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

[NickMPK]

[ 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 ]

It wouldn't surprise me if someone was manipulating those lines just to increase the perception of viability of the Paul campaign.

How much total betting volume do they think they have on fringe candidates in their political markets? I have a feeling that some very light wagering could significantly move the lines, and supporters of Paul are much more likely to understand this than supporters of any other candidate.

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

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)

[/ QUOTE ]

So....why wouldn't another book offer 10-1 and steal all the action? And then another one could offer 25-1, and still get all the action. And they could just keep doing this until it gets close enough to the true line to make it not worth their while. Why are they settling at or around 7-1? All the oddsmakers are colluding against the moronic gambling public?

[slickpoppa]

[ 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.

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+?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

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)

[/ QUOTE ]

So....why wouldn't another book offer 10-1 and steal all the action? And then another one could offer 25-1, and still get all the action. And they could just keep doing this until it gets close enough to the true line to make it not worth their while. Why are they settling at or around 7-1? All the oddsmakers are colluding against the moronic gambling public?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do not give away the answers to the quiz!

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]

Please do not give away the answers to the quiz!

[/ QUOTE ]

Answer my quiz question.

[bdk3clash]

If anyone cares, here's a link to Intrade's 2008.GOP.NOM contracts (if that link doesn't work I'll post a screenshot.)

As I stated before, I have absolutely no idea what any of this means or if it can be extrapolated into an "X to 1" framework that my feeble brain can handle. If anyone wants to do some analysis, feel free.

Here's a Slate article titled "Can the political betting markets be rigged?". It includes specific allegations of market tampering (!) during the 2004 presidential election.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone cares, here's a link to Intrade's 2008.GOP.NOM contracts (if that link doesn't work I'll post a screenshot.)

As I stated before, I have absolutely no idea what any of this means or if it can be extrapolated into an "X to 1" framework that my feeble brain can handle. If anyone wants to do some analysis, feel free.

Here's a Slate article titled "Can the political betting markets be rigged?". It includes specific allegations of market tampering (!) during the 2004 presidential election.

[/ QUOTE ]

100 - trading price (in Paul's case, 2.8) / trading price = odds.

100-2.8/2.8 ~ 35:1

[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.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
So....why wouldn't another book offer 10-1 and steal all the action? And then another one could offer 25-1, and still get all the action. And they could just keep doing this until it gets close enough to the true line to make it not worth their while. Why are they settling at or around 7-1? All the oddsmakers are colluding against the moronic gambling public?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, sure they could do it, but they haven't. You saw how the tradesports line is at 35-1 (I think there's still some value in selling that but its close), and yet, the odds lines are still at 7-1. This is a classic example of a market inefficiency: people don't necessarily shop around, even when they can do it easily on the internet. They listen to the Ron Paul fanboys on the internet, decide they want to bet on him, go to the first site they see and place their bets. 7-1 for Ron Paul is a sucker bet, plain and simple.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]


So....why wouldn't another book offer 10-1 and steal all the action? And then another one could offer 25-1, and still get all the action. And they could just keep doing this until it gets close enough to the true line to make it not worth their while. Why are they settling at or around 7-1? All the oddsmakers are colluding against the moronic gambling public?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that when you are talking about political markets, the volume of trade is so low, and the lines so sensitive to a relatively small amount of betting, that it becomes efficient for people to make bets that they know are -EV on candidate they support, just to move the line and make their candidate seem more viable. They are not trying to win these bets, they are basically making a political contribution.

Here is a link to a Slate article on political market manipulation:
Hillary's Odds: Can you rig the political betting markets?

The Slate article mentions that usually, the market cannot be manipulated for very long, because legitimate bettors swoop in any move the lines back to where they should be. But I'm not sure a bettor can profitable bet against Paul. I guess you could short-sell his shares on Tradesports (they are currently trading at 2-point something), but I'm not sure whether or not the commission would swallow up all your possible winnings on such a wager (I don't actually bet on this stuff, so I'm not really sure how it works).