Clark overtakes Dean in political odds market (attn goobergunch, jiacinto)

[David_REE]

I posted this in General Discussion, but realized it's of more interest here, especially to folks like goobergunch and jiacinto.

If you don't know about it, I suggest you start following

http://www.tradesports.com

Political futures markets, where people bet real money, have historically been more accurate than polls in predicting election results. And, as far as I know, TradeSports has the highest trading volume of any political markets.

Click on "Politics" in the left-hand column. Then check out "Democratic Presidential Nominee."

Look at the number in the "Last" column to see the percentage odds, based on actual money being wagered.

Since a Clark contract has not been available, the "Field" contract represents him. (It means "someone else in the field".)

The odds right now are:
Clark 29
Dean 27
Kerry 16
Hillary 12
Lieberman 6
Gephardt 6
Edwards 3

If you click on the name, you can see a graph showing how their odds have fared in recent weeks/months. (Note that they use the DD/MM instead of MM/DD.) It's a British site, because gambling is not legal in the U.S., but most of the betters are U.S. citizens taking a small risk of being caught.

The odds had Kerry as the frontrunner for a long time. Dean overtook him a few weeks ago. And now Clark has overtaken Dean.

Also, check out their odds for Bush's re-election (63 right now). And the California governor's race, which has been fluctuating A LOT, but at this moment is Davis (recall fails) 41.9, Arnold 41.0, and Bustamante 28.0.

They also have odds on the Democratic caucuses/primaries, and the state-by-state odds in the 2004 election.

Put it in your favorites-- it's fascinating to watch on a daily basis.

[stickdog]

1. Field includes Clark, Kucinich, Gore, Biden, Graham, etc (NT)

[David_REE]

2. Yes, but the value represents the strongest one, not the sum.

And I think we know it's none of the others that's getting front-runner status at this time.

[Awsi Dooger]

3. I seem to be the only one here who bets politics

I live in Las Vegas and have been in a 16-man election pool every two years since '96, along with making offshore and man-to-man wagers on individual races. Several months ago I posted the offshore odds on Republicans holding the presidency in '04, 2/3, and it sailed through Politics and Campaigns minus a reply.

Correct, David REE, these markets are more accurate than polls and very interesting to watch. But I never get involved because there are seldom any bargains.

Contrast that to offshore or even bookie wagering, where I got Clinton as only a 2/5 chalk on election eve '92, when he was a cinch. Also in '00 when the late Zogby poll in New York plummeted the odds on Hillary down to less than 1/2 vs. Lazio, an absolute farce.

Last year I reluctantly, and against my politics and hopes, wagered on many of the Republican senate candidates because my data indicated the states were far more Republican leaning than the late polls indicated.

Of course, some of the best political bets I ever made have conveniently been left undetailed. They lost.

[David_REE]

6. How does one get involved? n/t

[Awsi Dooger]

11. I'm not sure what you're referring to

The election pool has been pretty much a closed community for the last 4 cycles, no additions or turnover. Sixteen is the ideal number because we do some things, similar to the NFL, in which contestants are placed in "divisions" or "conferences" and compete against each other there in addition to the group as a whole.

We pick each senate race, gov race, selected house races, and in presidential years every state result. You pick the winner, the percentage and the net result. The competitive races are the most crucial because picking the wrong winner is severely penalized. There are pools and payoffs for each (house, senate, gov, presidential) as well as an overall title. We tweak the specifics every cycle based on past problems, not unlike the BCS college football mess.

Overwhelmingly these guys are middleaged and conservative. They gleefully allowed me in as a surefire lefty pigeon prior to '96. I did gobs of creative state research, using handicaps similar to sports pointspreads to amend poll numbers, and cleaned their clocks in both '96 and '98, winning the all-around and virtually everything else both times. Then I blabbed about my methods, like a stone moron, and many of them caught up. Still, in 2000 I would have placed first again, and not 3rd, if Gore had rightfully prevailed. Last year I dropped to 6th, mostly because of some blown gov calls. I got the senate almost perfect but so did nearly everyone else. Those so-called senate upsets were all in Republican states, other than the Minnesota mess, and virtually no one in the pool ignored that.

You might try to get your own pool going, for fun or cash, maybe with other DUers. The limited races this year would be a good test run.

As far as the offshore betting, you need to get an account with one of the big and reputable outfits that primarily deal with sports wagering but throw in politics as an aside, or use the account of someone who is already in. It is convenient, but the money is forwarded ahead of time to give you a balance. The ones that deal politics can vary. "Cris" and "Olympic" are huge and not likely to screw you. I lost a chunk of cash in 2002 when a golf-oriented site, betcarousel.com, went under in March right after I made a substantial deposit.

[renie408]

4. When?

When is it more accurate? If you are trying to say that Clark is going to win, then your gambling spot wasn't real accurate last week. So WHEN is it most accurate? The night before the elections? Which is a fairly long way off? Why get excited about numbers NOW?? And yes, I freely admit that's because Edwards' numbers are low. But wouldn't you say that HISTORY is more accurate even than this betting site? Historically, September front runners do not win the nomination.

[David_REE]

7. Always

They are always more accurate than polls taken on the same day. A Sept 23 2003 market is more accurate than a Sept 23 2003 poll.

A Oct 23 2004 market will be more accurate than the poll taken the same day.

The real question is... how far in advance is the market more accurate than the polls? Hard to say.

But if you want to know how your candidate has faired, pull up the graph for his history. You'll see Edwards was a lot stronger at some point. He may be able to regain that.

[goobergunch]

5. Gamblers can often be more reliable than polls

because there's more in it for them. This is interesting...Clark (28) and Dean (26) are about tied.

I was also interested in the sub-odds...Dean leads Gephardt 33-29 in Iowa, with 15 for Clark, and Dean leads Kerry in New Hampshire 50 (!) to 18, with 15 for Clark.

[David_REE]

8. Fascinating isn't it?

I thought you'd be into it, goobergunch!

The odds on the Calif recall changed quite a bit today after the ruling.

[Awsi Dooger]

12. Here's a major screwup by political gamblers and an offshore book:

On election eve 2000, George Bush was a 10/17 favorite (bet 17 to win 10) to attain the presidency. The odds on Bush winning the popular vote soared even higher, to 2/5 (25 to win 10).

The speculation, of course, was that Gore could take the electoral vote but lose the popular tally. As more and more commentators and polls indicated this possibility, one major offshore betting outfit was so swamped with money on Bush winning the popular vote that it finally pulled that wager off the board completely, and never reinstated it.

A rightwing buddy of mine in Las Vegas was furious. He had been wagering with this outfit for years, huge amounts, and never seen them pull anything off the board before. And he had bet only a fraction of the five-fugure amount he wanted on George Bush to win the popular vote. Finally, he reluctantly placed the vast majority of the huge wager on Bush to win the presidency at 10/17.

All during election day before the results came in I had to hear him pessimistically moan about what a cinch Gore was to win the electoral vote, with Bush taking the popular vote. When the despicable result finally became official after SCOTUS several weeks later, the fortuitous fluke would have been enough to pay for a several new cars.

I can't even imagine how much money that offshore outfit cost itself by yanking the popular vote option. They would have been globally flooded with losing money on Bush. That's why they say bookies aren't supposed to have an opinion, or any fear.

[goobergunch]

9. It does seem to skew to the right a bit

BUSH.DELAWARE
G W Bush to win the electoral votes of Delaware
55

BUSH.ILLINOIS
G W Bush to win the electoral votes of Illinois
46

BUSH.IOWA
G W Bush to win the electoral votes of Iowa
70

BUSH.MICHIGAN
G W Bush to win the electoral votes of Michigan
60

BUSH.PENNSYLVANIA
G W Bush to win the electoral votes of Pennsylvania
60

[David_REE]

10. Perhaps, or...

...traders are betting relative to Bush's odds of winning the election as a whole. (That contract is trading at 63, down from 65.) That would show he's doing less well in the states you mentioned (except Iowa) than he is doing generally. So, when the overall odds fall from 63 to 50, those states will dip into the 40's and 30's.

Having worked for a futures trader, I know many trading strategies are based on the relative values of contracts, so I'm quite sure that's what's going on here.

I am a bit surprised that the overall odds are still at 63, but I think the rising stock market has had a lot to do with keeping it there.