No doubt.

That's not how opportunity cost is defined. But yes, you should price in the risk that comes from the unlikelihood that the site just folds and walks away with your money.

Dude I don't know but it seemed really easy in 2008 when all you needed to do was compare the lines on the presidential election to the 538 predictions.

It's run by a university, so I don't think that's very likely.

The Iowa Electronic Markets is also an option without needing currency conversion for Americans, although it has few contracts (currency just who wins Congress and a Federal Reserve rate market).

Nah it was pretty damn soft last election and even more so back in '08. Stuff like Rick Perry trading above Romney before he even announced was craziness. As Mvd said, you could have beaten the market just by parroting 538 through both cycles.

PSA for you degens, sportsbooks will often throw up some soft lines when elections get closer. The downside is that limits are usually really small. I got really excited when I saw Romney at +110 to win the primary when it was all the way down to him and Santorum. Max bet: $100, lol.

At one point, intrade had Huntsman at >10% to win the primary. There was def some free money on there if you poked around a bit.

The Romney bump after the first debate which I predicted he would win befiehand but would mean nothing was a great +EV opportunity to exploit for example. There was a tonne of dumb cash in there.

It's real easy to look back now and go yeah! Shorting Huntsman, shorting Perry, ez game. But on paper, both those candidates looked pretty good. Huntsman was smart, capable, and a good looking candidate. Had he not run towards the moderate wing of the party, he might have enjoyed one of the huge rises in the polls all the other candidates did. Perry looked just like George W. Bush. He had never lost an election until he ran for the nomination.

It was pretty clear the base was trying to rally around anyone but Romney. Had Perry not royally f-ed up in the debate, he could have done it. Romney was never a lock IMO.

So yeah, there definitely was some easy money on Inrade, if you did your hw, checked 538, thought about your trades rationally. I made a couple grand on Intrade, had 100%+ returns in less than a year, and im pissed it's not online anymore but you know, I never made a trade where I didn't have SOME doubt in my mind. Politics is crazy, one line at a debate or article in the NYT could send your contract spiraling downward in seconds.

But let's not pretend most people weren't also looking at 538. The prices on Intrade would move on Nate Silver's every word and you'd often have to pay a premium on whatever 538 was forecasting.

Right now, I think Rand Paul is the favorite for the nomination. He's got the charisma, he speaks well, he appeals to the youth vote and he definitely is trying to appeal to more than just the libertarian/tea party wing of the party, unlike his father, who almost won the Iowa Caucus had it not been for the news reports on the Ron Paul Newsletters.

Christie and Rubio also have huge potential. Christie would be the favorite fs it wasn't for bridgegate and let's admit it, his weight is still a negative.

Rand Paul is not just some "empty headed opportunist". He is not a neo-con and is against the surveillance state and bogging the U.S down in foreign wars. Both of which are in vogue, even in the Republican party. It's no wonder he is leading the polls or usually at the top. And to my knowledge he is the only candidate to have topped Hillary Clinton in battleground state in a GE matchup. The state being Colorado. The most recent survey showed this has reversed, but I think this shows that he has the ability to appeal to more than just Republicans. And there is no doubt in my mind, Clinton still has way more name recognition.

Rand's ceiling is a little higher than Ron's but I would be shocked if he won a single primary state. Time will tell. If he won the nomination I would vote certainly vote for Clinton, hell I would vote for Warren over him.

Huntsman never looked like a remote possibility, I mean he was practically laughed offstage. And I'm pretty sure we were all loling at his intrade listings at the time.

Rand is helped by the fact that he's sort of a "none of the above candidate" in a completely dysfunctional field. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he wins a few states. Jeb Bush is the big wildcard --if he runs, he's almost a lock, if not, I have no idea what will happen.

Barring a major scandal or gaffe, I would be shocked if he didn't at least win one. He's already got organizations and support across the country, and is well placed in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Or investing the 270 required to make him look like a contender.

Because he never ran to Mitt's right. But I thought he had huge potential, considering his competition. Ron Paul was lol old, Herman Cain was a joke, Bachmann was a joke, the base didn't like Mitt, the field in general was weak. If he had thrown some red meat to the base, it could have been different.

Stephen Colbert Leads Jon Huntsman in South Carolina Poll

Jeb might be the favorite amongst party elites and the money bundlers, but I don't see him winning considering he supports Obama's immigration reform and common core. Not that I'm against common core, but the base most definitely does not.

Figuring out the Republican party is probably a fools errand but if perceived elect ability is the chief concern then eliminate Cruz/Paul.

Electability is chief concern for the establishment but the primary voters (aka Tea Baggers) will still be in full revolt then.

Primary rules have to change or primary turnouts have to improve very significantly to make it viable for any "electable" candidate to survive the GOP primaries.

There is another possibility: the establishment candidate trouncing the field so early he/she has time to steer toward the middle. I find that extremely unlikely.

I don't understand why you all think Rand Paul is not General Election material.

Huntsman never had a chance except with people who were actually democrats.

The field is not nearly as dysfunctional as trolly makes it out to be. A lot of big names sat out last go around. Christie and Walker are both very capable candidates.

Clownshow then Jeb.

I don't pay all that much attention to Rand and see him as a slightly more moderate Ron. If he unveiled an economic plan that was acceptable to business then maybe he has a shot. My perception is he would propose a slashing government spending and monetary policy nonsense which I view as suicidal nonsense.

He's not a polished campaigner either imo.

Jeb will really struggle esp in the early states with his immigration policy ideas. I think its just super dumb to claim he is a lock, though I think he is one of the favourites. At this point no one is even close to a significant favourite.

Saying Rand has a higher ceiling than his dad is just really underselling how bad Ron was. But I figure he is no better positioned than Cruz who draws stronger support from a lot of the coalition that Rand would have to build to stand a chance and who is backed by a small handful of massive money guys that will fund his campaign to the end. The whole "yeah, but libertarians!" is easily just laughed away with "yeah, where is Ron now?". Rand is the guy who wins the early CPAC straw polls and all that bull**** which actually never equals a win later imo.

People are throwing around Scott Walker as a plausible winner, Perry bought new glasses and is letting Texas poors die because he wants the job and Susana Martinez could make an extremely strong (but fundamentally flawed) argument that she is the right choice because she will bring out the Hispanic and female vote. I guess Christie is worth including but its not clear yet how bridgeghazi ends for him.

There is a not ready for prime time feeling about Rand. He seems stuck somewhere in between a pure gimmick candidate (ron, Herman Cain) and a real one. Maybe that can change with more competent management though. Assuming he isn't a Rick Perry level moron that prob can't win with GOAT management.