Betfair odds expect Obama to romp home yet the meda say it's tight

Reesy

Here's what I don't get. Betfair (where a lot of money is gambled) odds have been massively in favour of Obama for (at least) weeks - yet the media have at the same time been saying it's a tight contest. I heard Sky News say it's the closest US presidential election in living memory.

Why the inconsistency? Here are 2 hypotheses:

a) Betfair odds are biased because it's based in the UK, & gambling is illegal in AFAIK nearly all of the USA, & most Europeans prefer Obama and bet on their favourite, thus driving the odds down. I struggle with this, because Betfair is where the high rollers (usually = smart money) go - as I type there is EUR 29M (yes, million) wagered on Betfair on who will be the next president. That kind of money is investment money, not supporting your team like I do with my fiver on Welsh rugby.

b) The media are lying to us, to try sell more newspapers / gain TV viewers.

I'm going with b). Any comments? Any other hypotheses?

Or

C: If republican led media e.g. FOXNews say it's a tight race, it will galvanise more support for the republican candidate, where as if they said it was a dead rubber for Obama, the republican vote may shy away from voting as "there's no point"

Mezcita

It's certainly interesting.

To put this in context Obama is currently 1.26 on Betfair. For non betting folks, this means that for every €1 you bet on him, you would get €1.26 back if he wins (not including commission).

Can you give Romney's odds?

steve9859

The media just want people to watch / listen to their 10 hours of live election coverage. They've spent millions on outside broadcasts etc....the last thing they're going to do is tell everyone that it will be an easy win and will be done and dusted by afternoon tea

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Or

C: If republican led media e.g. FOXNews say it's a tight race, it will galvanise more support for the republican candidate, where as if they said it was a dead rubber for Obama, the republican vote may shy away from voting as "there's no point"

What about all the rest of them? Why only talk about Fox?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

because the other networks, newspapers, nightly news on non-cable networks are paragons of virtue and present only the purest distilled truth

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What about all the rest of them? Why only talk about Fox?

Because it was an example? I didn't think I'd have to list of every news network and their affiliations and FOX are the most blatant when it comes to Republican bias?

Mezcita

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you give Romney's odds?

5.3

Reesy

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you give Romney's odds?

Sure. As I type:
- Obama 1.22
- Romney 5.3.

From http://sports.betfair.com/politics/market?id=1.21311313

A week ago, IIRC, Obama was around 1.3 & Obama 3, or so - therefore the market increasingly sees Obama as winner.

BTW I like hypothesis c), Pappa Dolla. Very clever. But why then do the BBC support the 'it's close' viewpoint?

Inquitus

5.3 represents 81% certainty for Obama.

Inquitus

Worth noting on Intrade the US betfair he's only 68%

http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/

Reesy

Reesy wrote: »

BTW I like hypothesis c), Pappa Dolla. Very clever. But why then do the BBC support the 'it's close' viewpoint?

Thanks for the odds. The only theory I could put forward is that when one media giant says it's close, all media has to report it like that.

For example:

Republican led media* says it's close: it galvanises the republican base to vote

Democrat led media know they are in the lead and report it as so: Democrats feel it's in the bag and those voters with "better things to be doing than voting" don't turn up on the day, giving Republicans an advantage.

It's my opinion as to why the race is so "close" and may prove true.

If you look at the forthcoming children's referendum over here, it's seen as in the bag for a yes vote and I know a lot of people that won't vote on the day as they see it as a futile exercise.


*Guess who learned his lesson

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it was an example? I didn't think I'd have to list of every news network and their affiliations and FOX are the most blatant when it comes to Republican bias?

What other national media outlets are Republican-biased? CNN? CNBC?

The media is saying it's close because it is quite close but more to suit themselves and get ratings and sales.

Inquitus

Romney out to 6.0 now, he's tanking super fast atm on betfair

[-0-]

Inquitus wrote: »

Romney out to 6.0 now, he's tanking super fast atm on betfair

He's still 5.2 and has been for a long time.

Mearings

I bet the bookies call it correctly.

Reesy

Inquitus wrote: »

Romney out to 6.0 now, he's tanking super fast atm on betfair

...and now, as I type, back to 5.3 ... 5.1 ...

http://sports.betfair.com/politics/market?id=1.21311313

An opportunity to maybe make money if you've nerves of steel!

Duck Soup

Paddy Power

Obama 1/6
Romney 4/1

Inquitus

[-0-] wrote: »

He's still 5.2 and has been for a long time.

No he drifted to 6.0 and has come back into 5.1 in about 30 mins odd.

jimmyjon

It's a mixture of

(i) there is indeed more money in Europe on Obama which pushes down his odds, but also

(ii) Obama has very slim leads in the polls in most swing states. These polls are used as the basis for calculating the odds. On the basis of the polls it would seem statistically unlikely that Romney could win enough states for him to win (and the odds reflect this), but in reality elections can be quite unpredictable, polls can be unreliable, and there's every chance Romney could win enough states. Hence the conventional (and in my view correct) wisdom that it's extremely close.

bajer100

This election was over a long time ago. Paddy Power were paying out on an Obama victory a couple of days ago. I too, have been perplexed by the media's insistence that this election is close. It has been obvious for a while that Obama would win this. Chris Christie gave two fingers to Romney after Sandy - thus indicating that he was running in 2016. Romney campaigned in Pennsylvania today where he was 10/1 outsider -knowing that he had lost Ohio. Obama is looking at getting 305 votes (270 to win).

Reesy

So, if I may draw a preliminary conclusion: The difference between Intrade and Betfair may be explained by a different market mechanism or by (possibly) partly by some irrational gambling. Interestingly, the change over time in Obama's 'odds' is different to Intrade - compare:
http://sports.betfair.com/politics/marketactivity?id=1.21311313&selectionId=1171627
and the bottom of this page: http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/

Not sure what the timescale is on the Betfair chart.

And so overall I blame the meeja - mostly b) and a big dose of Pappa Dolla's c) for the right-winger media.

Fr Tod Umptious

jimmyjon wrote: »

It's a mixture of

(i) there is indeed more money in Europe on Obama which pushes down his odds, but also

(ii) Obama has very slim leads in the polls in most swing states. These polls are used as the basis for calculating the odds. On the basis of the polls it would seem statistically unlikely that Romney could win enough states for him to win (and the odds reflect this), but in reality elections can be quite unpredictable, polls can be unreliable, and there's every chance Romney could win enough states. Hence the conventional (and in my view correct) wisdom that it's extremely close.

That's spot on.

Iris close in the swing states, but close in Obama's favour, and all he BMWs to do us scrape over the line in a few sing states to have it in the bag.

Romney has to scrape over the line in a lot more states h to win thus the short odds on Obama

blahfckingblah

there is also the aspect of the media selling a story and a close election is easier to sell than a one sided one.

cabb8ge

Reesy wrote: »

...........as I type there is EUR 29M (yes, million) wagered on Betfair on who will be the next president........................ Any other hypotheses?

traders make up lots of that 29 million, they have they're euro made and result not matter to them now, big factor to consider.

also your smart money on betfair theory, only 1 in 50 accounts in profit

K-9

Betting sites and shops odds depend on their market, so Romneys odds are much longer here and the UK than America. To give an off topic example, you'll get great odds on teams to beat Liverpool here, solely because they have a big support who'll back them regardless of form, so bookies can offer attractive odds on the opposition.

The media have to make it as exciting as they can, hence the headlines of the polls being neck and neck. In fairness it isn't the foregone conclusion everybody thought a few months ago.

bajer100

There is far to much emphasis being placed on the regional aspect of this market. Let's take for example the critical battleground State of Ohio. The reason why the Democrats are odds on to win Ohio - is because, they are odds on to win! European punters are not influencing the odds the same way local "LFC" punters do. Obama had this wrapped up a long time ago and the bookies know it. Romney will get NC and FL from the swing States - but that's about it.

Inquitus

bajer100 wrote: »

There is far to much emphasis being placed on the regional aspect of this market. Let's take for example the critical battleground State of Ohio. The reason why the Democrats are odds on to win Ohio - is because, they are odds on to win! European punters are not influencing the odds the same way local "LFC" punters do. Obama had this wrapped up a long time ago and the bookies know it. Romney will get NC and FL from the swing States - but that's about it.

Aye and FL isn't a lock yet, just a 66% shot for Romney.

K-9

bajer100 wrote: »

There is far to much emphasis being placed on the regional aspect of this market. Let's take for example the critical battleground State of Ohio. The reason why the Democrats are odds on to win Ohio - is because, they are odds on to win! European punters are not influencing the odds the same way local "LFC" punters do. Obama had this wrapped up a long time ago and the bookies know it. Romney will get NC and FL from the swing States - but that's about it.

You will have far more strong Republican voters in Ohio who believe their candidate could well win. The UK and Ireland is more likely to see it from a purely analytical point of view so the odds reflect polls. Romney's odds are shorter in Ohio, in US markets, because there are more takers willing to bet on him. A Romney fan believes he'll win and will bet, somebody in Ireland would never bet on him, unless its amazing odds.

bajer100

Nah - I reckon Romney has Florida. But it won't matter. Latest odds have Obama firming to 1/6. Ohio and Colorado - if they go to Obama - game over.

bajer100

Inquitus wrote: »

Aye and FL isn't a lock yet, just a 66% shot for Romney.

I could be very wrong about Florida. Latest betting has them both at 5/6 for Florida!

[-0-]

Romney out to 11.5. Excellent.

[-0-]

Betfair no longer taking bets for Obama. Game over.

ArmaniJeanss

Reesy wrote: »

Here's what I don't get. Betfair (where a lot of money is gambled) odds have been massively in favour of Obama for (at least) weeks - yet the media have at the same time been saying it's a tight contest. I heard Sky News say it's the closest US presidential election in living memory.

Why the inconsistency? Here are 2 hypotheses:

a) Betfair odds are biased because it's based in the UK, & gambling is illegal in AFAIK nearly all of the USA, & most Europeans prefer Obama and bet on their favourite, thus driving the odds down. I struggle with this, because Betfair is where the high rollers (usually = smart money) go - as I type there is EUR 29M (yes, million) wagered on Betfair on who will be the next president. That kind of money is investment money, not supporting your team like I do with my fiver on Welsh rugby.

b) The media are lying to us, to try sell more newspapers / gain TV viewers.

I'm going with b). Any comments? Any other hypotheses?

Its not necessarily an inconsistency.
1/4 v 7/2 is hardly a foregone conclusion. 1/4 shots get gubbed every day of the week in racing, football and tennis or whatever.

Though doubtless there was an element of the media trying to overemphasise how close it is, I don't think they were particularly far off the mark.
Put it this way, any media who said 48 hours ago that it was over or a done deal would have been more incorrect.