There's a 5c gap in the pricing in some states where the Republican side is overbought because MAGA comes in without thinking that shares in Democratic No are the same as Republican Yes. More active shares in R than D.

This happens with emotional bettors for Democrats sometimes, but this cycle it's overwhelmingly MAGA degens swaying the prices across the site.

Your entire argument on why Trump is +150 when he should be +500 is that tons of people are betting on Trump.

My point is, not a ton of people are betting on Trump. In fact, it seems like almost only people are betting on Biden, from what I can see, with a few exceptions. For example, on twitter I saw Dan smith and empiremaker2 looking to get down on Biden, large wagers.

So I am asking you if you see the same thing, or why you think so many people are hammering Trump? Honest question.

Another example, on Fairlay you can actually SEE the wagers. Like I said, 150k came in on Biden a few days ago and it did not affect the market price. And prob another 250k has come in on him over past month, from what I see, vs around 50k ish on Trump. That's public information. Data. You do always talk about data.

Lines are very much a product of supply and demand, if there was no money being bet on Trump, Biden would be much higher than 60-65% right now. But because of people like you who confidently fade the polls until they're broke, profitable gamblers get a really good deal.



The Trump side is overbought sitewide. You're delusional if you believe no one is buying Trump and you have some special position.

Fairlay is an exchange - if someone put 150k on Biden, it means someone on the other side put around 75k-100k on Trump.

oddschecker has 80% of all the money being put on Trump. FWIW Oddchecker also thinks Trump is the value bet.
https://www.oddschecker.com/us/insig...-trump-winning

Sports bettors are hammering Trump. Do you know who is hammering Biden? The stock market.

There are two different arguments here.


1) Who's betting on Trump and who's betting on Biden?

You don't seem to know how markets work, so let me explain: In order for a bet to be made, there needs to be a bettor on both sides. If Trump odds are 2:1 (I know the odds shifted, this is just an easy example), there needs to someone willing to wager 200 on Biden against someone's 100 on Trump. This is why even if Biden is 98% to win on election night there will be a lot of value in betting Biden because it starts to get pretty hard to find 50 times as much money to back Biden for every Trump fanboi bet etc. *If* Biden is winning the live markets are going to be absolutely insane.

I gave you a ton of reasons in my previous post (scroll up) about what people betting Trump and Biden are generally basing their bets on. Like you said, sharps like Dan Smith and EM2 and Timex are choosing Biden. Random people on Betfair are choosing Trump. It's curious to me why you think this is a sound argument for choosing the side against sharps.

2) What's the correct price?

Okay, so the odds are wrong. Since you've bet Trump and I've bet Biden, we both must agree here: It's not like we would've bet if either of us thought that the odds were correct. Right? The disagreement is in which direction the odds are wrong.

To paint a picture, the number on the left is Trump win probability.

----------------

Trump 10-15%: Every statistical model, polls, experts

----------------

GAP <-- this gap is why I bet Biden

----------------

Trump 37%: Current odds

----------------

GAP <-- this gap is why you bet Trump

---------------

Trump x% (your estimation)
---------------


What's x, and how did you arrive there? Care to link us to anything justifying this assumption? Anything at all that isn't just completely feel-based?

I've asked this question numerous times and here I am asking it again, please enlighten us

So hard to converse with you people

What I say: "Not a LOT of people are betting Trump, the majority is betting Biden"

What you say I say, literal direct quote from your post: "You're delusional if you believe no one is buying Trump"

Ok, guess I'm not delusional because I didn't say no one is buying. I said more people are on Biden therefore Chuck's conclusions about the majority being on Trump is wrong.

And I don't think there's a way to tell for sure, so many offshore books, etc.

I understand exactly how markets and exchanges work btw. Nowhere did you prove that more money is being bet on Trump. Your only evidence of anything really is saying "Random people on Betfair are choosing Trump." like uhh ok...what volume? details? etc? Lol

Idk why something can't be feel based, anyone who bet on Trump in 2016 was feel based, there was no "statistical data" pointing to a Trump win ANYWHERE, so idk why you think a bet has to be statistically based for it to win.

Mate

How to make profit in 2016:

1) Open 538 dot com
2) The model is giving Trump nearly 30%, let's check odds?
3) Oh the odds are saying he's got only 15%, hmm quite a gap there, let's bet Trump
4) Profit

Similarly, in 2020 you can:

1) Open 538 dot com
2) The model is giving Trump nearly 12%, let's check odds?
3) Oh the odds are saying he's got only 37%, hmm quite a gap there, let's bet Biden
4) Profit

Man basic probability is tough for some peeps

Mostly for Nate Silver and his pack of IYI followers. Courtesy of Iowa! in this very thread:

Nate's NBA model is clearly worse than NBA markets, same with other sports.

Their politics models are not clearly worse than markets, betting 538 numbers into market is roughly breakeven, maybe slightly positive depending on who you ask. But honestly, that's not a bad result given that the model is public and so there should be severe adverse selection.

Now, I think that has a lot more to do with the politics betting market being hilariously inefficient than 538 having such a great model, but still I think there is a lot of unjustified trust in the politics markets over polls/models.

dragging nate's nba model and assuming it means something for his politics betting would be like going thru zpluszs posting history and dunking on him for being a shitty poker player.

actually, that sounds pretty fair. **** nate. lets go with the other models that are at like 91 and 89%. nate wasn't confident enough and baked in too much expectation of polls narrowing.

True for election day in 2016. Not true for several months prior when Nates bs had an edge on Hilary vs market.

Still relevant from the last time we had this discussion.

Bingo. Unsurprisingly, pretty much anyone who beats sports on this forum has a pretty similar opinion on Nate. But he sure is good at fooling the rest of these people.

Nate's stats in politics are very strong. The only election he "missed" was 2016 and even in 2016 he still got closer than anyone else and by a country mile.

It's common knowledge that Nate's sports models, and especially NBA, are super rofl bad. Idk who's actually made them, he employs quite a few people so maybe (I can't be bothered to check this) they're actually made and updated by someone else? Idk

The thing about Nate is that he's kinda overrated and underrated at the same time. Overrated in the sense that Nate fanbois put him on a pedestal even though he's no Nostradamus. But underrated in the sense that he very clearly is the best in the business, and that really should buy him a lot of credibility, but instead he's being tormented relentlessly about 2016 even though he gave Trump a very fair chance when no one else did. Also the Comey stuff was fairly unprecedented and really did happen at the very last second. The polling averages shifted way more than 2x the historical average over the last two weeks. It happened and Trump's stock skyrocketed in his model. So I also don't think it's totally fair to say that he was "wrong" until election day because it was a very unusual election with a crucial last-second twist. Without the twist Hillary would've won and Nate would be considered a god among men.

I have a lot of respect for Nate when it comes to election betting and even though I wouldn't recommend anyone to follow him blindly, he's deservedly the gold standard in the business. I'm sure some bettors have better private models, but his stuff is public and taking that into account he's doing a really sick job. Why his sports models suck I have no idea but they really do.

Also, Nate's model is still overrating Trump a lot. He's giving him 12% even though based on the actual data it's only 5%. There's still a 140% in-built artificial edge for Tump based on the expectation of Trump making a comeback of some kind. If anything it seems to me like he's a bit scared of a Trump comeback #2 and made his model overrate his chances until closer to election day.

If you want to dismiss Nate's model, sure. Link to a better one?

Pretty much anyone who beats political markets long-term doesn't take the view that Nate doesn't know what he's doing. That doesn't mean he's without criticism or that you can't outperform his model. But anyone who always fades the polls is losing money.

Anyone who wants to s*** up the thread with more of this stupidity should just make their own Nate hate thread. It's not insightful.

This is absolute garbage. Please stop.

If you got Trump for the right price in 2016, such as when Hillary hit 90c on PredictIt, then you made a good bet. There were people who could make a good argument for Trump being undervalued in 2016 that doesn't apply to 2020. There were things you could point at then that don't still apply.

You should also note that Trump barely won, and today you're betting on a larger sized polling error across even more states than what happened in 2016. Anyone buying Trump at current odds is the sucker.

Lol at "lifetime winning politics bettor"

You realize you could be purely running good? You know how many bets you need for a good sample size at betting? Like 10k

You've bet on 10k elections already in your life?

Zplusz, when asked you admitted yourself that you're basing your bets on nothing but "feel"

There are people with actual merits in betting in this thread, and people like Nate Silver aren't even in the same universe as you when it comes to beating election betting. Please stop spamming us with your nonsense.

Still very happy to hear any actual arguments for Trump winning though.

Lol you might want to brush up on your statistics.

Hi,

Any opinions on what Tim Pool is saying here re: Nate Silver and how this can affect the accuracy of the polls? (most of the relevant discussion is 8:00 to 15:00)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjjRxPglJmE

Good news for Biden punters.

Debate commission removed Foreign Policy theme from final debate.

Topics include:
-Fighting COVID-19
-American Families
-Race in America
-Climate Change
-National Security
-Leadership

Basically a redux of 1st debate. I'm guessing this will help Biden about 2% in WE.

Mics muted as well when the other person speaks.

It is indeed interesting to see in this thread how there’s almost perfect correlation between one’s political leanings and which candidate he is betting on. I’d like to think that the sort of person who posts dozens of times in a thread dedicated to making EV election bets is less emotional and more analytical, but skimming this thread it seems like 90% of the posts are partisan spin one way or the other, with both sides convinced that their side has a 50% edge and is the lock of the decade. If it was just internet arguments it would be one thing, but people are putting real money on this. And if you believe them, some posters are really betting a lot, relative to their nw’s.

Applied to betting, it helps explain why the books can be so poorly run and still make money. Applied to life, it shows how much we’ll base decision-making on our personal biases; taking great risks based on beliefs that are important to us.

You're on 2p2 telling winning long-term players that they don't know if they're winning players or not.

Winning at this is much like poker. As long as you a have party willing to get their money all-in without an edge, you make money long-term.

The both-sides'ing here is so emotional and adds nothing to this thread. I'd like to see something more analytical. I know plenty of people who are betting on Biden who aren't thrilled with him as a candidate. The simple fact is that Trump is overvalued in nearly every market.