The election betting thread

In honor of being apparently blocked by the person who alluded to me as one of the snatch guys voting for the pussy grabbing guy; maybe I should change my name to pussy grabbing guy?

 

The short form is whenever you have a bet with even odds vs plus money, take the plus money odds and subtract 100, then take that number and divide by two, the number you are left with is the % value increase that you should place on the even money odds to ensure minimum risk (i.e. same amount won regardless of which side wins). What does that look like:

Even odds vs. +110 (110 - 100 = 10, 10/2 = 5, bet 5% more on the even odds): $105 wagered on even odds + $100 wagered on +105 odds leaves you plus $5 regardless of the side that wins (2.4% return on wagered amount).

Even odds vs. +177 (number I used from yesterday) (177 - 100 = 77, 77/2 = 38.5, bet 38.5% more on the even odds): $138.5 wagered on even odds + $100 wagered on +177 odds leaves you plus $38.5 regardless of the side that wins (16.14% return on wagered amount).

Even odds vs. +440 (arbitrary, but to show +100%) (440-100 = 340, 340/2 = 170, bet 170% more on the even odds): $270 wagered on even odds + $100 wagered on +440 odds leaves you plus $170 regardless of the side that wins (45.95% return on wagered amount).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

I'm sure it would be more accurate.

 

Sick burn!

 

I don’t think I’ve ever done a good job communicating my perspective on this. Part of it, I think, comes down to relative vs absolute standards. If I view Oliver very positively, Harris slightly negatively, and Trump very negatively, the argument for voting for Harris must come down to her relative popularity over Oliver.

If we accept that general popularity in itself is sufficient to overcome personal favorability, we should not be surprised to find millions voting for Trump. Many do not like Harris and Trump is relatively popular. Indeed, I should expect myself to vote for Trump as soon as the Democrats nominate someone I like even less than Trump. But this strategy has no bottom. Any candidate should earn my vote as long as they are somewhat popular and not as bad as the most popular alternative. I should vote for Jeffrey Epstein, as long as his major competitor is Voldemort.

Clearly, absolute standards are needed to avoid this tragedy. According to Plato’s apology, Socrates could have saved his own life by apologizing for his teachings, but he instead used the trial to humiliate his accusers, sealing his fate. I think all of us would have totally understood if Socrates had apologized. After all, his life was at stake. However, Socrates seemed to see it another way: his integrity was at stake. I don’t hate Harris, but I personally believe Oliver to be the better candidate, so that’s how I’m voting.

 

That's helpful. Thanks, WES. Per my question, this indeed requires two distinct markets (diff market or timing).

 

Wait, so you are actually snatch gal?

 

Well I’m a guy so technically I’d have to be gay to pursue @snatchmagnet. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but he wouldn’t be my type.

 

Not a criticism of your thinking, but I do think there are people who have high favorability because they have never been anywhere near power, never will be, and never made a meaningful political decision in their lives. This tends to happen with 3rd party candidates. If Oliver were to become the dog who caught the car, he would find himself constrained by the same system that major party candidates have confined themselves to in advance.

 

valid point, wgb. My view of him is mostly based on what he values, rather than what he would accomplish.

 

But to wgb's point, it's easy to claim certain values when you're never in a situation to have them tested.

 

For this reason 3rd parties might actually do more personality based politics than the mainline ones. Very few seem to operate like actual parties and often engage in what passes for running celebrity candidates. Maybe that’s all they can do? Not many seem to do actual politics but perhaps the only play is siphoning enough support to get public funding. I’m kinda curious what they’d actually do with it. The Green Party has become a sort of disaster TBH, with unprincipled grifters aplenty. It might be more principled not to vote for president!

 

But it seems they are nowhere near power in the first place b/c they have ideological integrity. I would think you could relate to that. I think a lot of people - prob most - aren't corrupted by power; they are corrupted by the desire for power.

 

I certainly understand that notion. My only experience is with left-wing people, who can be strident and ideological, but also have endless debates over electoralism vs. organizing outside politics (labor movement, tenant unions, etc) as well as being very concerned with building power. At least in my experience, people haven't been overly committed to feel good moralization as an end in of itself. Perhaps no one really knows how to build power, but that is the goal for them, they think its possible, because they want to see things change. I know plenty of people who have abandoned strategic voting for national Democrats for various reasons that are canvasing hard for Amendment 4, which entails working along side normie liberals with Kamala signs in their yards.

 

I think actions must constrained by the bounds of government, but I am not so sure about values. Oliver is pro-immigration and pro-gay rights. I wouldn't think that becoming president would force a change in those views.

 

This is possible, though the mainstream parties seem to engage in running celebrity candidates as well (literally in the case of the head of the Republican Party). In addition, I am not sure third parties are a coherent category. The name “third party” basically implies any group other than the main two, so I’d assume there would be great variation among these “other” parties. Regardless, at this point, there seems no risk in any of them rising to significant power, but I would also watch with great curiosity if/when this does happen.

 

No, but it would entail making decisions on what to prioritize and what to compromise yourself on to achieve bigger priorities or build power. Take a look at someone like AOC, who I have no doubt still believes the same things she did when she entered office, but you probably would not find the average DSA member now calling her anything but compromised or even a sell-out of sorts on various issues. If the libertarian party started functioning like a political party in power, it would alienate certain libertarians. Its just how it goes when you play the game.

 

Oh yes, in that regard, I entirely agree. And I think this outcome is largely for the better. I don’t want Trump being able to enact all of his crazy whims with no resistance. I do think a libertarian president might have one small advantage in this regard: part of their policy is to not do certain things, eg tariffs and criminalizing personal decisions, so even if they are impeded from implementing the positive part of their platform, it seems like they should be able to follow the negative side. But otherwise, I totally agree that action usually requires significant compromise.

 

No doubt there are variations. CPUSA hasn't run a presidential candidate since the 1980s because they more or less embrace strategic voting. The Green Party didn't run a presidential candidate until the late 90s, and since Nader have been trying to get that juice back. PSL has run candidates ever since they existed. But I think when people talk about "third parties" now, they are mainly thinking the Greens and Libertarians, which more or less court disaffected Democrats and Republicans, and tend to draw the most media coverage (which isnt a lot).