-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
benjipwns
Banned
lol this is the dumbest fucking thing and what does the plagiarist even mean with that?
I hear it's the same thing.
I mean, its kinda endearing. Foundation implies structure (or your mom's makeup but I digress) and one that you can strengthen and build on. But like Bill's "New Covenant" it just had some issues. No wonder both phrases were abandoned and never reached the cultural zeitgeist as 'New Deal' and 'Great Society'.
Odothehero
Member
Hey longtime lurker here, but I was interested in PoliGAF's take on these numbers. So a bit different to predictit and looking at polls, but this is what the betting market is currently saying about the race:
Thinking of signing up for an online betting account to take advantage of this promotion where they double your profit if you win your first bet...
$200 for Hilldawg to win it all at 2:1 = $600 after the promotion
Hedge it with $45 on President Trump and $5 on President Ryan (just in case we get an independent run) for a tidy $350 profit. Though I'll probably wait a bit closer to convention before placing those hedging bets.
What do you guys think of those odds?
sportsbet said:
Thinking of signing up for an online betting account to take advantage of this promotion where they double your profit if you win your first bet...
$200 for Hilldawg to win it all at 2:1 = $600 after the promotion
Hedge it with $45 on President Trump and $5 on President Ryan (just in case we get an independent run) for a tidy $350 profit. Though I'll probably wait a bit closer to convention before placing those hedging bets.
What do you guys think of those odds?
Elaugaufein
Member
There's no contradiction there. Because Populism is neither inherently Left-wing nor Right-Wing it can be spun in styles that favor either side (hence you get Bernie Sander's railing against the rich and powerful and Trump railing against an "other" which is superficially defined by race and religion and more practical defined by skin color (because there's no real way of defining or testing for either of the former) both of these are populist but it would be fair to call the former Left Wing and the latter Right Wing ).
I think some betters are delusional. Ryan's not going to be the next president because its far to late for him to get into the primaries, so any circumstances that lead to him being a contestant in the race also mean the Republicans won't win (they basically all involve stiffing Trump and there effectively being 2 Republican candidates and thus splitting the Republican vote).
Same deal with Biden. The chain of events that lead to him being the nominee would tarnish the Democratic Party beyond winning the presidency (it would likely involve Clinton being indicted and thus tarnishing pretty much everyone who's endorsed her which is a significant chunk of the DNC and elected Democrats). And in such an environment to say that you're going to have trouble getting Sander's voters to back a candidate like Biden is an understatement (the Democratic Party and DNC would be covered in muck and Biden's is to Clinton's right). The only way he's going to get the presidency involves Clinton's unexpected death or irrecoverably illness and those odds are far below 17:1 (even more so when you factor in it would involve the DNC basically doing a write in candidate at the convention which would (entirely fairly) tick off Sander's supporters).
benjipwns
Banned
Put it all on Papa Joe at the convention and let it ride. I used to work for Lehman Brothers.
By President Ryan, I assume you mean Jack Ryan: Shadow Recuit Into Darkness.
Read it again.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Ryan won't get elected as a result of an independent run. Here's the relevant part from the 12th Amendment:
House of Representatives has to choose between top three candidates from the presidential run. The only way that's Ryan is if there was a brokered convention on the Republican side and they chose Ryan as a compromise option, which is so horrendously unlikely you'll never get worthy odds anywhere.
Clinton's presidency odds are fine. Trump's presidency odds are badly overvalued. They have him as $2.20 for the nomination, which in percentages is 45%, then have him as $4.50 for the presidency, which in percentages is 22%, which means the implied chance of him winning the presidency if he becomes the nominee is about 48%. That's total nonsense, nominee Trump is not 48% likely become President. Either his presidency odds are overvalued, or his nominee odds are undervalued - I think the latter.
I actually think all of the presidential odds are quite poor value aside from maybe Clinton. I think I'd honestly just stick to betting on the nomination and not the presidency. For example, Trump is definitely undervalued at less than 50% likely to be nominee, that's easy money and probably the best odds of any individual offer there.
House of Representatives has to choose between top three candidates from the presidential run. The only way that's Ryan is if there was a brokered convention on the Republican side and they chose Ryan as a compromise option, which is so horrendously unlikely you'll never get worthy odds anywhere.
Clinton's presidency odds are fine. Trump's presidency odds are badly overvalued. They have him as $2.20 for the nomination, which in percentages is 45%, then have him as $4.50 for the presidency, which in percentages is 22%, which means the implied chance of him winning the presidency if he becomes the nominee is about 48%. That's total nonsense, nominee Trump is not 48% likely become President. Either his presidency odds are overvalued, or his nominee odds are undervalued - I think the latter.
I actually think all of the presidential odds are quite poor value aside from maybe Clinton. I think I'd honestly just stick to betting on the nomination and not the presidency. For example, Trump is definitely undervalued at less than 50% likely to be nominee, that's easy money and probably the best odds of any individual offer there.
Is it 2 to 1 for Hillary or 2 for 1?
I haven't seen a website use the dollar format. I assume it's trying to say for every $1 you bet, you'd win $2 profit if your bet paid out (like +200)? That's giving Hillary 33% chance of being the President. I personally think that's a fantastic bet (even before the doubling of your profit).
Of course, if you can't really afford to lose or don't want to risk it, just do a "no-lose" bet.
An example using $100 as the wager point:
Bet $100 on your website for Hillary to win. If she wins, you get $200 + $200 (doubler) = $400 (assuming what I said was correct).
Buy 239 shares of Hillary Clinton to NOT win the Presidency on Predict It for $138.62 (currently at $0.58 each). If she doesn't become President, you get $100.38 (pretty much breaking even).
If Hillary wins, you get $400 - $138.62 = +$261.38.
If Hillary loses, you get $100.38 - $100 = +$0.38.
You can play with the numbers and guarantee yourself more money if you'd like. Just know that PredictIt has a maximum amount you can bet per market. If it were me, though, I wouldn't even hedge. Hillary's way undervalued at 33% chance to win plus you get a doubler? Very +EV bet IMO.
EDIT: Ugh. I see it's a European style system where the amount shown is the bet wagered plus the profit. What a confusing system. Well, you can still do something similar to what I posted above assuming you can bet on a market like PredictIt.
Elaugaufein
Member
Ahh I see. You're reading it as saying that populism is inherently incapable of being Right-wing or Left-wing. I can see the argument for strict populism being inherently neither (because it involves setting the middle against both those above and those below). but I also have difficult thinking of actual movements that meet those criteria (Trump sort of approaches it at times) its really difficult to keep a movement with such disparate aims together unless you can unify them by some mechanism (like war) and in such events one side or the other generally takes control.
benjipwns
Banned
I'm assuming his argument on populism irregardless of me agreeing with it. I'm saying that the second part is phrased so that it suggests a situation like me saying to you "hey, you're being right-wing populist, you should instead take a populist tack."
Obviously we can deduce that I mean you should take a left-wing tack but I should probably just say that instead of being a dick.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No, you just get $2 back (profit $1) - so $1 would imply 100% chance of something happening, $2 a 50% chance, $4 a 25% chance and so on.
IMO European odds are by far the easiest to understand. You can convert them to percentages just by doing 1/odds. For British odds in the form y-x, you have to do y/(x+y), and for American odds you have to... I don't even know, fuck that shit, it's disgusting.
EDIT: Apparently for American odds you do (x-100)/-1000 for negative odds and (x+100)/1000 for positive odds.
Elaugaufein
Member
Betting agencies do also sometimes do things like 2:1 odds on , in which case you get your money back + $2 for every $1 you invested , such things indicate really strongly favourable odds (over 50%).
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Different system, that's British odds. 2:1 in British is the equivalent of $1.5 in decimal/European odds. $2 in decimal/European odds (what Clinton is valued at) is evens in British odds.
Elaugaufein
Member
I'd love to know why we use British odds for Australian horse racing (and almost exclusively for that).
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Because Australia is a recent British colony, I'd guess.
Elaugaufein
Member
Isn't that just (abs(x)+100)/1000 ?
Oh. I just do American odds in my head. I guess it's just a product of what you're used to.
Anyway, at 50%, Clinton's value is okay but I definitely wouldn't buy since you can get a better bet somewhere else. However, with the promotion, I'd dump a lot of money on her. 33% is way undervaluing her.
Basically the idea is that if it's a positive value, the odds listed is the amount you'd win on a $100 bet. If it's a negative value, the odds listed is the amount you'd have to bet in order to win $100.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That's because I didn't even get it right. ;_;
Implied probability of negative American odds = (abs(x))/(abs(x)+100)
Implied probability of positive American odds = 100/(x+100)
Seriously, 'muricaGAF, explain. First it was the imperial system, then it was getting months and days the wrong way round, and now it's having to use both an absolute function and a step function to convert your betting odds to probabilities. Why?!
Compare to European odds:
Implied probability of European odds = 1/x
And heck, the British part of me hates praising continental Europe, but I have to admit that shit is smooth.
I mean, the whole point is to get people to do stupid things with their money. Confusing odds seem more efficient.
Elaugaufein
Member
In fairness we humans are terrible at dates generally. I mean the rational way of doing it is Year/Month/Day Hour:Minute:Second (in 24 hour time) since you get get "free" sorting and extension in either direction is trivial.
tmarg has the idea of it right. The reason why it's like that is probably two-fold: First, it's likely sports bookies in the US don't want the bettors to know how to calculate their odds. In fact, you'll rarely get something "clean" like +200 or -100. You often get -110 (which includes bookie juice). Second, it probably looks better to bettors when they see "oh I can win $200 if I bet on this team that I think is going to win?" That is much more appealing than seeing $2 or $4 even if they're actually equivalent.
My mom has literally no idea what I do. She thinks I'm a bank teller.
Beautifully said. I still remember going on the WB website as a child, and seeing very primitive Flash icons and videos with a website largely dominated by text. This was not even excluding much of the sites I went to read stuff for school as a young child. I remember having my dad install Real Player or QuickTime to watch videos I needed for my science classes. YouTube really changed the way media and videos played a role in the Internet.
Coriolanus
Banned
Well yeah. Ive been pointing out for a while that her site is as packed with delusional pie in the sky nonsense as the site of any other politician.
Coriolanus
Banned
To be fair to John, its not like W. could make his campaign significantly worse.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Let the folksy begin!
To be fair, hanging around Jeb he might finally find weapons of mass destruction being deployed. Shame they're against his brother's campaign.
Elaugaufein
Member
If it makes you feel better I got a 44 and I was born in 84. And looking at their overall responses I can't figure out why. It may be because the poll is from 2010 and clearly American biased (I mean I wouldn't actually describe myself as a liberal , but its more accurate than either moderate or conservative, and I have access to a land line because I live in an area where we get no cell phone reception without a booster).
The actual responses they've received are interesting (in that correlations seem generally weak, in most cases where there's a strong association between a group and an answer, every group is on the same side of the 50% mark).
shinra-bansho
Member
If I remember correctly Republicans still have a weird fondness for W.
The test seems to be really influenced by whether you play any video games and if you haven't contacted a government official.
Also, random aside, Charles Blow has a new column in the Times that was a pretty good read. Goes into the problem with "explaining" a candidate to black voters and the natural tendency for "functional pragmatism" that may be making idealism a harder sell.
The test seems to be really influenced by whether you play any video games and if you haven't contacted a government official.
Also, random aside, Charles Blow has a new column in the Times that was a pretty good read. Goes into the problem with "explaining" a candidate to black voters and the natural tendency for "functional pragmatism" that may be making idealism a harder sell.
Well, just doing ultralazy math, if 50% of the country is R and 50% is D (or R and D leaners), and his approval rating was 25%, then at least half of the Republicans should like Dubya. Plus, of course his approval rating has "gone up" since he...you know, stopped being the president.
And those people are probably the ones stupid enough to waste their time by going to a Yeb campaign rally after he came in fourth in a must win state.
And those people are probably the ones stupid enough to waste their time by going to a Yeb campaign rally after he came in fourth in a must win state.
Elaugaufein
Member
I mean there are problems with that maths. There are independents who don't really "lean" (or usually actually lean both ways, usually Republican economically and Democratic socially i.e. hates taxes but loves good public services). And some of Bush's approval almost definitely comes from Democrats. But yeah even factoring that in he's still going to be liked by more Republicans than Jeb's current voting share in the Primary by at least 3x.
benjipwns
Banned
...there's something even better to it...wink wink
Honestly, the Lindsey Graham part of that is worse. W.'s at least a good campaigner and friendly guy. Though I guess it is his state.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'd guess starting tomorrow. They'll have been commissioned such that the first day is the date after New Hampshire, so if there's a 2 day sample poll we might get it tomorrow. Definitely at some point this week, though.
Coriolanus
Banned
Oh you. Don't be a tease now. Share/link plox
cartoon_soldier
Member
Dubya is popular in SC, its a smart move.
cartoon_soldier
Member
benjipwns
Banned
it's her climate change section on her 2008 webpage tee hee
This is her 2016 one, my favorite is the percentages and dates for the emissions reductions, and how the whole thing lost even more specifics:
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
such realist, much pragmatic
I'm somewhat confused as to how Clinton has managed to sell herself as someone who can get stuff done which she has very few significant achievements over her career. There's CHIP and PREA and then I run out. PREA wasn't even especially partisan, either. Most of the stuff people name as her accomplishments, like becoming a Senator or being the most-travelled SoS or whatever, aren't actually tangible things that impact people, that's just 'activities Clinton has done'. When you combine that with how implausible most of her website goals are, she shows no real indication of being any more likely to be pragmatic or likely to get things done than Sanders.
I'm somewhat confused as to how Clinton has managed to sell herself as someone who can get stuff done which she has very few significant achievements over her career. There's CHIP and PREA and then I run out. PREA wasn't even especially partisan, either. Most of the stuff people name as her accomplishments, like becoming a Senator or being the most-travelled SoS or whatever, aren't actually tangible things that impact people, that's just 'activities Clinton has done'. When you combine that with how implausible most of her website goals are, she shows no real indication of being any more likely to be pragmatic or likely to get things done than Sanders.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Debate tonight...I hope for some Sanders missteps.
benjipwns
Banned
I listed some of the things she "got done" tongue in cheek here:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=194887797&postcount=6205
Elaugaufein
Member
In fairness no one with a D after there name is going to get anything done as President that isn't something that someone with an R after there name as President would approve of, outside of executive and judicial branch appointments and even that's assuming that the Democrats win back control of the Senate (and for Supreme Court Appointments , they'd need at least 60 Democrats). This entire election is predicated on a defensive game which is why Clinton is enjoying enormous PoliGAF support even though it's precisely that pragmatic game plan that's put the Democratic party in a position where their only option is a defensive game. It's kind of brilliant honestly "We fucked up so badly that you have to vote for us or everything goes to Hell".
shinra-bansho
Member
She personally killed a bunch of people and got away with it; I'm not sure how anyone could say she's achieved nothing.
Elaugaufein
Member
Hang on. I didn't think killing a bunch of people was a progressive goal. Or is this like the FEMA camp / death panels things, where it's one of the goals that we aren't supposed to talk about ? I'm so confused,
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked