Just a quick update on my earlier post about the inexplicable fact that the betting markets were still implying that Donald Trump had a 5% chance of winning an election he's already lost. I would have expected common sense to kick in at some point, but incredibly it's gone the other way - at the time of writing, Trump is now implied to have around a 9% chance of winning. Which begs the question, who on earth is placing these obviously doomed bets on Trump, and why are they doing it?
Someone suggested on Twitter that it might simply be that people who successfully bet on Biden are closing out their position, which effectively counts as bets on Trump. That's technically a possibility, but it doesn't really make sense, because any such phenomenon will have been balanced out (perhaps more than balanced out) by people who placed pre-election bets on Trump and now think it's Christmas because they were somehow able to retrieve some of their stake by cashing out long after the election result was known.
It must be that there are an awful lot of true believers out there who actually accept the fairy-tales about industrial-scale fraud and who think the Supreme Court will overturn the election results in three, four or five states and that Trump will be inaugurated for a second term in January. When people are behaving as irrationally as that on betting markets, there's a golden opportunity to cash in. To pretty much remove any risk, the thing to do would be to place a lay bet against Trump (as opposed to a positive bet for Biden), and that will cover any unlikely scenario in which something happens to Biden. All you'd need is for Trump not to be declared winner of the election, which he won't be, and you'll have locked in a 9% profit. I'm still not tempted to do it, simply because a huge stake would be required to get a half-decent return. But this is just about the closest thing you'll ever see to free money.
I will offer you an even bet GBP100. You can have Biden, I'll take the negative of that position.
ReplyDeleteJust say "Agreed" as a response and we can work out how to settle.
Read the post more carefully. I said to take the risk away it would have to be a "not Trump" bet rather than a positive bet for Biden. So the answer to your exact proposition is "no", but modify it along the lines I've suggested and I'd be mad not to agree.
DeleteYou bet Biden before and cashed out early. Your article strongly implies that Biden will win, as Trump has already lost. Whilst the specifics of your article suggest a Not Trump bet, as a Biden supporter I am surprised that you did not grab the free money as you put it. In Oz I cannot get odds that you are suggesting I assume 1.03 (below) means you get 1.03 for your initial 1.0 what does 27 mean. If that is £27 for £1 bet then I am mad to offer you evens. I am not a betting person so I don't know what a lay bet is and dont understand what the various figures are on betfair, which I just looked at because of your reference below eg they have small squares with 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 with $amounts under them, what does this refer to? I have no idea. If your saying I can get £27 for a £1 bet on Trump to be next president then how do I do that?
DeleteEvens on Biden, let alone against Trump, is crazy value. There's a lot to be made from true believers like Kangaroo.
DeleteKangaroo: I'm not quite sure where to begin with that sea of cluelessness.
Delete"Your article strongly implies that Biden will win, as Trump has already lost."
Luckily you don't need to worry about what it "strongly implies", because what it unambiguously states is that any bet at this stage should be a lay bet against Trump. If you're prepared to modify your offer to come into line with the bet I was actually talking about in the blogpost, then let's get on with it.
Arlene Foster: You're right that evens on Biden is crazy value, but you have to factor in the extra risk of a private bet, ie. that the other person will not stick to their side of the bargain. As Kangaroo notes, I'm already sitting on a decent profit from this election, so I'm not sure why I'd bother mucking around with it unless he's daft enough to offer the completely risk-free lay bet against Trump that I talked about.
" Sea of cluelessness" a nice turn of phrase.
DeleteThe theory that Biden might not be next president due to ill health or possibly even death can be countered by simply betting on the democrats to be the winning party. That market is still open at betfair as well and you can get 1.09 for the back bet.
ReplyDeleteIt's like a free 9% when they finally close the markets.
Laying Trump on the main market has exactly the same effect.
DeleteJust looking through the other markets, and incredibly it's even still possible to bet on the popular vote winner. Biden is available at 1.03, and Trump can be laid at 27.
DeleteIn a previous post SSS stated that only unionists would feel the need to rebut the once in a generation lie. He even quoted the Britnat Sir John Curtice as a source to back up his comments.
ReplyDeleteWell done to Mhaira Black; Pete Wishart and Dr Philippa Whiteford in raising the matter in the House of Commons today during Scotland questions. Once again SSS is showing that he is a Britnat.
"On that basis does he think the recipe for a happy marriage is to lock up the wife, take away her cheque book and just keep refusing a divorce."
ReplyDeleteThe excellent words of Dr Philippa Whiteford to Alister (Union) Jack at Scotland Questions today. The answer is that Jack probably does think that .
Jack totally ignored all the points made about the Edinburgh Agreement and the Smith Commission. Some gold standard this- more like tarnished bronze. Why does any independence supporter think we can ever trust these Westminster chancers when they just ignore the papers they signed re the 2014 referendum.
A policy of waiting about for an unknown period of time for some agreement with Westminster for a sec 30 referendum that they have proven they will ignore when it suits them is truly unbelievable. What sort of leadership is this.
Jack in reply said: - " Its very straightforward, a generation by any calculation, is twenty years and, frankly, you just have to accept that ...."
Well I won't be accepting 25 years and any of these gradualists in the SNP who stick to this nonsense will be criticised by me and they will fully deserve the criticism. As even Wishart said today in Scotland questions there has been a significant majority in the polls for independence all this year.
Are they offering odds in a military coup and Trump as dictator ?
ReplyDeleteUnionists really pushing the Salmond 'generation' comment, again and again and again.
ReplyDeleteDemanding it be explained in a desperate effort to justify our 'Trump clone's' ((c) Joe Biden) refusal to permit democracy in the UK.
Even if Salmond had actually carved in stone 'This will be the only referendum for a gazillion generations' it wouldn't matter shit as it's not his or any single person's decision. It is up to all Scots to decide in majority as and when they see fit.
Beware those 'indy supporters' demanding time and again that the SNP have something to explain here. They don't and Scots know it fine well.
There are no Britnats demanding it be explained. Usual nonsense by SSS. The Britnats don't want it explained - they don't want the truth - because it is just a made up lie.
DeleteThe list of SNP politicians rebutting the once in a generation lie grows daily (about time to) but SSS would have you believe if you do this you are a Unionist - typical nonsense from SSS.
So will SSS be writing to his fellow SNP members Kenny MacAskill, Mairhi Black , Pete Wishart and DrPhillipa Whitford explaining to them why he thinks they are unionists.
DeleteOf course he won't, because he posts a lot of drivel.
James re your tweet on next SNP leader:
ReplyDeleteAngus Robertson - frying pan to the fire.
Swinney - give me a break.
Yousaf - he of the Hate Crime Bill and punting no jury trials - be afraid be very afraid.
Why is Dr Philippa Whiteford not mentioned in the odds to be next FM if Joanna Cherry is quoted.
ReplyDeleteNice.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54896377
Joe Biden and Micheál Martin 'have warm conversation'
Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Micheál Martin and President-elect Joe Biden held a "warm conversation" by phone on Tuesday afternoon.
The taoiseach congratulated Mr Biden and Kamala Harris on their election.
The Irish government said Mr Biden "reaffirmed his full support for the Good Friday Agreement" and discussed his "strong Irish roots".
"It's not in the Edinburgh Agreement."
ReplyDeleteThe words of Kenny MacAskill SNP MP to Michael Gove in the House of Commons this morning rebutting Tory MP Gove's lie that 2014 referendum was a once in a generation referendum.
The list of SNP politicians who disagree with SSS IS GETTING LONGER.
Of course triple S is just posting drivel as usual.
Good to see you supporting the SNP now IfS!
DeleteSSS - I have always supported the SNP by funds and votes so you know what you can do with the NOW comment. I will not be providing any more funds until the leadership is changed to remove the crooks.
DeleteYou are the one who told me not to vote for them.
I have NEVER voted for a British party.
So I will say it again as you clearly cannot read very well I am not happy with the CURRENT leadership - thought that would be clear to most people by now.
Au revoir!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54907188
Lee Cain: Top Boris Johnson aide quits amid infighting at No 10
I was screaming so hard at my mother for voting for Biden that the police were called. They threw me out of the cemetery.
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness, though, some things must be borne in mind.
1 - The media don't call it, the College of Electors call it.
2 - Biden hasn't reached 270 until the Pennsylvania electors are certified.
3 - They haven't been certified and won't be until we get to the bottom of the 3 million or so "late" and otherwise invalid Pennsylvania votes.
4 - Without them, Biden is on 259, not 279.
What's going on here is, sociologically far wider than a single US election. What we're witnessing is the point, after a century and a half, where huge masses of people are becoming openly, unapologetically, physically sick of the endless promises of the left, their stupid "arc of history" BS, their entitlement to claim justification of any wrong-doing because it's all validated by the nobility of their cause. This may actually be epochal, the point where people reject that supposed nobility itself. We don't know how this is going to turn out, but that's the thing about a genuine battle: it often happens that one side just breaks. This is why the left is so filled with rage - the coup was supposed to have worked by now, but Trump will not give in, and the Republicans, for once, are rallying in behind him. This ain't over by a long shot, and the constant, nagging fear of the left is that the side that's going to suddenly break will be theirs.
For Scotland, this should have very profound ramifications. The SNP is paralysed by woke, leftist politics. I'm prepared to say right now that Scotland will NEVER be independent if it continues, and Scots who want independence had better stop thinking of people on the small c conservative right as enemies whose votes would dirty their own ideological purity. The media can continue "calling it for Biden" till the cows come home, but Americans aren't buying it anymore, and if Scottish nationalists want an independent Scotland they better stop adding the addendum "but only if it's socialist".
"This is why the left is so filled with rage"
DeleteIt doesn't seem that the left is filled with rage right now in the US. Rather it's the opposite way around. Same in Scotland. The centre to left seem rather happy; it's the right that have made such an erse of things and are raging that they keep losing election after election.
Trump was less popular than the 'hated' ((c) Trump supporters) Hilary Clinton in 2016 and just lost the popular vote again.
He's just a rather rubbish and unpopular president, who looks largely guaranteed to serve only one term. The US population never really wanted him as POTUS and just fired him for being totally shit.
Incidentally, this is the media projecting Trump's win back in 2016:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37920175
US election 2016 result: Trump beats Clinton to take White House
With Trump only too happy to agree with them and declare victory while the result was not final and, with the college of electors having yet to declare it.
He's just acting like a big baby now things are the other way around.
Republicans just need to get over it and think the next POTUS election in 4 years.
Athanasius says " The SNP is paralysed by woke, LEFTIST politics." Well how did Mike Russell get to be a SNP cabinet minister then?
DeleteThe Mike Russell who wrote a book saying the whole of the Scottish NHS should be sold off to the private sector. Not even Thatcher went for that but a lot of Johnsons mob would love it.
Anathasius, a welcome voice of sanity amid this "ocean of insanity". That doubles the number of sane on here. Fortunately a "sea of cluelessness" is curable with education, so now I know that I could have got odds of 1.11 as a lay bet against Biden, instead of offering J Kelly very generous odds as above.
DeleteResidents in Oz cannot wager on an "in-play" situation so sadly I cannot participate in the dismemberment of Biden.
So James if I were you I would make a major lay bet against Biden, because as Athanasius says he and his cohorts are about to be eviscerated.