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

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

Leave the $10k in escrow invested in the same instrument you would move it out of. Problem solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I don't understand how escrow works. I've never used it.

[The4Aces]

We both agree on an escrow companey. We send them our money. In many cases we can tell them what to do with the money until the bet is over. IE. We tell them to put it ina high yield savings account. Invest it in the stock market. ect.

What ever is there when the bet is over. The winner gets that amount.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

The sportsbooks seem to disagree with you. I've seen him anywhere from 15-1 to 7-1 against. My wife mentioned seeing 5-1 against, but I haven't been able to find that.

sportsbook.com has him at 15-1.

http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/livelines.php

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking strictly objectively here, these odds aren't reflective of any actual market-derived price. Sportsbook.com and other online bookmakers make money off of these because they pay out much lower than the actual odds. You can't take the other side of the bet at 1:15, for example.

I'd guess the best source would the be the political futures markets bookmaker places, about which I know nothing. Maybe someone else can chime in.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
We both agree on an escrow companey. We send them our money. In many cases we can tell them what to do with the money until the bet is over. IE. We tell them to put it ina high yield savings account. Invest it in the stock market. ect.

What ever is there when the bet is over. The winner gets that amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, sorry, but that's way too much work for a 1% return.

[j555]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Circular logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say both of those things. I'm not saying Paul is going to win or even has a good chance to win. But the man quadrupled his Q1 donations in Q2 and distanced himself from the 2nd tier. The problem is he's an even greater distance from the 1st tier. How far that distance is I'd like to wait to judge. Those national polls aren't a good indicator at this point as they are all name recognition. Fred Thompson is 2nd and he hasn't said anything to give you an example. This is why Paul needs a strong 2nd at the Iowa Straw Poll to give him more coverage in the media. If he tanks there, then I don't like his chances at all.

[The4Aces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We both agree on an escrow companey. We send them our money. In many cases we can tell them what to do with the money until the bet is over. IE. We tell them to put it ina high yield savings account. Invest it in the stock market. ect.

What ever is there when the bet is over. The winner gets that amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, sorry, but that's way too much work for a 1% return.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats what happens when u do 100:1 bets.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say he is doing a pretty damn good job of balancing the extremist ideas versus staying agreeable and not opening oneself up for attack and slander.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point. IMO he comes off as much less "cooky" than Michael Badnarik, for example, even though they're saying the same thing.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

The sportsbooks seem to disagree with you. I've seen him anywhere from 15-1 to 7-1 against. My wife mentioned seeing 5-1 against, but I haven't been able to find that.

sportsbook.com has him at 15-1.

http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/livelines.php

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking strictly objectively here, these odds aren't reflective of any actual market-derived price. Sportsbook.com and other online bookmakers make money off of these because they pay out much lower than the actual odds. You can't take the other side of the bet at 1:15, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point, though. It doesn't matter that the actual odds are higher than 7:1 (or whatever) against; the point is that these odds are being continually adjusted downwards, because the 200:1, and then 100:1 odds against Paul previously were clearly bad lines.

Furthermore, there is upward market pressure exerted on lines like these. The lines have to be low enough to be +EV for the bookmaker, but high enough to entice bettors into betting. Bookmakers competing against each other for bets also raise the lines.

So, while the bookmakers hope to make money because the lines are longer than 7:1 (or whatever) against, the actual odds (ideally) aren't too far off from that. Certainly the same order of magnitude.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

The sportsbooks seem to disagree with you. I've seen him anywhere from 15-1 to 7-1 against. My wife mentioned seeing 5-1 against, but I haven't been able to find that.

sportsbook.com has him at 15-1.

http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/livelines.php

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking strictly objectively here, these odds aren't reflective of any actual market-derived price. Sportsbook.com and other online bookmakers make money off of these because they pay out much lower than the actual odds. You can't take the other side of the bet at 1:15, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point, though. It doesn't matter that the actual odds are higher than 7:1 (or whatever) against; the point is that these odds are being continually adjusted downwards, because the 200:1, and then 100:1 odds against Paul previously were clearly bad lines.

Furthermore, there is upward market pressure exerted on lines like these. The lines have to be low enough to be +EV for the bookmaker, but high enough to entice bettors into betting. Bookmakers competing against each other for bets also raise the lines.

So, while the bookmakers hope to make money because the lines are longer than 7:1 (or whatever) against, the actual odds (ideally) aren't too far off from that. Certainly the same order of magnitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get real man. Those lines are complete crap and you know it. There's absolutely no way that Ron Paul is 7:1, or even close to that. The only reason the odds are like that is cause people are dumb (ZOMG I bet 100 and win 700!!) Do you think those ridiculous WSOP prop bets that have Ivey at 20:1 to win the ME are accurate as well? Like someone else said, if people could bet the other side, there is no way the lines would be that low cause sharps would hit up Paul losing for 1:7 all day. The fact that you would even mention a 7:1 line shows that you're not trying to make an intellectually honest argument about Paul's actual chances of winning.

For a somewhat accurate picture of Paul's odds according to the market, go to tradesports.com, where Paul is about 35:1 just to win the Republican nomination. He's not even listed on the exchange for overall winner (must be because the establishment controls tradesports)

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

The sportsbooks seem to disagree with you. I've seen him anywhere from 15-1 to 7-1 against. My wife mentioned seeing 5-1 against, but I haven't been able to find that.

sportsbook.com has him at 15-1.

http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/livelines.php

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking strictly objectively here, these odds aren't reflective of any actual market-derived price. Sportsbook.com and other online bookmakers make money off of these because they pay out much lower than the actual odds. You can't take the other side of the bet at 1:15, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point, though. It doesn't matter that the actual odds are higher than 7:1 (or whatever) against; the point is that these odds are being continually adjusted downwards, because the 200:1, and then 100:1 odds against Paul previously were clearly bad lines.

Furthermore, there is upward market pressure exerted on lines like these. The lines have to be low enough to be +EV for the bookmaker, but high enough to entice bettors into betting. Bookmakers competing against each other for bets also raise the lines.

So, while the bookmakers hope to make money because the lines are longer than 7:1 (or whatever) against, the actual odds (ideally) aren't too far off from that. Certainly the same order of magnitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get real man. Those lines are complete crap and you know it. There's absolutely no way that Ron Paul is 7:1, or even close to that. The only reason the odds are like that is cause people are dumb (ZOMG I bet 100 and win 700!!) Do you think those ridiculous WSOP prop bets that have Ivey at 20:1 to win the ME are accurate as well? Like someone else said, if people could bet the other side, there is no way the lines would be that low cause sharps would hit up Paul losing for 1:7 all day. The fact that you would even mention a 7:1 line shows that you're not trying to make an intellectually honest argument about Paul's actual chances of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my post again until you understand it.