Yep, can't lose.

Unless he's wrong, of course.

Jamie Gold sounded liked he knew his stuff. Years of improvement.

Where can you bet enough on this to actually matter?

If there's a way to bet a substantial amount on this election there really is enormous EV at the lines that I'm seeing. As far as I can tell this would be a huge pain as an American though.

While they are huge favorites currently, Clinton and Trump aren't near 99% each to win their respective nominations.

That's where this gets fuzzy...

The elections do seem to have been a great place to earn money, at least the last two major cycles. The market seems to lag/not follow the best data as well as other markets.

Two examples I recall, Obama overtaking Hillary (market was lagging on that one), and Obama vs Romney (ignoring the best polling data with markets too heavy on Romney).

Trumpy -115
Hillary -300

My bookie takes up to 10k on props like this.

With odds like that no wonder he does.

If they decided to give a community organizer with a spotty attendance record and no legislative achievements in the Senate a try, why not a successful business person with near four decades in the public eye and a oft-stated position in favor of legalized internet poker?

He didn't come off like the total Dbag-tool that he is....I'd rather him on TV talking about Presidential betting than repping poker. Call him a poker champ, cool...just don't keep him on more than 5 min. Seeeee ya

He explained how odds work to the pinhead, but his "guaranteed money" idea is based on the absurd premise that Trump/Clinton are 99% to win the election.

I'd love to bet the field at a reputable book getting 99-1.Hell 99-1 might be fair odds on at least one of them dying before the election.

this underestimates sanders imo, you have non-quantifiable amount of voters with sanders. how are they even taking polls these days landlines still? i think young voters less susceptible to cnn and fox news and having sports team loyalty to either side are going to turn up to vote. the black voters in south carolina let themselves down in the election with hillary and it being the south ( the dumbest part of america tied with texas) i think it was a fluke. you'll see i called it ITT.


also im very glad jamie did not give a poker strat on fox. GG for poker if so.

Just had a chance to listen to Jamie's thing again - wow, can someone double check the figures ...


Cost of the bets:

$140 for Hillary
$80 for Trump
$220

Returns:

$100 for Hillary
$200 for Trump

Profits:

-$120 if Hillary wins
-$20 if Trump wins

That can't be right, is it?

no

Yep. And I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Western Illinois University's mock election that has correctly predicted every single presidential winner for the last forty years. Here's this year's results

"WIU recently held their traditional mock election. It is an incredibly intricate and organized event starting with primary and caucuses and finishing up with a mock general election.

Dr. Rick Hardy and Dr. John Hemingway have been leading Mock Presidential Elections since 1975. During that time, students who have participated in these mock elections have chosen the winning party with 100% accuracy and have an astonishing record in selecting presidential winners.

On the Democratic side for the Primaries Sanders won by close to a 2 to 1 margin over challenger Hillary Clinton..."

He won the mock presidential race too.

you gotta ad the initial bet back so it would be 240 return hillary , 280 return trump

There is a 1st time for everything.

Based on current polling data, the chance for Sanders to beat Clinton is probably lower than the chance for Trump winning the GOP vote but not getting the nomination anyway.

I'm still undecided if I want to put any money on the election, but as soon as there's more outspoken support for not nominating Trump among leading Republicans, putting money on Hillary looks like a good bet.

Do some places pay out 3.5:1 when you win on a 2.5:1 bet?

When I put money on two of the four teams in the running for the ALCS, I just got the stated payout ...

You sound like you really know what you're talking about. I assume you're betting Sanders hard at +1500

The initial bet is usually not included in the payout because it won't be debited at all if you win the bet.

The way they do it at 888, when it says a bet pays out 2:1, if someone puts $5 down then they can expect to win back $10 like in the example here ...




Guess Jamie's system would be fine for betting places that pay out $15 on 2:1 bets? Otherwise ... ??

2.00 is not the same as 2:1 or +200

Maybe you could lay out the specific payouts that Jamie was talking about? Thanks!

That bet is a $10 net if you win. They ship you $10 and you don't lose the initial $5 stake.

Nope.

2.0 is an even money bet.

Stake * Decimal Odds = Total Return (If you win!)

2/1 would be 3.0