Except he very literally isn’t? Like I don’t bet anything except poker, but if you want to give me 2:1 on Kamala or whatever I’ll gladly take it

You can find a lot of action at exactly even odds right now on polymarket

You're convinced Kamala will win but you need odds to make a bet?

Because thinking Trump isn’t the favorite is the same as being convinced Harris will win?

He's not the favorite.
It's a coinflip on Polymarket and predictit has it 56-47 Kamala.

It's quite easy to put your money down.

Foolproof strategy for you: bet all your crypto on Trump. If he wins, you double it, and if she wins, it'll be worthless anyway.

All-in

Not sure how this makes any sense but politics can really trump sensibility when it comes to betting. We had posters in 2016 literally claiming 99% Hillary win when 538 was a thing and folks lost their ass making the most idiotic bets in the history of 2+2 on this very forum because it was all clouded by political ideology.

This race is close. If the election were today, Id imagine that Kamala would be the favorite but she's going to need to harness some of this love and attention that she is getting and is typical when new people tend to make their entry. Some % of that is going to fade away.

‘You could get better odds on a generic betting site but you need to BE A MAN and take worse odds to get my money’

**** right off dude

While there were a lot of sites that had Hillary Clinton as 90% or better favorite some even at 95% on the day before the election, 538.com had her as a 70% favorite.

538.com was wrong but they knew that it wasn't a sure thing. There were a huge number of undecided voters in all of the polls and Trump increased in swing states specifically because of the undecided voters. Clinton did perform a point or two less than the polls had suggested but she never had exceeded 50% in the polls in swing states (as I remember it) like Biden did in most of them that he had been ahead in.

There was only one polling group that had it pegged for Trump.

As to the fading away part, it is completely going to depend on how Kamala handles the press and her debate assuming Trump caves on that. There will come a point where Kamala will stop increasing her gains. But that point is not today. The only day that Kamala's overall polling went down was yesterday and it was marginal and a result of a pollster who has done polls once a week in most swing states. In the 5 swing states that 538.com is currently tracking she lost 0.1% to 0.3% in 4 of the states and gained 0.1% in AZ.

The pollster is Redfield and Wilton Strategies. The irony is that in all of the states they had previously polled, Kamala gained substantially from the prior weeks polls. The reason her numbers went down slightly yesterday is that Redfield and Wilton polls were slightly worse than other pollsters in the swing states (except in AZ).

The numbers for Kamala have been going up since 7/21 and I think they will continue going up based on her VP choice who is not a controversial guy. Already the Arab Democratic groups in MI have thanked Kamala and are now open to meeting to discuss the future.

As things stand now per 538.com for 5 swing states and my take on all of the polls since 7/21 (I am only counting the most recent Redfield and Wilton polls along with every other pollster) the score is 269 to 262 with Kamala ahead and NV and NE District 2 tied (no polls yet in NE). Kamala would lose at 269 to 269 but I think she actually would be ahead in NV if 538.com was doing their analysis because she is tied in Multi-Candidate polls and ahead in Heads Up polls.

269-269 would be the best proof of simulation result. Let's hope for that.

538 had Clinton at around a 2:1 favorite and said Trump would win if polls were off by an average amount based on historical data in his direction. Seems about right. It would be very hard for a model that simply takes in polls to have trump favored when polls favored Clinton.

Models give odds, and then we have a single real-life run. How could we conclude from the one trial whether the model has the correct odds? It's so weird to me when people say that the models were wrong based on the outcome.

This. If I predict there is a 99% chance it will rain tomorrow and it doesn't, you can't conclude from that whether I was right or wrong.

Elections are different to games of chance. Voter fatigue aside you wouldn’t expect wildly different outcomes when running an election five times, once on each working day of a particular week, and it’s reasonable to expect an election result to closely fit a recent high quality poll.

In any case, I'm confused by the last few posts. Some people seem to be confusing 2:1 with evens, no? Or am I confusing something?

If a model predicts that there is an x% chance of Trump winning, how is that different to an x% chance of a football team winning a match or whatever?

Asking people what they’re going to do seems quite different to analysing football teams past performances.

What we should find surprising is that election predictions are far less accurate than the 1x2 football markets. But then again people are an irrational mass of viruses, so there’s that.

Dick-waving offers to bet on politics were a lot more fun back in the era when it was more difficult to bet on-line on politics. Sad.

.

I don't follow. Are you saying I'm right and they are confused, or that I am bad at gambling and I am confused? I think some posters are using 2:1 to mean odds of 2.00, i.e. evens and others are using it correctly to mean odds of 3.00, i.e. stake back + 2 units.

I'm saying they are confused or incorrectly posting as you explained. Lotta dumb posts in thread related to gambling.

The models that had Clinton at 99% said stuff like “Clinton is 75% to win MI. 75% to win Wi. 75% to win PA. Therefore her odds of losing all 3 are less than 5%”. You don’t need any trials to say that is wrong.

I don’t see anyone saying 2:1 is even. People think the odds are even and to bet on it they want something like 2:1 on Harris from people claiming Trump is a clear favorite. Maybe they’ll agree on 3:2 or just not bet.

Well, naively, 1/4^3 is less than 2%, so I'm guessing you're saying this because they're not independent events?