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

[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/

[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.

[lehighguy]

Because the only other candidate with no money who became successful over the internet lost because of a mild screech on television. I would hate to think what a crossfire style situation would do.

[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.

[slickpoppa]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

The more top heavy the payout is, the better the correlation is between winning and EV. In a winner take all tournament, EV is 100% correlated with the probability of winning. As payout gets less topheavy and more evenly distributed, there is less of a correlation between EV and winning, and less of an advantage for pros, as you mentioned. But given that such a high percentage of the money in MTTs still goes to the top 3 finishers, the correlation between winning % and EV is very high.

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats incorrect. The prop bets that Borodog mentioned are not set so that the percentages must add up to 100%. So Ron Paul's odds going down do not make all the other candidates' odds go up. They actually set the lines so that the percentages add up to much more than 100%. They'll list 6 candidates at 2:1 if people are dumb enough to bet on those lines. Generally all the lines tend to be deflated. They usually never approach what the "real" line should be because people cannot bet on the other side. Like I said, if people could bet on Ron Paul losing laying 7:1, that line would be bet up like crazy. Competition between books doesn't really drive the lines up that much because the people dumb enough to bet on Ron Paul at 7:1 are not the people who will shop for lines.


Back to the original topic: I like Ron Paul, but the bottom line is that he's polling at 1-2% and his chances of winning the Republican nomination are somewhere close to that as well. He is certainly not underrepresented in the media compared to his popularity and chances of winning.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The more top heavy the payout is, the better the correlation is between winning and EV. In a winner take all tournament, EV is 100% correlated with the probability of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's correct. But that's different than what you said before. The thing I quoted you on assumed winner take all, 100%, as I read it. I guess maybe you were just exaggerating the point and I'm being nitty. I didn't read this whole exchange; that statement just caught my eye as being wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Thats incorrect. The prop bets that Borodog mentioned are not set so that the percentages must add up to 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh OK. Sorry, like I said I didn't really read the exchange. Ya, if they don't add up to 100% they don't mean much.

[ QUOTE ]
Back to the original topic: I like Ron Paul, but the bottom line is that he's polling at 1-2% and his chances of winning the Republican nomination are somewhere close to that as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Ron Paul too, but I would say his chances or winning are exactly 0% lol. I don't think it matters what he's polling. What if he was polling at 1% with one week left, or one day left? I think there is still a 0% chance that he will end up with enough support to win. That said, every debate he takes part in and every mind he can change is a good thing in my book.

[ QUOTE ]
He is certainly not underrepresented in the media compared to his popularity and chances of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean he was under represented by way of air time. I'll paste my response to someone else who thought I meant the same thing, so you don't have to scroll for it:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really talking about media "attention," certainly I agree that you have to focus on the front runners. I'm just talking about the way his ideas are introduced when they do talk about him. People in the media, while they might not share certain "extremist" beliefs, (should) understand what the beliefs are based on. But when someone doesn't fit the talking points of one of the two parties, this throws the audience for a loop, so the interviewer will play along and maintain (either implicitly or explicitly) that these views are insane. So the effect is that the media helps polarize towards the two major parties because that's more entertaining than challenging the audience and making them question certain assumptions.

It's impossible for anyone to win an election if their views aren't mostly the agreed upon talking points for each party. That's just the way it is has to be. The two parties are coalitions of views, so the politicians' goal when he speaks is to resonate with as many, and alienate as few, of his supporters as possible. His beliefs aren't necessarily based logically on other beliefs. And the media panders to this, because it plays well for their purpose of catching people's interest. But it's not honest. Do you agree with this?

Here, I'll link the Jon Stewart clip, cause I don't seem to be getting my point across: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8

The full version is the first one on the playlist to the right.

[/ QUOTE ]