Why doesn't Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Read my post again until you understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood it. Read my edit about tradesports which shows the difference between the sportbook bets and a market where both sides of a bet are actually represented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing in your edit disagrees with anything I posted. If Paul wins the nomination, then he would be about even money to win the election, and 35:1 is the same order of magnitude as 7:1, and less than 100:1. So thanks for making my point.

[ QUOTE ]
And I ask this question to you: If those sports book prop bets are even remotely accurate indicators of true probabilities, why did people take double digit odds on poker pros to win the 2006 WSOP ME, which had a field of 6000+?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the actual odds against the pros were probably only triple digits against. Which was exactly my point.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]

Because the actual odds against the pros were probably only triple digits against. Which was exactly my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, you obviously have no clue about tournament poker. If by triple digits you mean 999:1, then maybe. But even then pros would have to be more than 6 times better than the average player, which is probably the best case scenario given that even a pro who gets all-in against a complete idiot preflop with AA v. 23o is only a 5.5:1 favorite. Again thats the best case scenario, since most pros will even be forced to accept many 2:1, 3:2 allins for their tournament life. But even if I grant you that a tournament pro is 999:1 against the field, that is a far cry from the 30:1 prop bets that were being offered on some pros. Even 99:1 would be a ridiculous fish bet. The prop bets have very little relation to actual probabilities.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because the actual odds against the pros were probably only triple digits against. Which was exactly my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, you obviously have no clue about tournament poker. If by triple digits you mean 999:1, then maybe. But even then pros would have to be more than 6 times better than the average player, which is probably the best case scenario given that even a pro who gets all-in against a complete idiot preflop with AA v. 23o is only a 5.5:1 favorite. Again thats the best case scenario, since most pros will even be forced to accept many 2:1, 3:2 allins for their tournament life. But even if I grant you that a tournament pro is 999:1 against the field, that is a far cry from the 30:1 prop bets that were being offered on some pros. Even 99:1 would be a ridiculous fish bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. I think I'll ask DS about this.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because the actual odds against the pros were probably only triple digits against. Which was exactly my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, you obviously have no clue about tournament poker. If by triple digits you mean 999:1, then maybe. But even then pros would have to be more than 6 times better than the average player, which is probably the best case scenario given that even a pro who gets all-in against a complete idiot preflop with AA v. 23o is only a 5.5:1 favorite. Again thats the best case scenario, since most pros will even be forced to accept many 2:1, 3:2 allins for their tournament life. But even if I grant you that a tournament pro is 999:1 against the field, that is a far cry from the 30:1 prop bets that were being offered on some pros. Even 99:1 would be a ridiculous fish bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. I think I'll ask DS about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

GO ahead. Or just read Harrington on Holdem. I don't have my copy near me now, but I'm pretty sure that Harrington estimates that the top pros are at most 3-4 times better than the field.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because the actual odds against the pros were probably only triple digits against. Which was exactly my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, you obviously have no clue about tournament poker. If by triple digits you mean 999:1, then maybe. But even then pros would have to be more than 6 times better than the average player, which is probably the best case scenario given that even a pro who gets all-in against a complete idiot preflop with AA v. 23o is only a 5.5:1 favorite. Again thats the best case scenario, since most pros will even be forced to accept many 2:1, 3:2 allins for their tournament life. But even if I grant you that a tournament pro is 999:1 against the field, that is a far cry from the 30:1 prop bets that were being offered on some pros. Even 99:1 would be a ridiculous fish bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. I think I'll ask DS about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

GO ahead. Or just read Harrington on Holdem. I don't have my copy near me now, but I'm pretty sure that Harrington estimates that the top pros are at most 3-4 times better than the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that translates into being only a 3-4 times lesser dog to win. A chess player who is 3-4 times better than his opponent will almost never lose to that opponent.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because the actual odds against the pros were probably only triple digits against. Which was exactly my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, you obviously have no clue about tournament poker. If by triple digits you mean 999:1, then maybe. But even then pros would have to be more than 6 times better than the average player, which is probably the best case scenario given that even a pro who gets all-in against a complete idiot preflop with AA v. 23o is only a 5.5:1 favorite. Again thats the best case scenario, since most pros will even be forced to accept many 2:1, 3:2 allins for their tournament life. But even if I grant you that a tournament pro is 999:1 against the field, that is a far cry from the 30:1 prop bets that were being offered on some pros. Even 99:1 would be a ridiculous fish bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. I think I'll ask DS about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

GO ahead. Or just read Harrington on Holdem. I don't have my copy near me now, but I'm pretty sure that Harrington estimates that the top pros are at most 3-4 times better than the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that translates into being only a 3-4 times lesser dog to win. A chess player who is 3-4 times better than his opponent will almost never lose to that opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall how Harrington worded it, but the bottom line was that a pro has 3-4 times the EV of the average player, which with a top heavy payout correlates to a 3-4 times better chance of winning the tournament.

Regardless, anyone who knows anything about tournament poker will tell you that no pro is more than some single digit number times more likely to win the WSOP than the average player. Which, getting back to my initial example, means that those 30:1 prop bets that were being offered on pros in a 6000 player field had no relation to reality whatsoever.

[The4Aces]

The Military just released some of its own data... Looks like a group other than internet newbs look Ron Paul.

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/

and more intresting with the dat compiled:

http://ronpauldelaware.wordpress.com...l-over-mccain/

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall how Harrington worded it, but the bottom line was that a pro has 3-4 times the EV of the average player, which with a top heavy payout correlates to a 3-4 times better chance of winning the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? With a top heavy payout wouldn't 3-4 times EV mean something less than 3-4 chance to win?

What Harrington was probably saying was that the more top heavy the payout is, the more rewarding it is to a player's edge.

I think you're right that a top pro is probably no better than 1-1000 or 1-2000 or so, I don't really know. But this is almost entirely unrelated to politics betting. In politics betting there is a known field, and if Paul's numbers were artificially inflated, that would mean someone else's numbers are artificially deflated, and profit can be made. Someone with the right information will return the lines to where they should be. Betting on the wsop is just a gimmick thing for the book to make money off people willing to throw it away. If 100 fan boys put thousands of dollars on their hero Phil Hellmuth to make him 1/30, the books don't allow an option to bet the field at 29/30. If they did, you'd see smart money hit the field and the lines return to where they should be.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that translates into being only a 3-4 times lesser dog to win. A chess player who is 3-4 times better than his opponent will almost never lose to that opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chess =/= poker.