YARPT
 

Yet Another Ron Paul Thread

Thought this one was special enough to get it's own thread. There seems to be a growing divide between Republican organizations and their rank and file membership. For example, this email from my wife:

[ QUOTE ]
Read this one:
<font color="white"> . </font>
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=99982
<font color="white"> . </font>
Then read this one:
<font color="white"> . </font>
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...l-in-new-york/
<font color="white"> . </font>
--
Ron Paul is not running an internet campaign. The internet is running Ron Paul.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first article is a blurb stating that Dr. Paul was denied access to the NYC Republican Club for a fundraiser back in October:

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul’s campaign stated on its website that the New York Republican club told the campaign that there wasn’t enough support on its board to allow Ron Paul to host a fund raiser at the club.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Paul’s campaign is looking for another location for the October 12th fund raiser.
<font color="white"> . </font>
The Metropolitan Republican club states on its website that:
<font color="white"> . </font>
“We are a varied and enthusiastic group with the common goal of supporting New York City Republican candidates and ideals. Met Club activities include election campaigns, informational programs, and social events. Anyone who shares our basic goals and beliefs is welcome to become a member of the Metropolitan Republican Club.”

[/ QUOTE ]

The second article is a blog blurb on Dr. Paul winning the NYC Republican Club's own straw poll:

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul Wins! That’s the headline today after the first New York State Republican Straw Poll. Clearly, after raking in a record amount of money the other day, Mr. Paul is on a roll. He seems to have out-organized his fellow Republicans — on Rudolph W. Giuliani’s home turf.
<font color="white"> . </font>
The New York State straw poll was conducted Tuesday at the Metropolitan Republican Club in New York City.
<font color="white"> . </font>
The results: Mr. Paul, 26 votes; Mr. Giuliani, 21; Mitt Romney, 6; John McCain, 4; Mike Huckabee, 2; Duncan Hunter, 1; Fred Thompson, 1; Tom Tancredo, 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a difference a month can make? Or is it possible that the support from the membership was strong all along, and highly placed officials in the NYCRC denied the fundraiser on their own initiative? I don't know. But there has been a pattern of party elites excluding Dr. Paul from certain events while inviting far "fringier and longshottier" candidates like Tancredo, Brownback, Hunter in the past, and there is simply no way to sustain this anymore. Paul is in third place behind Giuliani and Romney in prediction markets, having surpassed both John McCain and Fred Thompson.

Interesting things are afoot.

Re: YARPT
 

Interesting things are afoot.

Indeed. If he wins, i will probably move to the us when i am done with my education and sweden turns even more socialist.

Re: YARPT
 

I have never put much weight into a straw poll victory, but Ol' Ron winning a straw pole in New York seems to be a sign that things may be changing.

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
Paul is in third place behind Giuliani and Romney in prediction markets, having surpassed both John McCain and Fred Thompson.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am totally obsessed with this. I stopped posting intrade updates because no one seems to really think much of it for some reason, but I think it's clearly awesome stuff. He's the THIRD most likely to win according to the betting market, and most msm outlets still treat him like he's a drunk Tancredo.

I love it. Everything is so encouraging of late.

Re: YARPT
 

I think that people that poo-poo the prediction market don't really understand it very well. There was a great article I read about it recently (not actually about the prediction market per se, but used it as an illustration of a broader point):

Evolution and the Wisdom of Crowds

Re: YARPT
 

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/7...8036382nj3.png

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul is in third place behind Giuliani and Romney in prediction markets, having surpassed both John McCain and Fred Thompson.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am totally obsessed with this. I stopped posting intrade updates because no one seems to really think much of it for some reason, but I think it's clearly awesome stuff. He's the THIRD most likely to win according to the betting market, and most msm outlets still treat him like he's a drunk Tancredo.

I love it. Everything is so encouraging of late.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain something to me about how this works? Does Ron Paul being at 9 (or whatever he is at) mean that I can bet against Paul being nominated at this number (and not have all my potential winnings swallowed up by commission). In other words, can I place a wager that will cost me $100, which I will lose if Paul IS nominated, but where I will WIN $9 if he is not?

If you can't do this, then I don't think this is at all an accurate measure of his chances. Betting markets are generally good predictors when they attract an equal amount of money on both sides.

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul is in third place behind Giuliani and Romney in prediction markets, having surpassed both John McCain and Fred Thompson.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am totally obsessed with this. I stopped posting intrade updates because no one seems to really think much of it for some reason, but I think it's clearly awesome stuff. He's the THIRD most likely to win according to the betting market, and most msm outlets still treat him like he's a drunk Tancredo.

I love it. Everything is so encouraging of late.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain something to me about how this works? Does Ron Paul being at 9 (or whatever he is at) mean that I can bet against Paul being nominated at this number (and not have all my potential winnings swallowed up by commission). In other words, can I place a wager that will cost me $100, which I will lose if Paul IS nominated, but where I will WIN $9 if he is not?

If you can't do this, then I don't think this is at all an accurate measure of his chances. Betting markets are generally good predictors when they attract an equal amount of money on both sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you can both bid and ask, i.e. buy and sell.

Edit to add: In fact you have to, since contracts are made between buyers and sellers, and not the "bookie".

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul is in third place behind Giuliani and Romney in prediction markets, having surpassed both John McCain and Fred Thompson.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am totally obsessed with this. I stopped posting intrade updates because no one seems to really think much of it for some reason, but I think it's clearly awesome stuff. He's the THIRD most likely to win according to the betting market, and most msm outlets still treat him like he's a drunk Tancredo.

I love it. Everything is so encouraging of late.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain something to me about how this works? Does Ron Paul being at 9 (or whatever he is at) mean that I can bet against Paul being nominated at this number (and not have all my potential winnings swallowed up by commission). In other words, can I place a wager that will cost me $100, which I will lose if Paul IS nominated, but where I will WIN $9 if he is not?

If you can't do this, then I don't think this is at all an accurate measure of his chances. Betting markets are generally good predictors when they attract an equal amount of money on both sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you can both bid and ask, i.e. buy and sell.

Edit to add: In fact you have to, since contracts are made between buyers and sellers, and not the "bookie".

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you can both buy and sell, but as a practical matter, how much money would I make right now by (short) selling a Ron Paul if he doesn't get nominated, and how much of my profit would go into commission?

Re: YARPT
 

Well the fee is fixed I believe, so the more you wager the smaller the percentage. I think the fee is something like $10? But I'm not sure. I don't actually trade on intrade.

Re: YARPT
 

Today's Volume 2

If it weren't illegal and/or if it were widely traded, I'd put more money on there than everyone ITT combined [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
Today's Volume 2

If it weren't illegal and/or if it were widely traded, I'd put more money on there than everyone ITT combined [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, I'd probably do the same, if those conditions were met and my money didn't have to be tied up for months.

P.S. It's not actually illegal, is it? I've always been under the impression that actually placing wagers like that is not against the law, but booking the bets is. Am I wrong? I assume you would know. If so, has anyone ever been prosecuted for betting online that you know of?

Re: YARPT
 

I don't know about federal law. Most states ban it, though.

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about federal law. Most states ban it, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very few states have laws concerning Internet gambling.

Re: YARPT
 

What's with the small number of voters in the straw poll? Are they always like that?

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about federal law. Most states ban it, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very few states have laws concerning Internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most states do have laws against betting on elections.

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's with the small number of voters in the straw poll? Are they always like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a private club.

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's with the small number of voters in the straw poll? Are they always like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a private club.

[/ QUOTE ]

Woah, I totally missed that, it's the same club that denied him access for a fundraiser?

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's with the small number of voters in the straw poll? Are they always like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a private club.

[/ QUOTE ]

Woah, I totally missed that, it's the same club that denied him access for a fundraiser?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's with the small number of voters in the straw poll? Are they always like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a private club.

[/ QUOTE ]

Woah, I totally missed that, it's the same club that denied him access for a fundraiser?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amazing how those tricky spammers are infiltrating private clubs.

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul is in third place behind Giuliani and Romney in prediction markets, having surpassed both John McCain and Fred Thompson.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am totally obsessed with this. I stopped posting intrade updates because no one seems to really think much of it for some reason, but I think it's clearly awesome stuff. He's the THIRD most likely to win according to the betting market, and most msm outlets still treat him like he's a drunk Tancredo.

I love it. Everything is so encouraging of late.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain something to me about how this works? Does Ron Paul being at 9 (or whatever he is at) mean that I can bet against Paul being nominated at this number (and not have all my potential winnings swallowed up by commission). In other words, can I place a wager that will cost me $100, which I will lose if Paul IS nominated, but where I will WIN $9 if he is not?

If you can't do this, then I don't think this is at all an accurate measure of his chances. Betting markets are generally good predictors when they attract an equal amount of money on both sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

You put up $91 if someone else has an offer for $9 and you want to bet against RP. I used to trade at this site when it was part of tradesports. I bought shares of Romney when he was at 9, but when the UIGEA went down, I sold. When it was part of Tradesports, it was $10 per share, so 9 meant .90, and you'd have to put up $9.10 to "short" RP. Commissions were like 2 cents per share.

Re: YARPT
 

Here's what I don't understand, maybe you can help. Someone mentioned that the price listed was basically the percentage chance of the event happening, at least in the opinion of the market participants.

But it seems like the price is just determined by the marginal pairs, right? Whatever you are willing to bid at and buy at is fair game, right? So the price on each individual candidate should not depend on the other candidates.

But then you add up the prices of the candidates, and damned if they don't total exactly 100 (well, 99.8, but to within roundoff in the individual numbers).

Is that a coincidence, or is this the market working better than even I would have believed?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Edit to add that the same is true of the Democratic nomination, although the total is a bit more off, around 97.

But the total for the election itself is again almost dead on 100 (~99).

Not sure I understand how the prices are all set independently yet they can all so nearly add up to 100, unless the market is FREAKING AWESOME, which I know it is, but come on. WTF?

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure I understand how the prices are all set independently yet they can all so nearly add up to 100, unless the market is FREAKING AWESOME, which I know it is, but come on. WTF?



[/ QUOTE ]
I think the market is freaking awesome. If the probabilities didn't add up to 100%, one possible explanation is that the remainder represents "the field" that isn't listed. However, since we're only two months from Iowa, just about every conceivable candidate is listed. If we assume that the nominees will be one of the people listed and the market were off by more than a couple percent, you could book a no risk win by just betting everyone to lose.

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's with the small number of voters in the straw poll? Are they always like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a private club.

[/ QUOTE ]

Woah, I totally missed that, it's the same club that denied him access for a fundraiser?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I feel like I have teh retard. This is so much more interesting and hillarious to me now.

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure I understand how the prices are all set independently yet they can all so nearly add up to 100, unless the market is FREAKING AWESOME, which I know it is, but come on. WTF?



[/ QUOTE ]
I think the market is freaking awesome. If the probabilities didn't add up to 100%, one possible explanation is that the remainder represents "the field" that isn't listed. However, since we're only two months from Iowa, just about every conceivable candidate is listed. If we assume that the nominees will be one of the people listed and the market were off by more than a couple percent, you could book a no risk win by just betting everyone to lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't that logic imply that you should be able to book an automatic win by selling both HOUSE.DEM.2008 and HOUSE.REP.2008, which together total less than 90?

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that people that poo-poo the prediction market don't really understand it very well. There was a great article I read about it recently (not actually about the prediction market per se, but used it as an illustration of a broader point):

Evolution and the Wisdom of Crowds

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet article.

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what I don't understand, maybe you can help. Someone mentioned that the price listed was basically the percentage chance of the event happening, at least in the opinion of the market participants.

But it seems like the price is just determined by the marginal pairs, right? Whatever you are willing to bid at and buy at is fair game, right? So the price on each individual candidate should not depend on the other candidates.

But then you add up the prices of the candidates, and damned if they don't total exactly 100 (well, 99.8, but to within roundoff in the individual numbers).

Is that a coincidence, or is this the market working better than even I would have believed?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Edit to add that the same is true of the Democratic nomination, although the total is a bit more off, around 97.

But the total for the election itself is again almost dead on 100 (~99).

Not sure I understand how the prices are all set independently yet they can all so nearly add up to 100, unless the market is FREAKING AWESOME, which I know it is, but come on. WTF?



[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, good observation. I was arguing with a friend of mine about why this is a reliable indicator a while back, and I never even thought to look at it that way. Good stuff.

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't that logic imply that you should be able to book an automatic win by selling both HOUSE.DEM.2008 and HOUSE.REP.2008, which together total less than 90?

[/ QUOTE ]
Depending on the vig intrade charges, yes, it does.

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that people that poo-poo the prediction market don't really understand it very well. There was a great article I read about it recently (not actually about the prediction market per se, but used it as an illustration of a broader point):

Evolution and the Wisdom of Crowds

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? The first paragraph was such complete nonsense that I stopped reading.

Re: YARPT
 

I thought it was good. I also happen to hear a lot of people tell me Wikipedia is garbage and betting markets aren't reliable indicators, so I enjoyed seeing a nicely laid out explanation. And I thought the tie to evolution was a cool touch.

I bookmarked it and will have it on reference for when I feel like I'm not getting through to someone.

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't that logic imply that you should be able to book an automatic win by selling both HOUSE.DEM.2008 and HOUSE.REP.2008, which together total less than 90?

[/ QUOTE ]
Depending on the vig intrade charges, yes, it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assume for simplicity that:

HOUSE.DEM.2008 = 80
HOUSE.REP.2008 = 10

Now if each of these were actually the actual percentage (a bit repetitive and redundent, I know), then your EV calculation to sell would be:

Sell Dem, put up 20 to win 80. Win 80 20% of the time, lose 20 80% of the time.
Sell Rep, put up 90 to win 10. Win 10 90% of the time, lost 90 10% of the time.

EV = 0 in both cases.

Now given that the total is only 90, there is 10% to be allocated somehow. Let's assume the actual percentages are 85% and 15%. Then your EV is:

EV(Sell Dem) = 80(0.15) - 20(0.85) = -5
EV(Sell Rep) = 10(0.85) - 90(0.15) = -5

And in fact you can see that no matter how you allocate the extra 10% you get a total EV betting both ways of -10.

Looks like a guaranteed loss to me, not a win.

I.e. your point remains but the guaranteed win should be to buy, and not sell both sides, right?

EV(Buy Dem) = 20(0.85) - 80(0.15) = +5
EV(Buy Rep) = 90(0.15) - 10(0.85) = +5

Or am I screwing the pooch somewhere obvious?

Re: YARPT
 

I think you're right. The guaranteed win is to buy both sides.

Re: YARPT
 

Like I said; your point still remains.

Re: YARPT
 

Aye; there's the rub. To buy both sides immediately you'd have to bid the available ask price, which totals 110. Ask on HOUSE.DEM.2008 = 90, ask on HOUSE.REP.2008 = 20.

Re: YARPT
 

You don't have to pay the listed ask price, that's just what you would have to pay if you wanted to buy something right now. You could post offers to buy contracts at the last sale price: HOUSE.DEM.2008 = 80, HOUSE.REP.2008 = 10 and hope someone (probably two someone's) take the bait.

Re: YARPT
 

It would have to be both sides, right? Otherwise your nefarious scheme is fubart. Also, you'd at least have to bid higher than the existing unsold bid prices.

Re: YARPT
 

Isn't this middling?

Edit: Except with the added benefit of not losing both bets the small percentage of the time that the team hits the spread exactly.

Re: YARPT
 

Damned if I know. What's "middling"?

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
Damned if I know. What's "middling"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not into sports betting so I'm not exactly sure how this works, I've had it briefly explained to me before by some old time sports bettors that I know. Perhaps someone who knows more can fill in the details.

As far as I know it's a strategy people use in sports betting if they can get two spreads for the same game using different bookies. The key is that the spreads be significantly different from each other. Basicly if the two spreads vary in some way you are always going to win at least one bet and it works out to be +EV. Supposedly the internet has made it nearly impossible to do because all the lines are so close now because all the bookies have the same information.

Re: YARPT
 

[ QUOTE ]
Damned if I know. What's "middling"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a sports betting term where you bet on one side of the line expecting it to move so that you can bet the other side leaving you a middle area where you win both bets. Usually you get either a big win (win both bets) or a small loss (the vig on one of your bets).