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.I'd put it at around 90%
Looks like the prediction markets are catching up...
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."'
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.
I just realized that superforecaster Bryan Caplan bet against Clinton nine months ago.