a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by wasoxygen
wasoxygen  ·  2807 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: July 20, 2016

Well, I lied. CLINTON.USPREZ16 is sold out, so I can't buy shares in the national election.

So I bought 20 shares of "No" in Will North Korea test a hydrogen bomb before the end of 2016? at 88¢. This seems like a safe win, but I stand to lose $17.60 if wrong and gain only $2.40 if right. It's also about a third of my funds out of play until the end of the year.





b_b  ·  2806 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I don't know anything about the betting markets right now, but I can't imagine betting on Clinton pays too much at this point. NYT has her odds of winning at 76%, and I think that is staggeringly low. If I were selling bets, I'd put it at around 90%. 76% is a bet I would take, but still won't pay out much.

thundara  ·  2806 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Would a meta-poll analysis sway your opinion on that? I'd like T to be 1:10 chance of winning, but his support is what it is (within some margin of polling error), assuming he doesn't crash the plane between now and November.

b_b  ·  2806 days ago  ·  link  ·  

No, because my problem is with the polls. Polls early in races always show a tighter race than what will inevitably happen. At this point in 2012 I think Romney "held" a slight lead, but Obama's reelection was never in doubt for a moment. Why? Because Romney was out of touch and had a difficult time speaking to anyone who made less than $1,000,000 per year. Trump is so far beyond what constitutes a reasonable man that once Clinton's media machine starts in on him, he will crash and burn so hard that he might actually bow out of the race before election day. You think 47% was bad? Binders full of women was bad? Trump can't be that kind and decent on his best day.

I think he's in danger of losing states like GA, LA, AL, MO, and anywhere else there are large but apathetic African American populations. I wouldn't at all be surprised if he lost TX, to be honest (assuming that Dems can register and convince to cast ballots large numbers of Latinos).

So, no, 538 isn't impressing me. And they've been wrong about Trump (in the opposite direction) for 12 months now. Trump is already dead in the water.

wasoxygen  ·  2806 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    I'd put it at around 90%

I have seen evidence that you are a better Bayesian than I, but if I understand correctly this means that if you had to bet, you would be indifferent given the choice of betting for Clinton, paying 10-to-1 against, and betting for Trump, paying 1-to-10.

I think I would go for Trump at those odds.

b_b  ·  2769 days ago  ·  link  ·  
wasoxygen  ·  2766 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Fifteen days ago I bought 70 shares of NO in Will national polling give Gary Johnson at least 8% in a 4-way race on August 31?

I paid an average of 25¢ for the shares and could sell them now for about 90¢ each, as the authority puts his numbers at 7.8%.

I was encouraged by superforecaster Bryan Caplan who predicts that Johnson will win no more than 5% of the popular vote. Caplan says his technique is to 'Step back, calm down, look at the numbers, and target thinkers who say, "This time it's different."'

b_b  ·  2806 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Yes, to make it an attractive bet for me (on Trump), it would have to be 10:1. I would bet on Clinton at 1:3 and think it was a safe bet, if not a little boring for the low payout. Obviously betting at 1:10 is way more boring, but in the second part I was speaking as if I was a handicapper. Sorry for the confusion.

wasoxygen  ·  2688 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I just realized that superforecaster Bryan Caplan bet against Clinton nine months ago.

wasoxygen  ·  2806 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Wait, you said you would buy at 76% and sell at 90%. So your indifference point must be somewhere in between.

I think I am a little less confident than 76%, but not much.