Recently I was in Kentucky, reporting on horseracing for Garden & Gun. A "whale" (bettor of thousands of dollars per day) I interviewed, Mike Maloney, successfully traded securities, options and futures, but chose to go to the track every day instead because it offered him a greater challenge. "There are many, many, many more factors to consider in betting horseraces," he said.
Maloney is a youthful fifty-two, with alert, light blue eyes and a cheerful demeanor. He doesn't chomp on a cigar. He's in no way a Damon Runyon character. I have reason to believe he's a sort of mathematical genius.
I asked him: "Do you think handicappers can forecast the outcome of the presidential election better than polls?"
He didn't hesitate. "Polls can be inaccurate. People may say what is politically correct, the questions may be leading, the pollsters may be biased. A pollster can still bill for an inaccurate poll. Bookmakers must make an accurate line or they lose -- period."
For a second opinion I went to Ray Paulick, who was a protégé of notorious oddsmaker "Jimmy The Greek" before becoming a handicapper for the Daily Racing Form. Now he's editor of the thoroughbred industry insiders' must-read Paulick Report. "Gamblers have more experience with cheaters," he said. "They take voter fraud into their metrics. Polls don't. Nor do polls take into account how each state's secretary of state factors in, or systems within a state designed to eliminate voters; Jimmy the Greek called these 'the intangibles.'"
The multi-billion dollar online gaming industry offers evidence that Maloney and Paulick are, as usual, on the money.
Michael Robb, political expert for the British bookmaking site Betfair.com, lets the record speak for itself: Halfway through Election Day in 2004, when a CNN poll showed Kerry taking the lead, Betfair had Bush with a 91% chance to win.
Of course that's just one election. Probably hundreds of fifth-grade social studies students correctly predicted Bush's margin of victory to a decimal place, right?
Betfair also had all 50 states right in 2004.
As did rival site Intrade.
Koleman Strumpf, a University of Kansas economics professor who tracks betting trends, believes wagering is an incomparable barometer of an election. Among the reasons he gave me:
Relative to the polls, the betting markets have to think hard about what they're saying since they are putting their money at stake. Also polls tend to reflect what people are thinking at a given moment, versus a forecast of what will happen on election day -- post-convention bounces, for instance.
With University of Arizona economist Paul Rhode, Strumpf authored a study -- "Historical Presidential Betting Markets," published in Journal of Economic Perspectives -- that demonstrates that the betting market's forecasting superiority is nothing new.
They begin with America's long history of wagering on political outcomes, which boomed in the 1880s when betting moved from poolrooms to the Curb Exchange, the predecessor to the American Stock Exchange. Betting on political outcomes often drew huge crowds to Wall Street and exceeded trading in stocks and bonds.
"In presidential races such as 1896, 1900, 1904, 1916, and 1924, the New York Times, Sun, and World provided nearly daily [betting] quotes from early October until Election Day," write Rhode and Strumpf.
The papers' sources were betting firms, which had men present at speeches made by the candidates in order to make "unbiased reports of the psychological reactions of the audiences."
In the fifteen elections between 1884 and 1940, the betting firms were wrong just once, in 1916, when Wilson upset Hughes. And the gamblers might have had a perfect record had the Curb Market stayed open long enough to take into account late-breaking news from the West.
The advent of polls marked the end of an era. "Prior to Gallup's introduction in 1936, newspapers had little else to report about the election horserace other than the betting markets," Strumpf said. "When scientific polls came along, newspapers had something to report other than markets they were oftentimes uncomfortable with."
Responding to such discomfort, state laws increasingly limited organized election betting. Betting persisted, but in the shadows. Accordingly little data exists from 1940 through 1984, though it's enough that Strumpf concludes gamblers were more accurate than the pollsters in that period too.
The advent of internet wagering offers a clearer picture: "Since 1988, the betting markets have definitely been more accurate," Strumpf said.
It's still illegal for United States citizens to wager on the presidential election; Betfair and Intrade try to bar American bettors. Several newer off-shore sites are more lenient, however.
Currently, Betfair lists Barack Obama as an overwhelming 1-7 favorite (paying $8 for a $7 winning bet). A John McCain win would pay $6.80 for every dollar bet.
"On Election Night I'll look at the movement on the betting sites to see what's going on," Strumpf says. "I watch CNN too, out of the corner of an eye, but it's not necessary."
Follow Keith Thomson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kqthomson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1exiyBYnJ00
Its called ANYONE CAN BE VP, you can search it on Youtube!
VOTE OBAMA 08'
The Thinking Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KzbJtG9V2E
So why don't all the teevee chanels book Bill Bennet all day long?
So, let me get this straight. I have to spend $8 in order to get back (win?) $7? That's considered winning?
Continuing the thought...
If I bet on Obama to win, I actually lose money. But in the long run, with Obama as president, I win.
If I bet on McCain to win, and he does, I make money. But in the long run, with McCain as president, I lose.
I don't know if I'd refer to the odds of Obama winning as an overwhelming favorite. As far as the betting goes, I'd call it a prohibitive favorite, because losing money to win the bet prohibits me from making the wager.
Probably haven't had enough coffee this morning. Just as well. If the line is long at the polling station, I doubt that anyone would hold my place in line while I went to the restroom. Because this precinct is largely Republican, this would be more accurate if they (the line holders) knew that I was voting for Obama. To play it safe, I'll wear a red shirt.
I hope they're right, I'd love to see not just a win but a landslide.
"FDR did not voluntarily implement the new deal." "It was a compromise that became acceptable because of massive grass roots pressure. FDR could then turn round to those in power and say "See, I have no choice." "
For this, movements like Moveon.org need to return to citizen activism from Obama support. Clever woman, and a terrifically motivating speaker.
- Naomi Klein at Stanford University, 10/16/08
http://auroraforum.stanford.edu/event/a-conversation-with-naomi-klein#related_event_information
Truthfully, an acquaintance of mine suggested that bookies' main job is a 'balancing act,' that the line is less about any oddsmakers own money--they thrive on the rake alone, for the most part--than about making sure that, whatever the outcome, they do not have a catastrophic position in either direction.
Thus, a football game between "Behemoth U." and "Bambi State" might generate a forty point spread, if enough 'Bambi State' fans support the old alma mater, when the more realistic gap between the teams is eight touchdowns instead of five and a half. This worries me, even given the 'nothing tangible' at stake. I've got my pride for God's sake.
I stand with the respondents here. If Barack doesn't emerge victorious, what are we going to do? Then again, I'd say the query is equally apt inasmuch as he puts his hand on Chief Justice Roberts' Bible twelve weeks hence.
At a finer level he calculates the various odds so that the 'punters' receive an unfavourable rate – it works something like the small difference between 'we buy at' and 'we sell at' rates in a currency exchange. Though the mechanism is different, the result is indeed somewhat like the house rake in a poker room or the house edge at roulette.
On a betting exchange such as Betfair, there is no bookie. It's more like a computer dating service, but it introduces gamblers to one another's propositions rather than introducing lonelyhearts. And in this case, there is a clearly visible rake – in Betfair's case, levied on the winner of every completed wager. Either way round – bookie or exchange – the odds are determined by what the gamblers themselves are prepared to make a deal at.
roflmao
Me thinks ya lose if ya bet on republicans...
hee hee hee
The Republican are clearly artificially manipulatiing the outcome of this Election!
If the issue in the below Video was truly a "cCalibration” Error, pointing to mccain SHOULD have result in a similar mis-registration of a "wrong" vote. What in fact did NOT happen in case of Mccain!!!
Watch and then video, take a picture of your Vote with your ID or drivers license and makes sure what you voted is visible with it all: It might become very important in the next few Days and Weeks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9NSVUu8nk
Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note the important word peaceably.
Several people have pointed out that it worked in Ukraine, and the votes there were finally counted.
Will be closing lot of loop offices early because traffic will be a mess.
Tomorrow is finally the V-Day we have been waiting for and will be glad it is finally over.
However, haven't heard that lady sing yet so don't know who will be doing the Victory lap.
No matter which side wins, we will be hearing for the next several months from the losing side
that the winning side cheated, so this should keep the media outlets busy for awhile with their
very important input about why the winner won and the loser lost....