Oh Boy....

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think the betting lines are flawed, like I said to Nate, use your divine insight to go make a buck or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make a pretty big assumption that I haven't put money up...

[ QUOTE ]
I'm acting as if it means he has a 6% chance...What better indication is there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Things that take into account the electoral college, polls that place Paul against any of the top tier Republicans, common sense. Betting lines on political events are kind of funny...particular for third-party candidates (which is really what Paul is.) People who agree with the candidate overvalue him WAY more than supporters of a top tier candidate.

[Jamougha]

Law,

some of the core democratic voters would support Paul's position on drugs and same-sex marriage sure, but those are not hot-button issues for all but a tiny minority. I don't think that many Dems would be willing to exchange those for a gutting of the social programmes. And he's pro-life.

The independents OTOH are likely to be turned off on the drug issue quite a lot.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[url=http
I think aside from the fact that Paul would just tear her to shreds in a one-on-one debate,

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Stop it. He may have facts on his side and he may have theoretical underpinnings on his side but he comes across as a clown. He would have no chance of changing anyones mind in a one on one debate with Shrillary, and in fact his style is likely to shift people away, not attract them.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[url=http
I think aside from the fact that Paul would just tear her to shreds in a one-on-one debate,

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Stop it. He may have facts on his side and he may have theoretical underpinnings on his side but he comes across as a clown. He would have no chance of changing anyones mind in a one on one debate with Shrillary, and in fact his style is likely to shift people away, not attract them.

[/ QUOTE ]

That line struck me as ridiculous too. Hillary's policies may be repugnant, but she's also a brilliant, experienced politician totally familiar with the national spotlight and with positions that sound vastly more familiar and reasonable to the average person. It would be like the Kennedy-Nixon debate, but worse.

[mjkidd]

lol at anyone even discussing a Hillary-Ron debate at this point. I love the guy, but he has basically no chance to win the nomination.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What better indication is there?

[/ QUOTE ]Things that take into account the electoral college, polls that place Paul against any of the top tier Republicans, common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, betting lines ignore all those things.... [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
People who agree with the candidate overvalue him WAY more than supporters of a top tier candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be unfamiliar with what begs the efficiency of a betting market. While it's true that some people will always bet inefficiently, the mistake has negligible impact because the field of bettors is so limitless. The smart bettors will always, by betting more money until the inefficiency is gone, correct the errors of irrational bets.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
That line struck me as ridiculous too. Hillary's policies may be repugnant, but she's also a brilliant, experienced politician totally familiar with the national spotlight and with positions that sound vastly more familiar and reasonable to the average person. It would be like the Kennedy-Nixon debate, but worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not denying that Hilary will be hard to beat in the eyes of generic perception. When I said he would tear her apart, I meant by objective standards. Anyone arguing a consistent ideology would rip apart a mainstream politician, in my eyes. I don't know how anyone here would really disagree with that. Whether her strategy would win more votes is a different issue. Clearly that is the problem.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]

You seem to be unfamiliar with what begs the efficiency of a betting market. While it's true that some people will always bet inefficiently, the mistake has negligible impact because the field of bettors is so limitless. The smart bettors will always, by betting more money until the inefficiency is gone, correct the errors of irrational bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, right now on WSEX, Paul is 3 6. So I can short him now for 100, and wait 3-4 months for him to lose, so I can collect my 3 dollars. Or I can just go buy a CD or whatever. Betting markets factor in the opportunity cost of the money you'll have to tie up shorting a long shot like paul, which cause him to be quite overvalued.

[ALawPoker]

You can say the same about anyone if you want to assume every potential bettor thinks on those terms. "Rather than bet on Romney where I figure I have a 99-98 edge over the line, I could just put that money in a CD and expect more."

Who said you have to short Paul anyways? When one person artificially goes up, others artificially go down. So you could also capitalize by just betting on Giuliani if that seemed better to you. Whatever edge you can find in an efficient betting market will always tend to be negligible and thus one that you'd have done better to put in a different investment. Thinking this only applies to Ron Paul is very myopic. Every bet is one with such a small edge that it would always be +EV to put the money somewhere else instead.

"Betting markets are not efficient because the edge is so small that people will do better to put their money in other places." You need to realize that the betting market is comprised of individuals who, for whatever reasons, apparently prefer their money be live than in CDs. Since it exists, it is efficient.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Things that take into account the electoral college, polls that place Paul against any of the top tier Republicans, common sense. Betting lines on political events are kind of funny...particular for third-party candidates (which is really what Paul is.) People who agree with the candidate overvalue him WAY more than supporters of a top tier candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I go do my PhD I am going to write about this. I think, but do not know, that betting markets are the best determinant of a winner. I also you suspect you might be right about third party supporters overvaluing their candidates chances.