US Election November 5th

[mudman]

Until you come back again.

Nah, of course I won't.
Oh hang on...

 

[John Brown]

Betting odds, especially those obtained on the betting exchanges, are directly related to the number of people buying (backing) and selling (laying such as a bookie does) positions and is a good reflection of the probability of an outcome. It's quite a well known concept and applies to all sorts of markets including betting.

I'll admit my last sentence could have been worded better, but essentially, I don't know, not something I had looked into until now. But if one group would threaten violence in the event of a win by the opposite camp, then the supporters of the opposite camp are likely to threaten a violent response. In essence, it doesn't matter who threatens the violence, any threat will be likely met with a similar response.

By the way, I did a quick search for "us election who is threatening violence" and got a number of results that imply both sides are able to respond with acts of violence. This is part of an article from Reuters:



Anyway, I ducked out of this thread once before and am doing so again, so feel free to reply but I won't be responding.

Yes, but that only works when there are many people betting. The usual example/demonstration is to ask a lot of people to estimate how many pebbles/M&Ms or what have you are in a glass jar. The arithmetic mean of all the guesses is often surprisingly close to the actual number. I demonstrated this to my 6 year old grandson last year, by winning a just such a competition at his school fete. He wasn't as surprised as his teacher was when I revealed my trick.
One gambler's political opinion isn't really the same thing. Indeed, one solitary gamblers bet on anything isn't an example of the wisdom of crowds. You need a crowd..

 

[mudman]

Yes, but that only works when there are many people betting. The usual example/demonstration is to ask a lot of people to estimate how many pebbles/M&Ms or what have you are in a glass jar. The arithmetic mean of all the guesses is often surprisingly close to the actual number. I demonstrated this to my 6 year old grandson last year, by winning a just such a competition at his school fete. He wasn't as surprised as his teacher was when I revealed my trick.
One gambler's political opinion isn't really the same thing. Indeed, one solitary gamblers bet on anything isn't an example of the wisdom of crowds. You need a crowd..

Oh bloody hell. Okay now this will be my last word.
Your at least correct with your first sentence, the rest not so much.
If you look at the volumes traded on the biggest of the exchanges, Betfair, you will see that there is a total volume traded of over £62 million on Trump winning and nearly £35 million on Kamala. These figures don't show the underlying distribution of the bets and whether for or against but it does show that on one platform alone there are millions of bets that are contributing to the current odds for both and the perceived probabilities of winning (as I type 63% and 36% respectively) and so that will be a pretty big crowd with an opinion on one platform alone. An interesting note is that the probabilities won't add up to 100%, not because of rounding, but because there is an outside chance that one or both will drop out for some reason and another person wins.
I will be the first to admit that it isn't infallible, I won nice amounts by betting against the favourite and so the crowd in the Brexit referendum and Trump's first win, but those were pretty exceptional circumstances but please don't try to say that the odds are down to one random bloke having a guess as it just shows you don't understand the basics.

 

[Noel]

I'm just firing up some popcorn so I can sit back and watch certain members of this thread now ignore all the factually recorded points you've made, before going on another evidence-free rant about virtue signallers, woke, lefties, socialists, Starmer, Democrats etc.

PS The Trump and import tariffs thing is really funny - whenever he talks about it he clearly seems to think that the importing (foreign) company pays the tariffs.

I think he thinks the exporter pays rather than the importer. And quite how he thinks that will help Americans is beyond me, but I guess inflation is a good thing - oh no I forgot inflation is a very bad thing that Biden did (albeit starting well before Trump's time in office ended). All clear and consistent and logical.

He is somewhat confused. Yes, the importer, not the exporter pays the tariffs and this is passed to the government. The importer passes the increase to the wholesaler who then passes it to the retailer who then passes it to John and Jane Bloggs.
Yep, inflation will increase.
He then goes on about "made in America, buy in America" etc. Problem is, like here very few Chinese products can be made locally not to mention the lead time of many years in setting up factories and who is going to work for 5 $US an hour, or less? It's mostly migrants in low paid jobs and by all accounts they'll be gone...........
Trump's administration put tariffs on many European products in 2018 and the EU responded with tariffs on many US products (excessive tariffs are a vicious circle and benefit nobody). Harley-Davidson has a large market in the EU at the time so to avoid the tariffs it moved some production to Thailand which wasn't quite the idea Trump had in his mind. Not happy.
And just recently H-D announced more production moving to Thailand:
“Harley-Davidson’s announcement to ship our work and jobs to Thailand is a kick in the teeth to American workers and a betrayal of the company’s legacy as an American icon. In (2019), nearly 600 IAM members at Harley-Davidson and Syncreon in Kansas City lost their jobs when the company shuttered its facility, claiming that its Thailand plant would only serve the Asian and European markets,"
The first production move was because of Trump tariffs, the 2nd partly because of tariffs but also a weak home market.

 

[John Brown]

Oh bloody ****. Okay now this will be my last word.
Your at least correct with your first sentence, the rest not so much.
If you look at the volumes traded on the biggest of the exchanges, Betfair, you will see that there is a total volume traded of over £62 million on Trump winning and nearly £35 million on Kamala. These figures don't show the underlying distribution of the bets and whether for or against but it does show that on one platform alone there are millions of bets that are contributing to the current odds for both and the perceived probabilities of winning (as I type 63% and 36% respectively) and so that will be a pretty big crowd with an opinion on one platform alone. An interesting note is that the probabilities won't add up to 100%, not because of rounding, but because there is an outside chance that one or both will drop out for some reason and another person wins.
I will be the first to admit that it isn't infallible, I won nice amounts by betting against the favourite and so the crowd in the Brexit referendum and Trump's first win, but those were pretty exceptional circumstances but please don't try to say that the odds are down to one random bloke having a guess as it just shows you don't understand the basics.

I now have literally no idea what you're talking about. You cited ey_tony's anecdote about a remark made by an individual he games with online, as an example of "the wisdom of crowds". Now you're trying to make out that you were talking about Betfair. Totally different thing. I would never dispute that the odds offered by large betting concerns are a useful indicator, and an example of the WOC, but that's not what was being talked about.

 

[Jacob]

....... if one group would threaten violence in the event of a win by the opposite camp, then the supporters of the opposite camp are likely to threaten a violent response.

But they haven't have they.

In essence, it doesn't matter who threatens the violence, any threat will be likely met with a similar response.

By the way, I did a quick search for "us election who is threatening violence" and got a number of results that imply both sides are able to respond with acts of violence. This is part of an article from Reuters:

Were they marching on Capitol Hill and were deaths reported?

Anyway, I ducked out of this thread once before and am doing so again, so feel free to reply but I won't be responding.

I think that is a wise decision!

 

[Agent_zed]

Oh bloody ****. Okay now this will be my last word.
Your at least correct with your first sentence, the rest not so much.
If you look at the volumes traded on the biggest of the exchanges, Betfair, you will see that there is a total volume traded of over £62 million on Trump winning and nearly £35 million on Kamala. These figures don't show the underlying distribution of the bets and whether for or against but it does show that on one platform alone there are millions of bets that are contributing to the current odds for both and the perceived probabilities of winning (as I type 63% and 36% respectively) and so that will be a pretty big crowd with an opinion on one platform alone. An interesting note is that the probabilities won't add up to 100%, not because of rounding, but because there is an outside chance that one or both will drop out for some reason and another person wins.
I will be the first to admit that it isn't infallible, I won nice amounts by betting against the favourite and so the crowd in the Brexit referendum and Trump's first win, but those were pretty exceptional circumstances but please don't try to say that the odds are down to one random bloke having a guess as it just shows you don't understand the basics.

or perhaps it shows that people who are more likely to support Trump are more likely to bet and therefore bet on him. His followers consistently spend their money buying his awful products - DJT media stock, Gold coins, NFTs, Gold trainers, bits of his clothing, Bibles, hats and a lot of other tat.

Ironically mostly made in China.

only 6 days to find out if those odds are worth it I guess.

 

[mudman]

I now have literally no idea what you're talking about. You cited ey_tony's anecdote about a remark made by an individual he games with online, as an example of "the wisdom of crowds". Now you're trying to make out that you were talking about Betfair. Totally different thing. I would never dispute that the odds offered by large betting concerns are a useful indicator, and an example of the WOC, but that's not what was being talked about.

Oh bugger had to come back. Maybe I'll just say that I'll stay for the duration now.
Anyway, apologies are due from me, I misunderstood the gambler reference, I thought it was referring to a previous post of mine where I mentioned odds movements rather than referring to the subject of the anecdote. Anyway, I don't think the fact that it was a gambler making the statement is pertinent, which is maybe why I grasped the wrong end of the stick.

 

[mudman]

or perhaps it shows that people who are more likely to support Trump are more likely to bet and therefore bet on him. His followers consistently spend their money buying his awful products - DJT media stock, Gold coins, NFTs, Gold trainers, bits of his clothing, Bibles, hats and a lot of other tat.

Ironically mostly made in China.

only 6 days to find out if those odds are worth it I guess.

Perfectly possible, but I think unlikely that Trump supporters are more likely to like a flutter than not. With the Brexit betting market, I reasoned that the majority of people could never believe that the country might vote to leave the EU and so I took a position against staying. I didn't back it, I did what is called laying it, effectively being a booky for one person. In that case, the initial odds were very wrong.

 

[selectortone]

His followers consistently spend their money buying his awful products - DJT media stock, Gold coins, NFTs, Gold trainers, bits of his clothing, Bibles, hats and a lot of other tat.

Ironically mostly made in China.

Oh, the irony.

 

[TRITON]

 

[RobinBHM]

Calling Puerto Rico an “Island Of garbage” is a vote winner

 

[Jacob]

Called "moving the Overton window" whereby any old rubbish repeated often enough becomes the new normal.
America is almost fascist state and will be one definitely if the orange man gets in.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I'm not sure this is logical. It is perfectly legitimate to feel that the top team in any of the three main parties is not what the country needs and that their policies are unclear or not acceptable. In such circumstances it is legitimate not to vote. Such people surely still have a legitimate view that none of the parties appeal to them enough.

If I were to be a US voter then I am not at all sure that I can see Harris as being capable of the presidency and Trump is a convicted felon, rather elderly and has other issues so I may well not be able to vote for him either. Not being a supporter of either side is still a political position and valid choice.

I agree with all you say - but taken to a logical conclusion if the "none of the above" gets the most non-votes there would be no president.

It would be fortunate indeed if one candidate espoused all policies supported. Realistically a successful candidate is one whose policies "on balance" best represent the voters views. If non-voters don't vote, even if out of sincerely held views, the pragmatic reality is that they don't count.

 

[Chris152]

Very good.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Well if you can't see it, there's no point me explaining it.

Been trawling my posts? It's called the wisdom of the crowd, look it up.


I dunno, are there? If one group is likely to threaten that sort of thing, then the opposing group will quite likely do it too.

Well it was an invitation with an open invitation to seek your explanation. I can only take your response as you don’t have one.

I’ve not trawled your posts. Is there something worthwhile that I’m missing? I’ve looked up wisdom of the crowd and it doesn’t point to the view of one person in a gambling site representing popular view.

Well if you”dunno” your argument that the Republicans are being unfairly criticised looks somewhat weak.

 

[Jacob]

...

.....It's called the wisdom of the crowd, look it up.
....

Or the stupidity of the herd. Look it up.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Perfectly possible, but I think unlikely that Trump supporters are more likely to like a flutter than not. With the Brexit betting market, I reasoned that the majority of people could never believe that the country might vote to leave the EU and so I took a position against staying. I didn't back it, I did what is called laying it, effectively being a booky for one person. In that case, the initial odds were very wrong.

I’m a bit perplexed as to whether you think a comment on a gambling site reflects the mood of the overall population of the US?

 

[Noel]

Sounds like a full-time job to me. Can you give us some examples of where you go to find 'unbiased' information relating to current affairs?* BC'er was asked the same a few pages back but got all cryptic about it.

* In my opinion, it doesn't exist, but maybe that's just me.

I’m still waiting.
Election will be over at this rate.
Great love fest the other night at MSG btw.

 

[BC'er]

And what does capitalism say?

Why not do your own thinking? Anyone can find a quote to support their point of view.

What is "capitalism" pray tell? Do you mean the individual's life of free enterprise or are you referring to the operations of financial oligarchs of one kind or another?

I suppose you're in the Marx cult? You should really do a little more reading about your prophet if so. As for his "swinish books" as he termed them, people dumb enough to fall for that will fall for anything I suppose.

Do your own thinking? Yes, that is my habit. I hope it's yours, but Marxists by definition are cultists which is why the organizations they create are invariably hierarchical, dictatorial and doctrinaire.

Say, speaking of quotes, did you see Obama's speech at Davos years ago where he goes on about how the individual must give up his rights and freedoms for the common good and "our plan" as he is "too narrow-minded", "short-sighted" etc.?