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.
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.
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.
Nov 7, 2020 -- 7:49AM, frog1000 wrote:
Nov 7, 2020 -- 1:54PM, politicspunter wrote:Nov
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.