|
Stocks
Nov 3, 2020 20:39:50 GMT
Post by dan1 on Nov 3, 2020 20:39:50 GMT
Ahhh yes, I'd forgotten betfair was a market. So, the punters effectively set the odds do they? Do the odds very much depend on supply/demand from punters, and how do those odds interact with the real bookies. Yes punters set the odds, although some of those "punters" are highly sophisticated and act as "market makers". Betfair actually has a traditional bookmaker site as well: the Sportsbook. There Biden is at 4/9 i.e. 1.44 i.e. ~69% which is slightly higher than the 1.52 i.e. ~66% on the Exchange. Edit: that's less convenient for punters, as you would expect since the bookmaker takes its cut. I've just been reading some stuff about the Economist forecast regarding the odds in the (as near as) dead certs in the US election. Take California for example, odds on Democrats are 1/50, i.e. 2% return for tieing your cash up for a couple of weeks (at most). Is this easy money? Anyone on here taking advantage? Hmmm.... thinks to himself he needs to get into betting...
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Nov 3, 2020 21:41:27 GMT
Yes punters set the odds, although some of those "punters" are highly sophisticated and act as "market makers". Betfair actually has a traditional bookmaker site as well: the Sportsbook. There Biden is at 4/9 i.e. 1.44 i.e. ~69% which is slightly higher than the 1.52 i.e. ~66% on the Exchange. Edit: that's less convenient for punters, as you would expect since the bookmaker takes its cut. I've just been reading some stuff about the Economist forecast regarding the odds in the (as near as) dead certs in the US election. Take California for example, odds on Democrats are 1/50, i.e. 2% return for tieing your cash up for a couple of weeks (at most). Is this easy money? Anyone on here taking advantage? Hmmm.... thinks to himself he needs to get into betting... I don't think it's easy money. Betting on very likely events may seem appealing because losing seems very unlikely. And it is, but that should be priced into the odds. The unlikely event can happen, and when it does happen you'll lose way more than the small amount you gain when you win. As humans we seem to have a tendency to underestimate low probability / high impact events. Like, say, a pandemic due to a new virus. Or a lending platform going bust. If the odds accurately reflect the real probabilities over many bets you should end up with zero profits/losses, following the law of large numbers. Minus the platform commission of course. To win over time you'd need to be able to spot opportunities where the odds do not reflect what you think is the "real" probability. It's really not that different from investing by picking undervalued stocks. So you should bet on the Democrats winning California if you think they have a better chance than the 98% implied by the odds. (Although it's now 1.01 i.e. 99% on the Exchange.)
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,911
Likes: 1,613
|
Post by benaj on Nov 3, 2020 21:46:37 GMT
Yes punters set the odds, although some of those "punters" are highly sophisticated and act as "market makers". Betfair actually has a traditional bookmaker site as well: the Sportsbook. There Biden is at 4/9 i.e. 1.44 i.e. ~69% which is slightly higher than the 1.52 i.e. ~66% on the Exchange. Edit: that's less convenient for punters, as you would expect since the bookmaker takes its cut. I've just been reading some stuff about the Economist forecast regarding the odds in the (as near as) dead certs in the US election. Take California for example, odds on Democrats are 1/50, i.e. 2% return for tieing your cash up for a couple of weeks (at most). Is this easy money? Anyone on here taking advantage? Hmmm.... thinks to himself he needs to get into betting... medium.com/@mactan/the-13-keys-are-garbage-and-you-should-stop-paying-attention-to-allan-lichtman-42d493a51f52Nothing is dead certain. Lichtman or Norpoth?
|
|
|
Stocks
Nov 3, 2020 22:06:51 GMT
Post by dan1 on Nov 3, 2020 22:06:51 GMT
I've just been reading some stuff about the Economist forecast regarding the odds in the (as near as) dead certs in the US election. Take California for example, odds on Democrats are 1/50, i.e. 2% return for tieing your cash up for a couple of weeks (at most). Is this easy money? Anyone on here taking advantage? Hmmm.... thinks to himself he needs to get into betting... I don't think it's easy money. Betting on very likely events may seem appealing because losing seems very unlikely. And it is, but that should be priced into the odds. The unlikely event can happen, and when it does happen you'll lose way more than the small amount you gain when you win. As humans we seem to have a tendency to underestimate low probability / high impact events. Like, say, a pandemic due to a new virus. Or a lending platform going bust. If the odds accurately reflect the real probabilities over many bets you should end up with zero profits/losses, following the law of large numbers. Minus the platform commission of course. To win over time you'd need to be able to spot opportunities where the odds do not reflect what you think is the "real" probability. It's really not that different from investing by picking undervalued stocks. So you should bet on the Democrats winning California if you think they have a better chance than the 98% implied by the odds. (Although it's now 1.01 i.e. 99% on the Exchange.) The odds have halved since I made that post The point I was making was that odds of the Democrats losing California must be way smaller than 2%, and I guess by an order of magnitude, hence the "dead cert" - somewhat lazy language but you knew what I was getting at! I'm certain you're correct that making money over time is virtually impossible assuming the underlying odds are correct but more importantly the bets are independent events - normally distributed and all that (which is ok in theory but the tails invariably don't follow). I guess there is a lot of professional money on the betting markets attempting to profit? I don't buy it that betting markets are, in effect, efficient markets. Think it was Nate Silver who described them as competition between those people who suffer from Dunning–Kruger effect or similar. Sounds kind of right, it's a market of opinion modulated by market makers? btw a lending platform going bust was never ever a low probability event In fact I would go so far to say I had it at 99.9% certain (dead cert ) before I invested a penny.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Stocks
Nov 3, 2020 22:55:04 GMT
Post by mrk on Nov 3, 2020 22:55:04 GMT
I don't think it's easy money. Betting on very likely events may seem appealing because losing seems very unlikely. And it is, but that should be priced into the odds. The unlikely event can happen, and when it does happen you'll lose way more than the small amount you gain when you win. As humans we seem to have a tendency to underestimate low probability / high impact events. Like, say, a pandemic due to a new virus. Or a lending platform going bust. If the odds accurately reflect the real probabilities over many bets you should end up with zero profits/losses, following the law of large numbers. Minus the platform commission of course. To win over time you'd need to be able to spot opportunities where the odds do not reflect what you think is the "real" probability. It's really not that different from investing by picking undervalued stocks. So you should bet on the Democrats winning California if you think they have a better chance than the 98% implied by the odds. (Although it's now 1.01 i.e. 99% on the Exchange.) The odds have halved since I made that post The point I was making was that odds of the Democrats losing California must be way smaller than 2%, and I guess by an order of magnitude, hence the "dead cert" - somewhat lazy language but you knew what I was getting at! I'm certain you're correct that making money over time is virtually impossible assuming the underlying odds are correct but more importantly the bets are independent events - normally distributed and all that (which is ok in theory but the tails invariably don't follow). I guess there is a lot of professional money on the betting markets attempting to profit? I don't buy it that betting markets are, in effect, efficient markets. Think it was Nate Silver who described them as competition between those people who suffer from Dunning–Kruger effect or similar. Sounds kind of right, it's a market of opinion modulated by market makers? btw a lending platform going bust was never ever a low probability event In fact I would go so far to say I had it at 99.9% certain (dead cert ) before I invested a penny. There are no doubt inefficiencies and it's possible to find opportunities. Just warning against taking something as "dead cert" when it might no be. Like, poll forecasts don't take into account the risk of e.g. Trump's lawyers getting mail-in ballots excluded from the count or something like that.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Nov 4, 2020 9:20:07 GMT
I don't think it's easy money. Betting on very likely events may seem appealing because losing seems very unlikely. And it is, but that should be priced into the odds. The unlikely event can happen, and when it does happen you'll lose way more than the small amount you gain when you win. As humans we seem to have a tendency to underestimate low probability / high impact events. Like, say, a pandemic due to a new virus. Or a lending platform going bust. If the odds accurately reflect the real probabilities over many bets you should end up with zero profits/losses, following the law of large numbers. Minus the platform commission of course. To win over time you'd need to be able to spot opportunities where the odds do not reflect what you think is the "real" probability. It's really not that different from investing by picking undervalued stocks. So you should bet on the Democrats winning California if you think they have a better chance than the 98% implied by the odds. (Although it's now 1.01 i.e. 99% on the Exchange.) The odds have halved since I made that post The point I was making was that odds of the Democrats losing California must be way smaller than 2%, and I guess by an order of magnitude, hence the "dead cert" - somewhat lazy language but you knew what I was getting at! I'm certain you're correct that making money over time is virtually impossible assuming the underlying odds are correct but more importantly the bets are independent events - normally distributed and all that (which is ok in theory but the tails invariably don't follow). I guess there is a lot of professional money on the betting markets attempting to profit? I don't buy it that betting markets are, in effect, efficient markets. Think it was Nate Silver who described them as competition between those people who suffer from Dunning–Kruger effect or similar. Sounds kind of right, it's a market of opinion modulated by market makers? btw a lending platform going bust was never ever a low probability event In fact I would go so far to say I had it at 99.9% certain (dead cert ) before I invested a penny. Trump is now odds on to win, I think I did a little sick in my mouth. Frankly, whatever happens, it's just scary that something approaching half of the USA thinks he's done a good job.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Stocks
Nov 4, 2020 9:34:46 GMT
Post by mrk on Nov 4, 2020 9:34:46 GMT
Trump is now odds on to win, I think I did a little sick in my mouth. Frankly, whatever happens, it's just scary that something approaching half of the USA thinks he's done a good job. About 70/30 for Trump right now. It does validate your theory that betting odds are more reliable than polls. Definitely scary to see a president claiming that counting all the votes would be stealing the election. Not a good day for democracy.
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Nov 4, 2020 10:16:48 GMT
some Yuuuge swings on the betting on this one this am.
moving around the evens mark atm
and 5 mins later Biden fave
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,233
Likes: 6,038
|
Stocks
Nov 4, 2020 10:23:41 GMT
Post by registerme on Nov 4, 2020 10:23:41 GMT
I think I did a little sick in my mouth. You and me both .
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Nov 4, 2020 10:36:25 GMT
Trump is now odds on to win, I think I did a little sick in my mouth. Frankly, whatever happens, it's just scary that something approaching half of the USA thinks he's done a good job. Wholeheartedly agree. This really is a massive failure for the Democrats whether they win/lose the President and/or Senate. If you can't win against an incumbent who has handled a pandemic poorly (and I don't think that is a controversial statement) with no end in sight then what hope is there? At least Trump has to go in 4 years time but then I think, be careful what you wish for because the next Republican Presidential candidate could be even worse. The pollsters had a horror show, and therefore so did the forecasters ( in, out) ~90% Biden. The betting markets were way out too ~67% Biden. Out of the non-partisan "experts" who was forecasting this? Anyone? I thought before tonight that Johnson was a shoe-in for another term, if the Tories want him and he wants it.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Stocks
Nov 4, 2020 10:38:08 GMT
Post by mrk on Nov 4, 2020 10:38:08 GMT
some Yuuuge swings on the betting on this one this am. moving around the evens mark atm and 5 mins later Biden fave It really could go either way. (from nytimes.com)
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Nov 4, 2020 10:57:25 GMT
The pollsters had a horror show, and therefore so did the forecasters ( in, out) ~90% Biden. The betting markets were way out too ~67% Biden. Out of the non-partisan "experts" who was forecasting this? Anyone? As FiveThirtyEight warned: A 10 percent chance of winning is not a zero percent chance. In fact, that is roughly the same odds that it’s raining in downtown Los Angeles. And it does rain there.
|
|
|
Stocks
Nov 4, 2020 11:04:34 GMT
Post by dan1 on Nov 4, 2020 11:04:34 GMT
The pollsters had a horror show, and therefore so did the forecasters ( in, out) ~90% Biden. The betting markets were way out too ~67% Biden. Out of the non-partisan "experts" who was forecasting this? Anyone? As FiveThirtyEight warned: A 10 percent chance of winning is not a zero percent chance. In fact, that is roughly the same odds that it’s raining in downtown Los Angeles. And it does rain there.I think what's become apparent are the systematic errors. To take that analogy, in any one day the odds of it raining in LA is 10% yet the meteorologists are telling us there's a massive rain storm heading north from San Diego due to hit LA on election day.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Nov 4, 2020 11:20:36 GMT
... At least Trump has to go in 4 years time ... Are you sure about this? My worry is that this might be the last chance to get him out. If he has 4 more years he'll likely try, and probably succeed, to change the constitution to allow himself to rule in perpetuity. He's seen and admired what Putin has achieved and quite likes the taste of dictatorship. The trump dynasty may not even end with his demise as he'll try to line his son up for succession. I'm not sure if I've just had a bad night's sleep or if I'm actually still in a nightmare 😞
|
|
|
Stocks
Nov 4, 2020 11:23:36 GMT
Ace likes this
Post by dan1 on Nov 4, 2020 11:23:36 GMT
... At least Trump has to go in 4 years time ... Are you sure about this? My worry is that this might be the last chance to get him out. If he has 4 more years he'll likely try, and probably succeed, to change the constitution to allow himself to rule in perpetuity. He's seen and admired what Putin has achieved and quite likes the taste of dictatorship. The trump dynasty may not even end with his demise as hell try to lie his son up for succession. I'm not sure if I've just had a bad night's sleep or if I'm actually still in a nightmare 😞 That's just lightened my mood, thanks I put that probability at just 10% - so it's not going to happen, right I jest out of an abundance of nerves.
|
|