Easy Money -- Oddsmakers Pick the Prez
$Zero
here ya' go!
The Most Accurate Election Forecast?
Hardcore Gamblers
by Keith Thomson
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/the-most-accurate-electio_b_140181.html
---------------------------
[...]
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.'"
[...]
---------------------------
obligatory $Zero-NOTE:
the rest of the article is well-worth the read.
just for the laughs alone.
but do so now, before skipping past the spoilers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/the-most-accurate-electio_b_140181.html
* S P O I L E R * S P O I L E R * S P O I L E R * S P O I L E R *
* S P O I L E R * S P O I L E R * S P O I L E R * S P O I L E R *
* S P O I L E R * S P O I L E R * S P O I L E R * S P O I L E R *
* S P O I L E R * S P O I L E R * S P O I L E R * S P O I L E R *
---------------------------
Currently, Betfair lists Barack Obama as an overwhelming 1-7 favorite
(paying $8 for a $7 winning bet).
A John McCain win would pay $6.80 for every dollar bet.
---------------------------
The Most Accurate Election Forecast?
Hardcore Gamblers
by Keith Thomson
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/the-most-accurate-electio_b_140181.html
...
time to pony up, Skipper, et al!
-$Zero...
how much doth thou lie, let us count the ways...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f2e2164216ccd66a
Pies de Arcilla
> Bookmakers must make an accurate line or they lose -- period."
That's nonsense. The line has to make the intake and the payout equal
+ a profit margin. The bookmaker doesn't care if the odds are
accurate, only if the bettors _think_ they are.
$Zero
if an oddsmaker's line is not accurate, they risk huge losses because
other competing oddsmakers will strive to offer as accurate of a line
as humanly possible.
because an intelligent well-funded gambler will check many lines
before making a wager.
and will place their cold hard cash on the best deal available.
see how that works?
it's called "the forces of the free market in action".
Pies de Arcilla
> On Nov 3, 4:46 pm, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 3, 1:29 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bookmakers must make an accurate line or they lose -- period."
>
> > That's nonsense. The line has to make the intake and the payout equal
> > + a profit margin. The bookmaker doesn't care if the odds are
> > accurate, only if the bettors _think_ they are.
>
> if an oddsmaker's line is not accurate, they risk huge losses because
> other competing oddsmakers will strive to offer as accurate of a line
> as humanly possible.
>
> because an intelligent well-funded gambler will check many lines
> before making a wager.
>
> and will place their cold hard cash on the best deal available.
>
> see how that works?
No.
Suppose I live in Limbaugh-land, and I take bets on Obama winning or
McCain winning at 2:1 odds. Obviously, the real probability is far
from 50-50, but if I get equal numbers of (delusional) people betting
on each side, then I could care less about who wins or what the real
odds are.
If you're competent, you set the odds so that every possibility has an
equal total payout, so you don't care what happens or if the odds are
correct.
"The art of bookmaking is that [the bookmaker] will take in, for
example, $130 in wagers and only pay $100 back (including stakes) no
matter which horse wins."
Read the example under "Gambling odds versus probabilities" in the
wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds
$Zero
> On Nov 3, 6:10 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 4:46 pm, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 1:29 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Bookmakers must make an accurate line or they lose -- period."
>
> > > That's nonsense. The line has to make the intake and the payout equal
> > > + a profit margin. The bookmaker doesn't care if the odds are
> > > accurate, only if the bettors _think_ they are.
>
> > if an oddsmaker's line is not accurate, they risk huge losses because
> > other competing oddsmakers will strive to offer as accurate of a line
> > as humanly possible.
>
> > because an intelligent well-funded gambler will check many lines
> > before making a wager.
>
> > and will place their cold hard cash on the best deal available.
>
> > see how that works?
>
> No.
yes.
> Suppose I live in Limbaugh-land, and I take bets on Obama winning or
> McCain winning at 2:1 odds.
if your oddsmaking competitors do their homework, you'd be in big
trouble financially -- in all probabilty, anyway.
> Obviously, the real probability is far
> from 50-50, but if I get equal numbers of (delusional) people betting
> on each side, then I could care less about who wins or what the real
> odds are.
IF
that's a rather risky IF.
which is the point of the article.
oddsmakers generally go to the trouble to make good odds because
there's actual money involved and they want to make the odds a virtual
coin toss so that they win the vig (the spread which they build into
the two odds).
not to mention your parenthetical.
> If you're competent, you set the odds so that every possibility has an
> equal total payout, so you don't care what happens or if the odds are
> correct.
point mine.
> "The art of bookmaking is that [the bookmaker] will take in, for
> example, $130 in wagers and only pay $100 back (including stakes)
> no matter which horse wins."
>
> Read the example under "Gambling odds versus probabilities" in the
> wikipedia article athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds
now apply that to the real world.
the real world where there are more oddsmakers than just yourself who
are laying odds and actually taking bets.
the free market drives the dynamic.
of course, if the fix is in...
all bets are off, so to speak.
ba'dum, chsh!
Pies de Arcilla
>
> the real world where there are more oddsmakers than just yourself who
> are laying odds and actually taking bets.
>
> the free market drives the dynamic.
>
My point is that bettors can be wrong for a long time, just like
investors. And competent bookies only need to pay attention to the
market, not the real odds.
Have you ever heard the saying "the market can be irrational longer
than you can remain solvent"?