2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Valmy]

Which is last state you were living in - so I'm a New Yorker.

Pity you couldn't have lived in Florida or Ohio for a bit before going to England.

[garbon]

I know.

[Martinus]

Putin has to be cheering on Trump. They will be best buds.

They will be the greatest buds. In fact, you couldn't believe how great buds they will be. You will be tired of them being the best buds. The will have the best buddy-ism between themselves.

[The Minsky Moment]

Plus Trump will have the most fantastic deal with Putin you've ever seen.  Obama's deal with Putin was the worse deal ever made.  Except for the Iran deal which is even worse than that.  And the trade deal was terrible.  A terrible, terrible deal.  The worst deal since the Germans signed the Versailles treaty.  Obama stabbed us in the back.  And no - I have no idea what that means or who said that. 

[dps]

Those odds imply about a 70% chance Hillary will win a heads up matchup. That doesn't seem crazy. I think I'd still bet on Hillary with those odds.

How do you convert betting odds into probabilities?

Tried to derive it myself last night but got nowhere.

You can't, and shouldn't directly, because people laying odds set the odds so as to attract equal amounts of bets on both outcomes.

For example, look at betting on the NFL.  Of course, for that they use the point spread, not odds, but the principle is the same.  Let's say that on the opening weekend this fall, Cleveland is scheduled to visit New England (I don't know that such is the case, or off-hand even if they play each other at all this coming season--this is just for an example).  Well, we know that New England is still a good team (even if a lot of people consider Belicheck or Brady or both to be the Anti-Christ), and we know Cleveland sucks, and apparently always will.  So we know that the Pats will be favored.  By how much?  Well, that's though to say.  Probably most people figure that New England will not only win, they'll cruise, so maybe the popular perception is that N.E. should be a 35 point favorite.  But the bookies know that if they put the spread that high, betters with no rooting interest in the game will have a tendency to go with the underdog, because few NFL games are decided by that much, even between a really good team and a really bad team.  So the line might open at 24.  That doesn't mean that the bookies think that the Pats will actually win by 24, just that the figure a 24-point spread will attract equal amounts of bets for each team.  Then as the week goes on, that line might get adjusted.  Now, sometimes the adjustment might be because something happens that changes the likely course of the game (Gronk's out, again?  We gotta drop the line to Pats -21), but often it just means that the betting isn't evening out.  If more money is being put on the Pats, the line will go up to encourage more money to be bet on the Browns;  if more money is being put on the Browns, the line will drop to generate more bets on the Pats.  It doesn't really have much to do with how much the bookies figure the Pats are likely to win by.

[Admiral Yi]

You can't, and shouldn't directly, because people laying odds set the odds so as to attract equal amounts of bets on both outcomes.

I know how bookies operate, and I even use the word "vigorish" in conversation.  But that doesn't mean there isn't value in knowing how the betting market is evaluating the probability of a Clinton victory.

[dps]

You can't, and shouldn't directly, because people laying odds set the odds so as to attract equal amounts of bets on both outcomes.

I know how bookies operate, and I even use the word "vigorish" in conversation.  But that doesn't mean there isn't value in knowing how the betting market is evaluating the probability of a Clinton victory.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that.  I just wouldn't worry about the deriving specific odds on who would actually win from that. 

And while you may know how bookies operate, not everybody does.  What I was posting wasn't specifically for you.

[alfred russel]

Those odds imply about a 70% chance Hillary will win a heads up matchup. That doesn't seem crazy. I think I'd still bet on Hillary with those odds.

How do you convert betting odds into probabilities?

Tried to derive it myself last night but got nowhere.

5/2 for Trump means you bet 2 to win 5, or get back 7 in total. So to make you indifferent to the bet the equation is $7 * (win probability) = $2, or a win probabiity of 28.6%.

4/9 for Hillary means you bet 9 to win 4. So $13 * (win probability) = $9, or a win probability of 69.2%.

[Admiral Yi]

5/2 for Trump means you bet 2 to win 5, or get back 7 in total. So to make you indifferent to the bet the equation is $7 * (win probability) = $2, or a win probabiity of 28.6%.

4/9 for Hillary means you bet 9 to win 4. So $13 * (win probability) = $9, or a win probability of 69.2%.

Thanks Dorsey.  I knew my vote not to banish you would pay off some day.

For anyone interested, Paddy Power has Kasich at 20-1 and Bernie at 22-1.

[alfred russel]

It doesn't really have much to do with how much the bookies figure the Pats are likely to win by.

It has to do with how much the betting public figures the Pats to win by, which in turn is a reflection of the best available information.

Betting has high transaction costs (the house take is substantial). So lines can differ a bit from the expected outcome incorporating available information. So if the world hates the Patriots, then maybe they will be favored by 24 when truly analytic analysis would show it should be 25.

But if it was off by a lot--say 15 rather than 24 -- there would be too much opportunity to profit by people with deep pockets. Capital would be invested by those with means to take advantage of the expected earnings resulting from misplaced lines caused by biased bettors (And in fact this occurs).

This is why studies have been done showing that basically none of the "experts" on TV offering advice actually beat the spread in the long term. They actually taught this in business school as an example of an efficient market.

[Admiral Yi]

This is why studies have been done showing that basically none of the "experts" on TV offering advice actually beat the spread in the long term. They actually taught this in business school as an example of an efficient market.

TV guys have to pick every week of the season.  Dumb money only moves the line for big, championship games when one of the teams is from a major metropolitan area.

I'm inclined to think if you limited your picks to only those instances, you could come out ahead.

[Razgovory]

You can't, and shouldn't directly, because people laying odds set the odds so as to attract equal amounts of bets on both outcomes.

I know how bookies operate, and I even use the word "vigorish" in conversation.  But that doesn't mean there isn't value in knowing how the betting market is evaluating the probability of a Clinton victory.

Yi, are you a bookie?

[CountDeMoney]

What if they refuse to pay for the wall and continue sending rapists into your territory? To me this seems aggravating enough.

I am sure President Trump will sit down with Nieto and work it all out

He will show Mexico how to take advantage of bankruptcy laws.

Wall: Paid for

[Admiral Yi]

Yi, are you a bookie?

No.

[Admiral Yi]

I just watched CNN air The Donald's 25 minute speech to AIPAC in its entirety.

The Donald's first speech from a teleprompter AFAIK.