I couldn't disagree more, and he did not lose by that wide margin, and certainly closer than WJC who came in 3rd and didn't win NH either. Reagan didn't win Iowa either.

Not that I care either way for any of the candidates, but I'm a huge watcher of political races and history and odds and strategies and etc.

Calling him a non-factor is wrong [as of today], he is now a HUGE factor, even if he can't win. Hell, Muskie won Iowa and NH.

Favorite in NH sure, not really favorite overall. Iowa/NH don't change how Rudy is running in the big states. He is ahead of McCain by 14 pts in Fla. 14 in PA. 26 in NJ. 10 in Cali in the most recent polls.

Bodog football team props:


Will Terrell Suggs re-sign with the Ravens in 2008?
Yes -150
No +100

Will the Ravens use the franchise tag on Terrell Suggs?
Yes -130
No -110

Will Kyle Boller re-sign with the Ravens?
Yes -120
No -120

The price of the franchise tag for Suggs (around 9mm) and the Ravens cap situtation (not good) I lean no on that one. But I don't know a ton about football. These seem like the type of Bodog props that are very beatable. What do you folks think?

He was expected to do well in Iowa (having spent so much of his time and money there), and pretty much only in Iowa. He has much less money compared to Hillary and Obama, and little support in most upcoming primaries. The anti-Hillary vote is gonna be going to Obama as he continues to far outpace Edwards.

And he did lose pretty badly. Obama wasn't supposed to beat him 38-30.

Barring some kind of fluke (like a scandal involving Obama), he's done. In fact, I just read an article which pegged him as the biggest loser of any of the candidates (including both parties) in the Iowa primary. They had him as the #1 loser and Hillary as #2. Why? Because the thought is that he needed to win Iowa. Instead, he got beaten by a pretty good margin.

A beat writer from the Baltimore Sun seems to think they will be using the franchise tag on Suggs. Doesn't really go into detail though.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/f....column?page=2

McCain is the favorite. See WSEX, Matchbook, Intrade, etc. Unless you think those lines are off by a huge margin.

He's certainly a huge factor, as the longer he stays around the bigger chance Hillary has.

I wonder what % of ppl noticed that "Janurary" is spelled wrong.

Politics make my head hurt.

Hey guys,

I didn't see this Chatter thread on the front page and bumped the other chatter thread by accident. My bad.

As I said in the other post, I'm from MA, my friends at willing to give me unlimited action of 1:1 NE to win the SB. Thremp mentioned I should give action with my entire bankroll and hedge it out. I didn't realize NE was actually greater than 50% to win the SB. That is a bit surprising to me. At the risk of showing my sports betting noobness and possible overall lack of intelligence, does this eliminate any possibility of making profitable bets on or against the Patriots?

Watford at 4/5 is what I'd expect them to be at more or less to beat Palace in a league game. In the cup, where Warnock is going to play the youth team, it looks like great value

Sixfour. Did you have Man C last game at +225? That was beyond sweet. To bad they didnt beat Liverpool the previous game.

We suppose to play Watford today or not?

Well, they did win easy, so I hope you did :-)

Don't know about that Man City game, which one was that?

Vs. Newcastle 1/2

I would like to point out that I am probably the luckiest human being alive. TY Warriors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_bookmaking

Speaking of luck... Found this article. Now everyone can profit.

I suck of late

I had something like 8 straight winning weeks
now, lost 4 of 5 or so

Sorry to crash the party here guys, but...I'm going to Vegas this weekend with my girlfriend's family, and was hoping to put some bets down on the NFL games (totals and sides). We'll be watching the games together at the Hilton.

Anyway...is there going to be an official thread for the games this week? If so, could one of you regular dudes start it so I can bask in your awesome collective wisdom? And if you ever find yourself in a tricky 10/20 Limit Holdem Spot, stop by SSLHE

there is a thread

it's "div round lines" IIRC

Gratzi

This sounds like me, although I won last week. Turned a great year into an OK year.

i have gotten absolutely butchered the last three weeks - second worst downswing monetary wise of my career, and the first was the whole of wsop 06 - to the point where after two years of sports betting i am pretty much going to cut back my betting by like 80% and focus on poker. have not had more than one or two winning days in the last three weeks. 5% of my losses are at poker, 95% sports.

and before this three week stretch began i was as confident as i'd ever been.

They are way off. Those markets are beyond tiny, no depth, and reactive, not predictive. People hear the day's news events and then bet their $25 or whatever. Academic studies have shown these mkts are way too small to be predictive.

intrade had a total of like $240k on Rudy to win. It's so small for a so-called 'market' you can barely measure it. Online trade of 400 shares of Google. Traded once.

Same markets previously had Bush at 35% at 6pm on Election Day.

McCain was ahead post-NH last time around.

WSJ has partnered up with intrade to allow readers to wager $10k of fake money. Here's what they said about intrade right before the debut:

'Just one caveat: These markets are a long, long way from infallible. Just like other financial markets, they are prone to popular moods and intemperate swings. When pricing houses, or shares in Pets.com, or the prospects of political candidates, the market does not always know best.

Just in the last three months, for example, markets have assessed Mike Huckabee as having (a) no hope of winning the Republican Iowa caucus, (b) a near lock to win it, and (c) none of the above. His chance, according to betting at InTrade, has swung between about 10% and 75%.

Over the same period, Barack Obama's chance of winning the Democratic caucus has swung between 20% and 60% - and has just leapt nearly 20 points, from just over 40% Monday to 59% today.

To be sure, in close and fast-moving races like these you would expect prices to be volatile as fortunes change on the campaign trail. The question is: How much volatility is justified? Would a mature, balanced assessment of Mike Huckabee's chances in the Iowa caucus really have put them at just 10% in mid-October, and at 75% two months later?

Consider other examples of extreme volatility from the campaign trail. Since December 2006, John McCain has appeared to be a runaway favorite to win the Republican nomination with a better than 50% chance, and a no-hoper with a less than 5% chance.' wsj.com

Anyone know where I can get past MMA lines? I found this site: http://www.zewkey.com/ufc%20odds%20history.htm, but it only has UFC cards back to UFC 56.

Naj,

No offense, but I think you're pretty wrong here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ies_chart.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...imary-194.html

Seems the market is fairly accurately adjusting to new polling data.

Huckabilly has no chance despite Iowa. However, I think Obama would lose in an election to any of the other major Republican candidates.