

.

You would be correct if you have to put up the money for your bet with Dr. Fate. But I presume that is a gentleman's agreement whereas you do have to put up the money for the Intrade bet.

Let's say the bets are $50.

If Romeny wins, Intrade returns $150 and you pay $50 of that to Dr. Fate. You net $100 on the $50 bet.

If Obama wins, Dr. Fate pays you $50 which replaces the $50 that you shelled out to Intrade.

In any case, I do like your scheme better because you win either way, assuming that Dr. Fate is an honest man, which strikes me as a good assumption.

Oh, I'm sure DF is honest. When making even a gentlemanly wager, I write off my stake as already spent, even if I still have it, because by Schroedinger it is both mine and my fellow gambler's until the probability wave form collapses, and it's hard to spend quantum money.

However, the tradition here used to be that losing bets were paid to Redscape funds (which I did when I lost a bet on Polar Ice a few years ago), in which case there is no way to guarantee a profit, only to minimise the losses.

oh, and I'm not accounting for fees and charges (and tax?) on using Intrade. I presume they don't run the service for nothing.

danivon wrote:However, the tradition here used to be that losing bets were paid to Redscape funds (which I did when I lost a bet on Polar Ice a few years ago), in which case there is no way to guarantee a profit, only to minimise the losses.

Totally unaware of this. Won a wager with one of our anarchists years ago. He sent cash via the US mail.

I was stunned to receive it. Not because I doubted the integrity of the individual, but because it was a tidy sum and was not extensively "protected" from prying eyes.

Unfortunately, Intrade is too cumbersome, it is burdened as online gambling. They're out of Eire and you have to send them a ton of documentation and then can only do wire transfers. Too much of a hassle for the $50 I want to put into it.

I hadn't tried to take up DF or anyone else on a bet because it's not out of any partisan interest. I just think Obama is going to win because he's going to win.

Hey Danivon, you want to make a bet on the arctic ice again for 2013, I'll even change sides of the bet this time so you can win.

Neal, once bitten, dude. I think it's not that unlikely to go. It wasn't made much of, but 2012 was the record year for lack of sea ice, beating 2007 by some margin.

DF - maybe it was just that Neal doesn't believe in gambling, or was unsure of the legality, but I thought that was what we did here. It kind of made sense at the time.