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.