Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
DanielKoellerer
06 Nov 20 13:28
Joined:
Date Joined: 21 May 20
| Topic/replies: 1,192 | Blogger: DanielKoellerer's blog
Insider Trader (hope you're ok!), Timdulltooth, sofaking, Timber (Timbuctooth - whoever you are, Tobermory, Foinavon, Tanglefoot, United Biscuits et al (who proclaimed the General Election thread would be comical post election).

How do you feel?

With hindsight, was Biden value at 1.5 pre election day? I think so. Polls out somewhat and still a comfortable 306 - 232 margin. Thoughts?
Pause Switch to Standard View Calling Trump backers...
Show More
Loading...
Report frog1000 November 7, 2020 1:49 PM GMT

Nov 7, 2020 -- 6:54AM, politicspunter wrote:


Nov  7, 2020 -- 12:43PM, frog1000 wrote:So if Trump was 10.0 pre-match you would not have backed him?Yes I would, with a view to trade, because I knew almost for certain that his price would contract once early results were coming in states where they counted election in person day votes first.


Interesting.

Did you back Trump around 3.0 pre-match and trade out at sub 1.3 after the early results were in?

That seems the smartest play of the election given how the votes were counted.

I know a number of people in my group that backed Biden/layed Trump at around that time but no one who backed Trump pre-match with a view of trading out. They just took a bet inplay thinking the market overreacted.

Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- November 7, 2020 1:51 PM GMT
Some folk were looking at information sites, some may have squeezed a little sleep, missing the trading chance!
Report tobermory November 7, 2020 1:58 PM GMT
YHTL, I understand it was crazy hours, but I find it hard to believe that, having spent months posting at length on this event re polls and other theoretical things, they went to bed just when the real thing was unfolding.

Europeans who love the NFL most weeks will watch the sunday afternoon (in America) games and the 'evening' game (which ends about midnight here) but probably just see the highlights of the ones that end @4.30. But they are sure as hell gonna stay up to watch the Super Bowl !
Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- November 7, 2020 2:00 PM GMT
How many of the posts were at that time in the morning

Ffs man
Report politicspunter November 7, 2020 2:01 PM GMT

Nov 7, 2020 -- 7:35AM, tobermory wrote:


If Biden has won on the bridle and was always going to, even when Trump was trading 1.4 for an hour or more, surely that hour would have been the perfect moment for the Biden backers to be pointing out that Trump's lead was illusory and that Biden was going to win everything he needed with the late mail count.....Instead the Biden backers, who had contributed maybe 80% of the posts on the thread for months on end, at the most crucial time of all ( not when polls have been published but when the count is on) either disappear from the thread altogether or make one or two posts per page that are commentary type posts rather than opinion.


politicspunter • November 4, 2020 2:40 AM GMT
As I say, long way to go. Biden hasn't even come to his strongest states yet.

I made a few similar posts such as this.

Report politicspunter November 7, 2020 2:03 PM GMT

Nov 7, 2020 -- 7:49AM, frog1000 wrote:


Nov  7, 2020 --  1:54PM, politicspunter wrote:Nov

Report politicspunter November 7, 2020 2:05 PM GMT
frog1000 • November 7, 2020 1:49 PM GMT
Nov 7, 2020 -- 1:54PM, politicspunter wrote:

Nov  7, 2020 -- 12:43PM, frog1000 wrote:So if Trump was 10.0 pre-match you would not have backed him?Yes I would, with a view to trade, because I knew almost for certain that his price would contract once early results were coming in states where they counted election in person day votes first.


Interesting.

Did you back Trump around 3.0 pre-match and trade out at sub 1.3 after the early results were in?

That seems the smartest play of the election given how the votes were counted.

I know a number of people in my group that backed Biden/layed Trump at around that time but no one who backed Trump pre-match with a view of trading out. They just took a bet inplay thinking the market overreacted.

Less than 1% of my total book was on the President market. The only person I backed was Biden at 1.8. Feel free to check it out on the thread.
Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- November 7, 2020 2:06 PM GMT
1.07 now.

Getting ready for more flip flops...
Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- November 7, 2020 2:07 PM GMT
Lay trump at 55 on pop vote

He more or less needs to win california...
Report DanielKoellerer November 7, 2020 2:48 PM GMT
So where were all the posts saying it was going to plan for Biden

Go and look.

One was pointed out on here from myself at 6.25am.

I can also point you to 9.20-9.45am as well. Various posts from myself when Trump was exactly 1.4. I called very explicitly for Trump backers to bail because there will be a flip-flop very soon. In one hour there was and the price and election never looked back.

Is that enough evidence for you? Or do you want to go full Donald Trump on me?
Report tobermory November 7, 2020 3:45 PM GMT
Yes, you came on from 6am and indeed made good calls as Trump was still short. By then though I think there were several people doubting the market. Timber had already called it for Biden.

The real trough for Biden though was 2am-4am, when Trump was looking like outperforming his % from 2016 by winning Florida and Ohio easier and building bigger than expected leads in the mid west.
Report DanielKoellerer November 8, 2020 12:34 AM GMT
Timber had already called it for Biden.

Don't make me laugh. He's a complete mug who throws out about 10000 statements a minute, so of course some of what he says will be right and most of it wrong. He probably said that to try and cover his back once the inevitable happened and could claim that comment back.

538 forecasts etc never had Trump as favourite in-running. Almost, but not quite. 49.9% was his highest chance reached. That sounds about right to me. I don't follow him or any political modeller blindly, but I take his views and %'s more seriously that Betfair forum members and they seem to align with my own - when Ohio was on the way to Trump by 5-8% I did then think this was looking 50/50. However, shortly after Arizona came out.
Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- November 8, 2020 12:42 AM GMT
I thought trump a slight fav
At one point, the Mrs was getting
grumpy so I told her Biden would
still win, but was not convinced.
Report unitedbiscuits November 8, 2020 2:39 PM GMT
(sic) “You were relishing the prospect of coming back on us for making Biden a certainty if  he didn’t win; it was your one aim. You are bitter and lack knowledge” etc

I’ll give you all that, Daniel, but concede this: the polls on which you and others pinned the conviction that Biden had a 90% chance of winning, were wrong. They were modelling a 10% cushion, in reality it was 1%. The rest is hot air.

I am sanguine about the result. Clearly, that was not the response you were hoping for when you asked me and others “how we feel.” But then I didn’t back Trump.
Report politicspunter November 8, 2020 2:46 PM GMT
https://community.betfair.com/politics/go/thread/view/94150/31669961/paul-krishnamurty-is-he-going-to-get-it-wrong-like-16#flvWelcomeHeader

Did everyone follow the masterclass in betting that is united biscuits and back Trump?
Report adge November 8, 2020 2:55 PM GMT
someone still wants to back Trump to finish THIRD
Report roadrunner46 November 8, 2020 3:08 PM GMT
the premise of this thread is laughable considering what happened  on the night and trump matched as low as 1.24
Report politicspunter November 8, 2020 3:11 PM GMT
It was hilarious when Trumps price went down to that markGrin
Report roadrunner46 November 8, 2020 3:15 PM GMT
do you  agree biden was value  at 1.5 pre election dayLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
Report politicspunter November 8, 2020 3:19 PM GMT
Yes, Biden was value at 1.5 pre election day.
Report tobermory November 8, 2020 3:28 PM GMT

Nov 8, 2020 -- 9:11AM, politicspunter wrote:


It was hilarious when Trumps price went down to that mark


Yet, strangely, there were not many smiley faces posted by Biden Backers when Trump was 1.24

Report politicspunter November 8, 2020 3:32 PM GMT
Feel free to check any of my posts on the election night itself where I clearly warned Trump backers to just relax, there was a long way to go, Biden hadn't come to his strongest states, Trump hadn't flipped a single democrat state etc etc..
Report politicspunter November 8, 2020 3:37 PM GMT
Also, if you had done your homework and were armed with things like this...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/upshot/vote-counting-today-polls-election.html

and this...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-results-timing/

then you were in a position to know which states count first and which votes they count first.
Report tobermory November 8, 2020 3:46 PM GMT
If you were always confident Biden was going to win... why not post 'Biden is going to win', rather than 'there's a long way to go' ?

And of course no one was ever saying Trump was going to flip any states, which was totally unnecessary for him to win, so hardly relevant.
Report politicspunter November 8, 2020 3:49 PM GMT
I think I might have mentioned that I thought Biden was going to win amongst the 10,000+ posts on the main General election thread but feel free to go through it in case I am mistaken.
Report Foinavon November 8, 2020 3:53 PM GMT
The betting shop braggadocio of the OP is pathetic. This was another market to trade. It's over, we've moved on, feelings don't come into it.
Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- November 8, 2020 3:53 PM GMT
I thought he was a 1/10 shot

Quite simply they get beat
1 in 10
Report tobermory November 8, 2020 4:01 PM GMT

Nov 8, 2020 -- 9:49AM, politicspunter wrote:


I think I might have mentioned that I thought Biden was going to win amongst the 10,000+ posts on the main General election thread but feel free to go through it in case I am mistaken.


We were - clearly - talking about when Trump was 1.24 etc. No Biden backer was saying Biden was going to win in that hour. Most Biden backers had disappeared from the thread. Some were still around, such as yourself, saying basically OK let's see how it turns out.

Report politicspunter November 8, 2020 4:04 PM GMT
I never had a shred of doubt how it was going to turn out but I certainly wasn't going to get in to some sort of posting battle with some who clearly didn't have as much info available to them perhaps as I had.
Report unitedbiscuits November 8, 2020 4:11 PM GMT
It was hilarious when Trumps price went down to that markGrin politicspunter pretending he was laughing through the crisis. Give your head a shake pp.
Report politicspunter November 8, 2020 4:14 PM GMT
Ah, here is united biscuits, the guy that claims he never backed Trump but oops what's this?...

https://community.betfair.com/politics/go/thread/view/94150/31669961/paul-krishnamurty-is-he-going-to-get-it-wrong-like-16#flvWelcomeHeader
Report the old nanny ;-) November 8, 2020 4:14 PM GMT
I never had a shred of doubt how it was going to turn out Laugh

If you knew Trump was going to get the Highest Vote in history for any President
You would still be sitting on the can now Grin
Report the old nanny ;-) November 8, 2020 4:16 PM GMT
The CO VID hideaways and Joe DE MASK was what done Don , No sign of any mask on Joe last night

Strange that isnt it , Maybe he just forgot
Report unitedbiscuits November 8, 2020 4:17 PM GMT
I don't know why politicspunter persists in pushing that link. Neither the thread content nor the dumb repetition of bumping it reflect well on him.
Report the old nanny ;-) November 8, 2020 4:19 PM GMT
I wonder if they will bring trump back into the Picture once the cases start to rocket next year ?
Report politicspunter November 8, 2020 4:24 PM GMT
So, united biscuits, did you back Trump or not?
Report tobermory November 8, 2020 4:26 PM GMT
Jack Bauer '24'
17 Oct 18 17:31

I expect Biden to run and win the nomination with the endorsement and support of Obama. He picks Kamala Harris as his vice and he wins in 2020. He serves one term and then stands down to allow Harris to run in 2024.



Jack, I remember seeing that post and it is an awesome call.

I'm sure the other Biden regulars - while not getting anything as spectacular as that - also got some decent odds in the spring and didn't just start betting Joe @1.60.

I am not saying politicspunter, Fatslogger and Daniel made mug bets.


My issue is with the posts for the last 3 months arguing that Biden was a near certainty, as these posts were based upon dismissing a whole series of factors that the market was taking seriously.

And these factors turned out all to be in play.

'Shy Trump vote' - This was frequently said to be a delusion of Trump nutters. And often we were told it was 'just as likely' that there was an underreported Biden vote and Joe could win by even bigger margins than the average poll lead.

Superior ground game/voter targeting of Republicans - This was was totally dismissed or at least unremarked whenever it was raised.

Outlier polls showing Trump much closer to Biden - These were dismissed as outright fabrications.

The idea that Nate Silver was a guru who could only be mistaken in his modelling by the margin of error was a big factor in disregarding all the above.
Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- November 8, 2020 4:33 PM GMT
Biden won with a record vote

Also predicted, and very likely from
polls.

Florida looks a poor polling event, but
much else looks pretty good.

If they vote every month for a year

Trump still lucky to win more than once
Report unitedbiscuits November 8, 2020 5:03 PM GMT
But Biden did not win by the 10 point margin predicted in the polls, on which the claim that Biden was a certainty was predicated; he won by 1%.
Report Dave23 November 8, 2020 5:03 PM GMT
I agree with the much of Tobermory's 06 Nov 21.57 post. I personally wouldn't go so far as to suggest Biden backers at 1.5 lucked out but I certainly strongly contest the suggestion, from some, that Biden should have been priced at, or anywhere near as short as, 1.1 immediately pre-election.

Additionally, as I stated to rock piper in the 2020 US Election thread, you simply cannot compare the difference between the current Biden price and the pre-election price of 1.5 and claim this to be the accurate 'cheating/shenanigan' factor. It's even more unreasonable to suggest that the current Biden price multiplied by the pre-election 'polling/538 model price', of approximately 1.12 (89%), would give the correct pre-election price allowing for 'cheating/shenanigans'.

The current Biden price partly reflects the continuing delay in the settlement of the market but, more importantly, it also reflects the highly unlikely possibility of Trump winning recounts and/or legal challenges and/or extraordinary state legislature actions in multiple states under exactly the current circumstances.

The pre-election Biden price of 1.5 included the possibility of 'shenanigans' (see above) in a single state, such as Pennsylvania, and the possibility that his lead would be far less in that state (*). In such a scenario, Biden would not currently  be sitting at 1.05 to back, in fact he may not even be favourite. The probability of such a scenario or similar and scenarios such as, or similar to, the current situation, should have been and, I believe, was reflected in the Biden 1.5 pre-election price.

* It's important to note that the price also reflected the much greater probability of a comfortable Biden win or a 'fair' Trump win - in which cases the impact of any shenanigans would likely be negligible.

I'll come back to the polls and 538's model later.
Report Dave23 November 8, 2020 5:11 PM GMT
I agree entirely with your most recent post, tobermory.
Report politicspunter November 8, 2020 5:13 PM GMT
Now, united biscuits, settle this once and for all. Did you or did you not back Trump?

In this thread, before the election, you said you did, including the price you backed him at...

https://community.betfair.com/politics/go/thread/view/94150/31669961/paul-krishnamurty-is-he-going-to-get-it-wrong-like-16#flvWelcomeHeader

But today, after the election when Trump had lost, you claim you had never backed him, on this thread today (November 8th, 2:39 pm)

Come on, which is it?
Report unitedbiscuits November 8, 2020 5:16 PM GMT
So, united biscuits, did you back Trump or not?

No.
Report unitedbiscuits November 8, 2020 5:16 PM GMT
So, united biscuits, did you back Trump or not?

No.
Report politicspunter November 8, 2020 5:18 PM GMT
In this thread, before the election, you said you did, including the price you backed him at...

https://community.betfair.com/politics/go/thread/view/94150/31669961/paul-krishnamurty-is-he-going-to-get-it-wrong-like-16#flvWelcomeHeader
Report unitedbiscuits November 8, 2020 5:28 PM GMT
No I did not. You asked for a recommendation. I happen to remember 3.25 was available on Daq at time of posting, and when Betfair unsuspended, Trump was sub 3 (check it out) so, maybe of some use for traders. Certainly more use than the "certainty" agenda you were peddling. Then I asked you for your recommendation..

See, this is why I take exception to politicspunter. I don't mean the forum figure but the personality behind it is basically dislikeable. Don't draw me to explain your living character further, politicspunter.
Report unitedbiscuits November 8, 2020 5:42 PM GMT
Don't deflect to the other thread, pp. I didn't back Trump. You pushed me for a recommendation, I gave it. I asked you, you ran away.

Please don't provoke me to lay bare the real character behind your posts, politicspunter; I'll do it.
Report johnni November 8, 2020 5:43 PM GMT
We will make evwn more money. Trump at 20, we are getting rich, ricv, rich!

With Trump, jou cant loose.

Its going to be
:
Winning
Winning
And: winning!
Report Fatslogger November 8, 2020 9:52 PM GMT
Tober -

If Biden has won on the bridle and was always going to, even when Trump was trading 1.4 for an hour or more, surely that hour would have been the perfect moment for the Biden backers to be pointing out that Trump's lead was illusory and that Biden was going to win everything he needed with the late mail count.....

Instead the Biden backers, who had contributed maybe 80% of the posts on the thread for months on end, at the most crucial time of all ( not when polls have been published but when the count is on) either disappear from the thread altogether or make one or two posts per page that are commentary type posts rather than opinion.

and

So where were all the posts saying it was going to plan for Biden Confused

and

We were - clearly - talking about when Trump was 1.24 etc. No Biden backer was saying Biden was going to win in that hour. Most Biden backers had disappeared from the thread. Some were still around, such as yourself, saying basically OK let's see how it turns out.

and

My issue is with the posts for the last 3 months arguing that Biden was a near certainty, as these posts were based upon dismissing a whole series of factors that the market was taking seriously.

And these factors turned out all to be in play.

'Shy Trump vote' - This was frequently said to be a delusion of Trump nutters. And often we were told it was 'just as likely' that there was an underreported Biden vote and Joe could win by even bigger margins than the average poll lead.

Superior ground game/voter targeting of Republicans - This was was totally dismissed or at least unremarked whenever it was raised.

Outlier polls showing Trump much closer to Biden - These were dismissed as outright fabrications.

The idea that Nate Silver was a guru who could only be mistaken in his modelling by the margin of error was a big factor in disregarding all the above.


Generally, although I’ve not agreed with you often, I’ve found your contributions to the main thread thought provoking and worth in depth discussion. Nobody else put the case that Trump was if anything a bit long with anything like the clarity or interest in evidence that you did. This set of posts is just so full of straw men and unevidenced suppositions though.

I was on the thread when Trump was trading under 1.5 and indeed laid him on the way down and as low as 1.44, although I traded that lay out not much higher. I was certainly saying that I thought the prices remained wrong, although in keeping with their pro Trump bias all along. This is how I feel the eventual outcome should be read, although, as I’ve said, you can’t adequately ascertain the probability of a single event from running that one trial of it.

Of course nobody was saying it was going to plan for Biden between 2 and 5am. The plan was to win Florida, have a quiet couple of beers and get some sleep! Indeed, the plausible chance that this would happen is what made me go in close to maxed out and unable to take much advantage of some extremely favourable prices (which again, I called at the time). Clearly and by my own admission, it didn’t look good for Biden before Arizona numbers started to emerge, which is slightly ironic, because he’s going to end up far closer there than in other key states. As I say though, the eventual result won’t be close and it’s pretty apparent that everyone overreacted to some initial really concerning data. You can’t use that to claim that really it was close after all, because it wasn’t terribly. What the market reacted to was a mirage, albeit a compelling one at the time. That mirage doesn’t tell us that Trump was ever going to overturn the polls, predictions and modelling. Again, 90% win rate doesn’t equate to 90% crushing win rate. This is a slightly below mid range Biden win, from the modelling we went in with, based partly on a very specific Trump over performance with some Hispanic groups, I suspect, once we see the final data, although with some other areas of significant relative success in say the mid West. But you can’t say that Trump outperforming his polls there somehow proves people who were saying Biden had a big cushion against polling error wrong! Your criticism of Silver therefore really badly fails to hold up.

The shy Trump vote conception remains at best unproven and more likely remains just a failed concept. There may well have been hard to reach Trump voters but that’s not what the term was used to describe, to my knowledge.

No idea about the better Republican ground game. Hard to know how on earth anyone would prove or disprove it.

The outlier polls were at least as often more wrong than the more mainstream ones as more right. Did Trafalgar do well in national numbers, Nevada, Georgia, Arizona or Michigan? You can’t say it got Florida and Ohio about right and said Pennsylvania and NC were close so it did brilliantly or even fine, really. 

In the end again as I’ve said before, Biden has won a big, although not dominant electoral college win, with a very solid popular vote advantage and vastly more actual votes than anyone ever. I don’t think this allows us to derive a probability going in with any great confidence or scientific reliability. Still, using some specific points of election night to argue that he was never a tight favourite and ignoring the actual results once they emerged because they don’t fit that narrative seems to me to be at best feeble analysis and at worst a failure of reflection and inability to look past priors, ironically.
Report the old nanny ;-) November 8, 2020 10:01 PM GMT
The truth is most trump Backers with any sense would have nicked a profit , many of The Biden band who stayed up will have traded at a loss , not they will admit it .
Report tobermory November 8, 2020 11:19 PM GMT
Fatslogger,

I know you were on the thread when Trump’s price was plunging and there was no good news for Biden, and saw you posted a couple more lays. And I know politicspunter was not giving up and that Daniel came on later and made some big calls when Trump was still short odds.

I totally disagree that ‘it wasn’t close’ ! You can argue that the final electoral college margin determines how close it was, and that Biden had a however many state ‘cushion’. I would think the criteria most analysts/historians would use for the closeness of elections would simply be the swing per state required to give the opposite result, and here it seems Biden won 4 states by less than 1%. If it is all about the EC margin then JFK v Nixon was a comfortable victory.  But it is actually - rightly - regarded as one of the closest elections in history.

I do believe Trump’s price came in too much and said so at the time, but there was no mirage. Early results indicated Trump was matching or even exceeding his 2016 performance. He was rightly favourite at that point.

If I back something @1.6 thinking it should be 1.3 , if it ends up trading at 4 before winning, I would probably think I wouldn’t be backing @1.6 in a rematch, and certainly not @1.3.
Report politicspunter November 8, 2020 11:25 PM GMT
Tobermory, at the end of the day it's punters money that decides the betting odds. However, as I have said multiple times, that's not necessarily reflective of the true chances of an outcome.
Report DanielKoellerer November 9, 2020 12:23 AM GMT
Yet, strangely, there were not many smiley faces posted by Biden Backers when Trump was 1.24

Confused into why you think this is strange.

It's like your team being 1-0 down and half time, and winning 1-3. What fans would be smiling at the break, but not enjoying it at the end?

Conversely I don't see many Trump backers smiling now, but from when I looked at that thread briefly during the night, many gloaters. I wonder why the coin was flipped?

Note: it was a 1-3 win. Pretty comfortable come the end.
Report DanielKoellerer November 9, 2020 12:31 AM GMT
The prices were pro Trump in the lead up to the election, pro Trump during the election and pro Trump now after the election. A 16/1 shot to steal the election apparently, more like a 200/1 shot.

I never said 1.1 myself pre-election (find the post if you think so). I said 1.15-1.18 Biden SP. That's what I believed and stand by it now. I was wrong on Florida as a few months before thought the seniors would swing enough to give him the win there - if he had won there who would have disagreed with 1.15 then, it would have been over before it started. Obviously he lost fairly comfortably there and the market panicked once Ohio numbers were coming in. We can all agree 1.24 was a ridiculous price.

United Biscuits is confused. I always said Trump 'could win', I just agreed with some more expert analysis in that he had around a 1/7 shot of doing so. I knew the polls could be out, but my theory was even if they were out Biden would still win. Trump would have needed a polling error margin of all time, yet turnout was clearly going to be a record and all the evidence pointed to that benefiting the Democrats, and no complacency on their part.

Trump was a mug outright bet at 3. If you traded an all-green or were trading that price then that was smart, and it was clearly a decent trade with how the day played out.
Report Whisperingdeath November 9, 2020 1:17 AM GMT
PP I think you called it correctly on the night and the following morning, well done. I started backing after the polls started to close at 1.48 which I genuinely thought was a gimme then 1.69, 1.9 and finally at 4. Quite frankly I couldn’t believe my luck. Thanks for your input particularly about when the mail ins were being counted and the individual counties, good job!
Report politicspunter November 9, 2020 7:41 AM GMT
Thank you.
Report unitedbiscuits November 9, 2020 9:50 AM GMT
The thread didn't leave much room for confusion, Daniel, but obviously I was only an occasional visitor.

Ok, five minute job, pick a number between 1 and 150 and we can all have a look to see what was posted on that page of the thread. Here for example is page 130:

It's becoming more difficult every day to see a realistic route to victory for Trump. He is, first of all, going to need a simply massive polling error, beyond the margin or error, across the board. He is also going to need a massive turnout of republican supporters on election day. Even at that, it might not be enough to save him. He has so many states now that are in the balance and he basically needs to win virtually every coin toss.
- Politicspunter


Yeah Biden should really be in the 1.1-1.17 range now.
- Daniel K

"The Economist model now gives 4% chance of victory for Trump Plain, can it get to 1%"
There could be unprecedented circle jerk agony ahead.
- UB quoting Daniel K

25/1 shots pop up every day.
Backing em at 2/1 ain't a good long term policy.Dunno ub, how do you price it?
- youhavetolaugh

I think there are plenty worse 2/1 shots than Trump at any given moment. tobermorey
Report Fatslogger November 9, 2020 12:51 PM GMT

Nov 8, 2020 -- 5:19PM, tobermory wrote:


Fatslogger,I know you were on the thread when Trump’s price was plunging and there was no good news for Biden, and saw you posted a couple more lays. And I know politicspunter was not giving up and that Daniel came on later and made some big calls when Trump was still short odds.I totally disagree that ‘it wasn’t close’ ! You can argue that the final electoral college margin determines how close it was, and that Biden had a however many state ‘cushion’. I would think the criteria most analysts/historians would use for the closeness of elections would simply be the swing per state required to give the opposite result, and here it seems Biden won 4 states by less than 1%. If it is all about the EC margin then JFK v Nixon was a comfortable victory.

Report Fatslogger November 9, 2020 12:52 PM GMT
We haven’t got full counts in yet to say how close it really was but that’s sort of my point. The apparent closeness of the race and Trump becoming a pretty tightly priced favourite were artefacts both of the odd counting process in states Biden will end up winning by fair margins and of Trump’s most favourable state in terms of effect on perception being Florida, which counted very early. I don’t dispute that gave the appearance of a very close race (I think we’re all agreed the Trump price shortened hysterically) but a sober judgement based on nearly full counts in swing states now gives us:

Arizona - Biden by 0.5%, probably finishes about that - agree this is close but it’s been won by a Dem twice since the war
Georgia - Biden by 0.2% - v tight, being recounted
Michigan - Biden by 3% - not close
Nevada - Biden by 3%, favourable votes to come, likely to be 4% - not close
Pennsylvania - Biden by 0.6% now, favourable votes to come, likely to be 1.5% - not very close
Winsconsin - Biden by 0.6% - close

In the end Biden could have lost all three of the close states, using your 1% criterion and still tied the EC. His popular vote margin will be over 4%, I think, with some large and very Dem states still to count postal votes. Like I say, it’s not a crushing win and being a 90% favourite isn’t the same as always winning comfortably but it’s certainly a solid one. I wouldn’t call it all that close. It’s certainly not incompatible with the 90% number we seem to be using as our agreed battleground, even though I don’t think many Biden backers ever said that was their estimate. Obviously neither would losing have been. You can’t judge a model or an estimate accurately with one run.

IIRC, a 4-5% popular vote win was an 87% Biden chance, or so, funnily enough.
Report Dave23 November 9, 2020 1:12 PM GMT
In the end Biden could have lost all three of the close states, using [Tobermory's] 1% criterion and still tied the EC

In which case Biden would almost certainly not have been the Next President, Fatslogger.

As I pointed out in the 2020 US Election thread, some people have been whinging about Trump winning the 2016 US Presidential on the basis of 80,000 votes split across three Midwest States (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan). It appears that Biden may win the Electoral College in 2020 by less than 50,000 votes split across Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia.

I think that both of the above claims are manufactured and misleading. However, the Trump assertion has been bandied about with abandon since 2016. I think the same of the argument that Corbyn was just over 2000 votes from becoming prime minister in the UK General Election 2017. Whilst on one level it's true, I suspect that it's also true that if 2000 votes had instead been selectively allocated to the Conservatives, in a number of seats, May would have obtained a relatively comfortable majority.
Report Fatslogger November 9, 2020 1:33 PM GMT
Yes, agree with all this, Dave23. The nature of first past the post elections is that you will be able to point out small numbers of hypothetical votes having far reaching effects. In the 2017 Corbyn PM scenario, it’s also often regarded rather artificially, because if he had been PM, it would have been with a very unstable and narrow coalition. I can see why the Clinton arguments were made, especially as she won the popular vote, giving the notion that it was close and arguably unfair, more force but basically, if that’s the game, that’s how it will end up being played.

I suppose the point I was making, which very much also applies to Trump’s comfortable electoral college win in 2016, was that you’d need to overturn three narrow but by no means razor thin wins, which sounds trivial but would actually represent a big change.
Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- November 9, 2020 1:43 PM GMT
If you work back the result of uk election
in 2019,take 41 tory seats with smallest
majority,flip em by minimum amount, then you get a different
Government, perhaps...

But you end up with what looks a
Close election, which of course, it was not.
Report Dave23 November 9, 2020 2:05 PM GMT
Yes I agree with your most recent post above Fatslogger.

yhtl, I have not checked 2019 General Election but that sounds right. I have now checked the 2017 General Election results and, by my count, the Conservatives would have obtained an outright majority (326 seats) with the addition of 1051 votes appropriately split across the 9 seats in which they finished 2nd by the narrowest margins (if you include the possibility of ties and them winning the coin-toss or similar you could deduct a further 9 votes from that 1051).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election].

As stated above, I consider such arguments to be manufactured and misleading. However, I raise it because a number of columnists and the likes of John McDonnell, who should know better, have asserted that if Labour had obtained just 2277 more votes in the 2017 UK General Election they would have been in government. Similar claims are often made regarding the 2016 US Presidential Election.
Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- November 9, 2020 2:10 PM GMT
It is contrived, but it is used often.

Usually by the losing party to encourage votes
Report xmoneyx November 9, 2020 2:14 PM GMT
Joel Pollak

Biden won the popular vote -- unless you exclude California.


Jason Kander

My brother is taller than me — unless you exclude his head  Laugh
Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- November 9, 2020 2:18 PM GMT
That penalty man City missed against
Liverpool may cost them the title
if Liverpool finish 3 points ahead of
them at end of season.

Or it might be one of hundreds
of other mistakes over the course
of the season but not highlited
to the same degree.
Report racingfish November 9, 2020 3:01 PM GMT
I don't have the bank to take part, but surely laying Trump at 18 today (9/11/20) is printing money ????
Report Fatslogger November 9, 2020 4:24 PM GMT

Nov 9, 2020 -- 9:01AM, racingfish wrote:


I don't have the bank to take part, but surely laying Trump at 18 today (9/11/20) is printing money ????


Yes. Monster price to be able to print money at. Political markets seem very slow to recognise the near inevitable though.

Report Fatslogger November 9, 2020 4:25 PM GMT
Similarly crazy prices on states Biden won comfortably too, like Michigan and Nevada.
Report Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner November 10, 2020 2:33 AM GMT
The next run on the supermarket in America wont be toilet paper. It will be tissues for all the tears thats incoming.
Report bigpoppapump November 10, 2020 9:12 AM GMT
could probably use toilet paper for that too, to be fair
Report Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner November 10, 2020 11:59 AM GMT
lol but libtards are programmed to follow what they're told.
Report Timber November 10, 2020 12:16 PM GMT

Nov 10, 2020 -- 5:59AM, Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner wrote:


lol but libtards are programmed to follow what they're told.


This is why they keep losing

Report n88uk November 10, 2020 12:59 PM GMT
People have been conned by the market movements making them think Trump ever actually had a chance. Reality is you had a crazy market continuing to act crazy which isn't too uncommon if the odds are out of whack to begin with. It has been spun as close continually, but it's only because of the Republicans engineering it so Trump could spout the hot air he is now, it wasn't close, it wasn't a landslide either, but it was a sizeable victory, not the wafer thin victory some would have you believe.
Report tobermory November 10, 2020 4:56 PM GMT
Winning 4 states by less than 1% and it wasn't close Crazy

'odds out of whack to begin with'

Out of whack with what ? The polls ?
Report politicspunter November 10, 2020 5:27 PM GMT
Folks only are under the mistaken impression that it was close because of the order votes in key states were counted. If Biden mail votes had been counted first in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania etc the results would have been called on election night.
Report tobermory November 10, 2020 5:43 PM GMT
The reason it was close was not because the states weren't called on the night it was because the states could not be called til 99% of the vote was in, which would have been the case whatever order the votes were counted on the night.

If Biden had leads of 600k plus in states and they were being relentelssly reduced by every new result batch then of course it would have been seen as close when he barely hung on. Because winning margins of less than 1% are close, whatever order you count the votes.

The idea that a string of 1% (or less) wins giving you a 3 state cushion is not a close election I have never heard of in my life.
Report geordie1956 November 10, 2020 5:49 PM GMT
Winning 4 states by less than 1% and it wasn't close Crazy

Depends on the context ... Bush won it by 537 votes when he beat Al Gore ... now that is close
Report Fatslogger November 10, 2020 5:52 PM GMT
I think that there are plausible alternative narratives on the closeness of the four swing states still under 1% (I calculated Pennsylvania to be over that in the end but not sure what’s left ballots wise, in terms of how they’ll break). But as per the earlier discussion with Dave 23, I think that’s often how these things tend to look except in complete blow out wins.

On reflection I’m happy to accept Tober’s case that this was a close, although in my view by no means razor thin, win for Biden. If I ever stated otherwise, I’ve changed my mind. I still don’t think that proves or even much supports the argument that Biden wasn’t a 90% shot going in. The truth is that you largely can’t derive the one from the other. A big Trump win would have cast very large amounts of doubt on such forecasts, a close Biden win does not.
Report politicspunter November 10, 2020 5:59 PM GMT
Well, if you chop the three battleground states of Georgia, Nevada and Arizona off Biden and give them to Trump, Biden still wins. That's a pretty clear win.
Report the old nanny ;-) November 10, 2020 6:01 PM GMT
Loved the place in Georgia where the latest batch of votes have come in for 80% Trump. Dodge County.

Happened in Most of the States BIDEN won but that is ok Laugh
Report n88uk November 10, 2020 6:59 PM GMT
Biden outperformed the market odds even though he's deemed seemingly to have under performed. He won every single state he was favourite to win, while winning at least 1 big state the Democrats were not favoured to win.
Report tobermory November 10, 2020 7:25 PM GMT
The market believed the polls significantly underestimated Trump. Obviously the market was correct.

That this is disputed is fairly incredible. Biden was meant to be a 1.3 or less chance according to people here not because he led in X number of states but because of the margin of the leads.

The criteria for how close an election is has always been what % swing change from the actual result would have produced a different result. Not how many spare states you have. As I said above the 1960 election is always seen as one of the closest ever, and that Kennedy could have lost 4 of the states he won and still got the EC majority does not change that. If JFK had been 1% worse off he would have lost, therefore it was very close.
Report politicspunter November 10, 2020 7:32 PM GMT
The market wasn't correct. Biden was a 1.1 shot. To have any chance Trump needed a polling mistake outwith the margin of error. He got it. He needed a huge Republican turnout on election day itself. He got it. He still clearly lost though.
Report unitedbiscuits November 10, 2020 7:35 PM GMT
Politicspunter couldn't lie straight in bed.
Report tobermory November 10, 2020 7:36 PM GMT
Biden backers now getting close to the logic of 'the only value bet is a winning bet' so I think I'm done with this thread as you can't argue with that !
Report unitedbiscuits November 10, 2020 7:41 PM GMT
I never said 1.1 myself pre-election (find the post if you think so). Daniel K 8/11


Yeah Biden should really be in the 1.1-1.17 range now. - Daniel K 11/10

"The Economist model now gives 4% chance of victory for Trump Plain, can it get to 1%" - Daniel K 11/10

Awkward.


Funnily enough, Biden is 1.1 nowLaugh You guys could have saved yourselves six months of ramping.
Report politicspunter November 10, 2020 7:46 PM GMT
Lol, Here is unitedbiscuits. The guy that says on one thread that he has backed Trump before the election at 3.25 but claims on another thread after the election that he didn't back him at all.
Report politicspunter November 10, 2020 7:48 PM GMT
https://community.betfair.com/politics/go/thread/view/94150/31669961/paul-krishnamurty-is-he-going-to-get-it-wrong-like-16#flvWelcomeHeader

Here is where unitedbiscuits says he backed Trump at 3.25 before the election.
Report unitedbiscuits November 10, 2020 7:53 PM GMT
No, that is a lie, pp

No I did not. You asked for a recommendation. I happen to remember 3.25 was available on Daq at time of posting, and when Betfair unsuspended, Trump was sub 3 (check it out) so, maybe of some use for traders. Certainly more use than the "certainty" agenda you were peddling. Then I asked you for your recommendation..

See, this is why I take exception to politicspunter. I don't mean the forum figure but the personality behind it is basically dislikeable. Don't draw me to explain your living character further, politicspunter.
Don't deflect to the other thread, pp. I didn't back Trump. You pushed me for a recommendation, I gave it. I asked you, you ran away.

Please don't provoke me to lay bare the real character behind your posts, politicspunter; I'll do it.


I'm just copy and pasting from the last page on this thread where you ran away before, politicspunter .


Don't make a virtue out of lying pp, it says things about you that you won't like to see laid bare on this thread.
Report politicspunter November 10, 2020 7:57 PM GMT
unitedbiscuits, I have brought this thread to the top of the noticeboard.

https://community.betfair.com/politics/go/thread/view/94150/31669961/paul-krishnamurty-is-he-going-to-get-it-wrong-like-16#flvWelcomeHeader

Here is where unitedbiscuits says he backed Trump at 3.25 before the election.

Why don't you just explain on there that you never backed Trump?
Report unitedbiscuits November 10, 2020 8:03 PM GMT
Ok
Report unitedbiscuits November 10, 2020 8:15 PM GMT
I'll come back to the real personality behind politicspunter's forumname tomorrow.
He has earned it.
Report Fatslogger November 10, 2020 8:16 PM GMT

Nov 10, 2020 -- 1:36PM, tobermory wrote:


Biden backers now getting close to the logic of 'the only value bet is a winning bet' so I think I'm done with this thread as you can't argue with that !


I don’t think anyone has said that. If argument is that because it was close, it’s not possible Biden was really a 1.1 shot, that’s equally as bad a piece of analysis as the straw man you present.

Report ----you-have-to-laugh--- November 10, 2020 8:52 PM GMT
Nor would a landslide justify the price.

They are prices assigned before the off
to help weigh up betting opportunities
presented.

It's only long term you will know if
you are getting it right or wrong, and
even then steaking might skew your results.
Report Fatslogger November 10, 2020 10:19 PM GMT

Nov 10, 2020 -- 2:52PM, ----you-have-to-laugh--- wrote:


Nor would a landslide justify the price.They are prices assigned before the offto help weigh up betting opportunitiespresented. It's only long term you will know ifyou are getting it right or wrong, andeven then steaking might skew your results.


Indeed. Single outcomes can’t justify a model or a price, although they can, in certain circumstances, undermine one. This result was, for example, within a below median but not far off sort of range for the 538 model. We can plausibly say that it looks better for them than the Economist model but by no means conclusively so. It’s also perfectly possible that the ante post or other variants of the Betfair model, if you call it that, were right. They can’t all have been terribly accurate. I do think that the “the Don romps it” model has probably been conclusively thrown out though.

Report politicspunter November 10, 2020 10:22 PM GMT
"The Don Romps it" was Timbuctooth wasn't it?
Report Fatslogger November 10, 2020 10:27 PM GMT

Nov 10, 2020 -- 4:22PM, politicspunter wrote:


"The Don Romps it" was Timbuctooth wasn't it?


Yes. As a piece of modelling it left quite a bit to be desired. As comedy both at the time and in retrospect, it was a lot better. Right now perhaps he’s expecting the Don to romp his court cases. I do think his confidence was ebbing away as the election neared though: he became a lot less truculent in defending his cringe right lies.

Report politicspunter November 10, 2020 10:29 PM GMT
No doubt he will be on here saying he won on that market and will provide PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE to prove it Laugh
Report n88uk November 10, 2020 10:36 PM GMT
There's also a flaw to simply basing a value price off the result anyway. Using that logic Aston Villa were huge value when they beat Liverpool 7-2. Very hard to box a politics event because there is no real long run, they are 1 off events.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com