2020 US Election

Brussels Sprout

Biden up to 1.54 now. I had bets on @ 1.52 and 1.55 waiting to be matched. The 1.55 one is still unmatched so he hasn't hit that price just yet.

CorkRed93

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Biden up to 1.54 now. I had bets on @ 1.52 and 1.55 waiting to be matched. The 1.55 one is still unmatched so he hasn't hit that price just yet.

Had another bit of the 1.54.

Brussels Sprout

got a match at 1.55. He's down to 1.52 now again

Bobeagleburger

247m matched on betfair.

okidoki987

6 wrote: »

247m matched on betfair.

Looking like it could reach nearly £500 million :eek:
This is more than this year's Super Bowl, the 2019 Grand National, Mayweather vs McGregor and the 2018 Champions World Cup Final!

https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/the-market-could-reach-400-500-million-us-election-takes-betfair-by-storm/456743

Hope the people backing these on the exchange are paying 2% commission and not joining up and clicking on the free bets offer which is 8% commission :eek:.

CorkRed93

How do the 2020 betting and polls compare to 2016?

Four days out...

Clinton led by 1.8% on the RCP average. Her odds were 1.37 (73%).

Biden leads by 7.4% on same RCP measure. His odds are 1.53 (65%)

DK224

Muahahaha wrote: »

Im thinking along the same lines myself, some of his leads in states are 8-10% but despite this a lot of people dont trust the polls and still think it is still a really close race. With Biden even competitive in a state like Texas we could be looking at a landslide here, especially if Florida falls to Biden where he has had a solid consistent lead for months now. On the state level if the polling is outside the margin of error of +/-3% and is consistently showing Biden far ahead then it is basically free money imo.

I've believed the polls are skewed towards Biden for the last few months and I think the odds of a Biden "landslide" are being overstated.

The early voting figures in both Texas, North Carolina, Nevada and Wisconsin look good for Trump. With Trump encouraging his supporters to vote on election day again and again the past few months I'm expecting a Trump surge on election day and judging by the early voting data there is doubts that the Dems will have built up enough of a cushion based on their early voting.

I am betting accordingly so will find out how right or wrong I was soon enough!

Brussels Sprout

DK224 wrote: »

The early voting figures in both Texas, North Carolina, Nevada and Wisconsin look good for Trump. With Trump encouraging his supporters to vote on election day again and again the past few months I'm expecting a Trump surge on election day and judging by the early voting data there is doubts that the Dems will have built up enough of a cushion based on their early voting.

Can you elaborate on this?

The fact that Texas, in particular, has hit 95% of it's 2016 number of votes cast already seems fairly promising for the Democrats to me.

Edit: both Nevada & North Carolina are over 80% as well

DK224

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this?

The fact that Texas, in particular, has hit 95% of it's 2016 number of votes cast already seems fairly promising for the Democrats to me.

Edit: both Nevada & North Carolina are over 80% as well

Well taking the early figures from Nevada using the Targetsmart early voting database (which is not foolproof) that gives you early voting based on voter registration and this is trending to be a smaller gap for the Dems going into election day than the 99k lead Hillary had in 2016.

Add to that weaker than predicted early turnout amongst 18-24, Hispanic and African American voters leads me to think this isn't the Biden procession many are predicting.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/29/miami-voter-turnout-democrats-433643

Muahahaha

Checked my PP account just there and they're now offering me cashback on Wisconsin and Michigan. Both states have polling leads for Biden in the 8-10% range so I'm not tempted and the cashback profit is minuscule anyway. The NY Times/Upshot had a piece on 'if the polls are as wrong as they were in 2016' where they factor in the polling errors of 2016. In that model Biden still takes Wisconsin and Michigan even if the 2016 polling errors were to repeated this time out so Im going to hold out regardless.

My main exposure is on Biden and they're now offering me cashback on that as well. I have him at 12/1 and currently they are offering cashback at slightly over 8/1. Must say Im tempted to take it now to avoid the stress of the count which could last a few days in some states. But then looking at models like 538 where they give Trump only an 11% chance of winning it doesnt seem so tempting. If they offered 10/1 cashback Id take it now but I dont think it will get any better than 8s.

Im also keeping an eye on the close Senate race in Georgia and waiting for a few more polls before placing. The incumbent there David Perdue *should* be winning this Republican state easily but its not going well for him against the challenger Jon Oscoff. Oscoff burnt Perdue badly in a debate the other night and now Perdue has pulled out of the third and final debate, presumably fearing another collapse. It would be quite the upset but Oscoff seems to have momentum in the final stretch. Perdue has hitched his wagon to Trump in a big way so if the tide goes out on Trump then it likely goes out on him too.

Brussels Sprout

Muahahaha wrote: »

Oscoff burnt Perdue badly in a debate the other night and now Perdue has pulled out of the third and final debate, presumably fearing another collapse. It would be quite the upset but Oscoff seems to have momentum in the final stretch. Perdue has hitched his wagon to Trump in a big way so if the tide goes out on Trump then it likely goes out on him too.

The Georgian Republican party is a particularly odious grouping (up there with the Wisconsin Republicans). There was the race 2 years ago where the now Governor basically rigged his own election by not standing aside as the secretary of state and ensuring that the African American areas of Atlanta had massive difficulties in voting. Then who could forget Kelly Loeffler and her insider trading based on her confidential knowledge gained from a Senate hearing. The other Republican candidate in her race, Doug Collins seems like another charmer based on his tweets. Perdue then with his by accident/on purpose mangling of Kamala Harris's name for the entertainment of a MAGA rally. I hope they all lose.

Brussels Sprout

DK224 wrote: »

Well taking the early figures from Nevada using the Targetsmart early voting database (which is not foolproof) that gives you early voting based on voter registration and this is trending to be a smaller gap for the Dems going into election day than the 99k lead Hillary had in 2016.

There's a problem with using the voter registration data to project outcomes. Nate Silver talked about it on one of the recent 538 podcasts. It seems somewhat unintuitive but just because somebody is registered with a party doesn't mean that they will vote for their candidate. This is especially true with Trump.

He manages to both attract some registered Democrats to vote for him while at the same time repelling some registered Republicans completely. There's also the issue that some people may have switched allegiances decades ago but never bothered updating their registration data because they don't care about voting in primaries.

I think he actually said that the 538 model doesn't factor it in at all as a direct input. For the record they currently have NV as 90% for Biden, with him leading by 7% in the polls.

Also Trump voters seem to be refraining from early voting or mail voting. Plus huge turnouts work against Republicans.

Muahahaha

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The Georgian Republican party is a particularly odious grouping (up there with the Wisconsin Republicans). There was the race 2 years ago where the now Governor basically rigged his own election by not standing aside as the secretary of state and ensuring that the African American areas of Atlanta had massive difficulties in voting. Then who could forget Kelly Loeffler and her insider trading based on her confidential knowledge gained from a Senate hearing. The other Republican candidate in her race, Doug Collins seems like another charmer based on his tweets. Perdue then with his by accident/on purpose mangling of Kamala Harris's name for the entertainment of a MAGA rally. I hope they all lose.

yeah the Georgia race is quite interesting and could go either way. It would be quite the upset if Oscoff unseats Perdue but Perdue chickening out on the final debate is not a good look. He has hitched his wagon firmly to Trumps fate so it might just flip for Oscoff who has some momentum now. Will keep an eye on the new polls at the weekend, if they break for Oscoff I think he is worth a punt.

DK224

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

There's a problem with using the voter registration data to project outcomes. Nate Silver talked about it on one of the recent 538 podcasts. It seems somewhat unintuitive but just because somebody is registered with a party doesn't mean that they will vote for their candidate. This is especially true with Trump.

He manages to both attract some registered Democrats to vote for him while at the same time repelling some registered Republicans completely. There's also the issue that some people may have switched allegiances decades ago but never bothered updating their registration data because they don't care about voting in primaries.

I think he actually said that the 538 model doesn't factor it in at all as a direct input. For the record they currently have NV as 90% for Biden, with him leading by 7% in the polls.

I'm glad to be betting against Nate Silver because outside of the Dem Echo Chamber he hasn't the most stellar of reputations. If you had been betting based on Nate Silvers recommendations since 2012 you would have lost money every election season.
The differential between his projected outcomes and the actual betting markets led him to criticise them this week so I think its worth taking him on.
Nate has Trumps odds of winning the election at 10% while the bookies have him at 36%

CorkRed93

DK224 wrote: »

I'm glad to be betting against Nate Silver because outside of the Dem Echo Chamber he hasn't the most stellar of reputations. If you had been betting based on Nate Silvers recommendations since 2012 you would have lost money every election season.
The differential between his projected outcomes and the actual betting markets led him to criticise them this week so I think its worth taking him on.
Nate has Trumps odds of winning the election at 10% while the bookies have him at 36%

Great, polls all fake/nonsense. Pollsters frauds. What are you going off in that case to be betting trump at 2s? Go shop around bookies , star sports will lay you fortunes top market price on trump.

Brussels Sprout

DK224 wrote: »

I'm glad to be betting against Nate Silver because outside of the Dem Echo Chamber he hasn't the most stellar of reputations. If you had been betting based on Nate Silvers recommendations since 2012 you would have lost money every election season.

He was pilloried 4 years ago before the election because he gave Trump a 28% chance of winning. People thought that was way too bullish on Trump in a landscape where other models had him at 1-10%.

DK224 wrote: »

The differential between his projected outcomes and the actual betting markets led him to criticise them this week so I think its worth taking him on.
Nate has Trumps odds of winning the election at 10% while the bookies have him at 36%

For a market of this size and liquidity the bookies are just market makers. They balance the bets on one side of the ledge with ones on the other side (and take their cut along the way). In these cases the bookie isn't setting the price - their prices reflect the hive mind of the average punter.

Now, there's certainly an argument that the Wisdom of Crowds applies here and that the averaging of all of those punters opinions gives you an accurate representation of the true probabilities.

On the flip side, every so often you get a large event where the prices do not reflect reality. The classic example was the Conor McGregor vs Floyd MayWeather fight from 2017. McGregor was a literal novice fighting one of the greatest boxers of all time and due to the weight of bets coming in on McGregor it was possible to get a 25% return on MayWeather.

It sounds like we differ on which type of event this will be and that's fine. Best of luck with your bets but I hope that you lose since I've got my money on the other side.

DK224

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

He was pilloried 4 years ago before the election because he gave Trump a 28% chance of winning. People thought that was way too bullish on Trump in a landscape where other models had him at 1-10%.



For a market of this size and liquidity the bookies are just market makers. They balance the bets on one side of the ledge with ones on the other side (and take their cut along the way). In these cases the bookie isn't setting the price - their prices reflect the hive mind of the average punter.

Now, there's certainly an argument that the Wisdom of Crowds applies here and that the averaging of all of those punters opinions gives you an accurate representation of the true probabilities.

On the flip side, every so often you get a large event where the prices do not reflect reality. The classic example was the Conor McGregor vs Floyd MayWeather fight from 2017. McGregor was a literal novice fighting one of the greatest boxers of all time and due to the weight of bets coming in on McGregor it was possible to get a 25% return on MayWeather.

It sounds like we differ on which type of event this will be and that's fine. Best of luck with your bets but I hope that you lose since I've got my money on the other side.

I wasn't offering an opinion on what odds the bookies should or shouldn't be offering, just the difference on their pricing compared to the odds Silver currently has and his lashing out at them last week.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Does anyone know what the complexities are for payouts on election night?

I've read the market rules, but as always they seem a bit deliberately vague and open to different interpretations.

I've a couple of large bets on the betfair exchange for example. Anyone know what the different permutations might be?

antimatterx

Quick question

Bet365 have a market to win only. I assume this mean to take the white house and not the popular vote.

IE If you picked the Democrats in 2016, you would have lost despite them getting the most votes.

Bobeagleburger

antimatterx wrote: »

Quick question

Bet365 have a market to win only. I assume this mean to take the white house and not the popular vote.

IE If you picked the Democrats in 2016, you would have lost despite them getting the most votes.

Your assumption is correct.

You can bet on the popular vote winner on betfair. Probably other platforms too.

Brussels Sprout

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Does anyone know what the complexities are for payouts on election night?

I've read the market rules, but as always they seem a bit deliberately vague and open to different interpretations.

I've a couple of large bets on the betfair exchange for example. Anyone know what the different permutations might be?

Ok lets go through it bit by bit:

This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election.

The voting public don't actually vote directly for President - instead they vote for some delegates to represent them when the Electoral College convenes on December 14th. As such after election day/week we can only know each candidate's projected votes, not their actual votes.

After the votes are counted (or possibly even before then if it's not close) a state can be called for one candidate or the other. If the total of these electoral votes is greater than 270 then the rest of the process is seen as a foregone conclusion and they're anointed as the de-facto next President, even though they technically are not until they are elected by the electoral college.

Betfair are basically saying that they will go along with this and not wait for the convention either to declare the winner and pay out.

Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market.

A "faithless elector" is a delegate who disobeys the will of the majority of their own state's voters and casts their Electoral College vote for someone else. A number of delegates from states that Clinton won in 2016 did this.

Betfair are basically saying that in the unlikely event of this happening and it altering the course of the election of a President they would ignore it and go with the original projected winner.

In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It is technically possible that no candidate will reach a majority of Electoral College votes (currently set at 270). For that to happen a 3rd party candidate would need to win enough states to block either of the other two candidates from gaining a majority. A third party candidate hasn't won any Electoral College votes in decades though. The last time it happened was George Wallace in 1968 (Southern states revolting against the Civil rights act). Even then though, Richard Nixon won a majority of the E.C. votes.

You have to go way back to find the last time nobody won a majority - The election of 1824. 4 candidates, Adams, Jackson, Crawford and Clay won states and none of them got anywhere near a majority.

That meant that the 12th Amendment kicked in: The top 3 went to an election by the members of the House of Representatives where each state got 1 vote. There were only 24 states back then and John Quincy Adams got the votes of 13 of them and was elected President.

TLDR: With the modern 2-party system this is unlikely to ever happen again so BetFair are just covering themselves here with this wording

Edit: The 12th Amendment would also apply if it was a 269-269 tie. This is a real, if unlikely, possibility this year

This market will be void if an election does not take place in 2020. If more than one election takes place in 2020, then this market will apply to the first election that is held.

More unlikely stuff

10/03/2020 10:30am – Once voting (whether postal, electronic or at the ballot box) begins in the year 2020 for the US Presidential Election 2020, the election will be deemed to have taken place for the purposes of this market. We will then settle the market as per our rules regardless of whether the election process is fully completed in 2020 or beyond.

This bit perplexes me. I have read it several times and the only conclusion that I can draw from it is that they have made an error here. Voting began weeks ago so by the above wording they would consider this election to have taken place and would need to settle the market. That makes no sense. I think this can be safely ignored.

If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.

Betfair expressly reserves the right to suspend and/or void any and all bets on this market at any time if Betfair is not satisfied (in its absolute discretion) with the certainty of the outcome.

This bit is pertinent given that Donald Trump has repeatedly ruled out vowing to accept the results of the election. There could therefore arise a scenario where Biden is projected to win but Trump does not accept this. Betfair are basically saying that they may have to make a call themselves about who won even if the result is not accepted by all sides.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Cheers for that BS.

They've given themselves some wiggle room, but not surprising with a potentially crazy election like this one I suppose.

Outlaw Pete

Backed Trump at 2.95 to get reelected and whilst not as confident he'll get the popular vote, at 7.8 I had to have some of that.

paddythere

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Does anyone know what the complexities are for payouts on election night?

I've read the market rules, but as always they seem a bit deliberately vague and open to different interpretations.

I've a couple of large bets on the betfair exchange for example. Anyone know what the different permutations might be?

Wondering the same. I think a Trump victory will be declared by Republicans but there will be all sorts of allegations and skullduggery involved.

Brussels Sprout

paddythere wrote: »

Wondering the same. I think a Trump victory will be declared by Republicans but there will be all sorts of allegations and skullduggery involved.

Reading in between the lines of Betfair's rules anyway they won't be paying out on Trump in the scenario where he declares victory while votes are still being counted and states hang in the balance.

paddythere

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Reading in between the lines of Betfair's rules anyway they won't be paying out on Trump in the scenario where he declares victory while votes are still being counted and states hang in the balance.

They can hardly pay out on Democrats if Trump declares victory and Courts side with him though

Brussels Sprout

paddythere wrote: »

They can hardly pay out on Democrats if Trump declares victory and Courts side with him though

Probably not no. Here's what they say:

If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.

Betfair expressly reserves the right to suspend and/or void any and all bets on this market at any time if Betfair is not satisfied (in its absolute discretion) with the certainty of the outcome.

Judging by what happened in 2000 a Supreme Court might take up to a month to happen and it seems (my interpretation) from the highlighted bit that Betfair would wait for it.

Brussels Sprout

Still have one last chunk of my bankroll to bet on Biden. I had it waiting for a match at 1.55 for the last 4 days or so but no takers. Current price is 1.50.

I wonder what the likelihood is for prices tomorrow? It seems that it will mostly be Trump supporters voting so I wonder could that have some kind of visual affect and bump up the numbers.

Rjd2

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Still have one last chunk of my bankroll to bet on Biden. I had it waiting for a match at 1.55 for the last 4 days or so but no takers. Current price is 1.50.

I wonder what the likelihood is for prices tomorrow? It seems that it will mostly be Trump supporters voting so I wonder could that have some kind of visual affect and bump up the numbers.

Depends on Florida doesn't it?

I think that's called early enough, if Trump win the market will be insane, genuinely would not be shocked to see him go odds on.

If he loses Florida, its done, I don't see any other path whatsoever,,,,,,,could be a train then for Biden.

It could be like Boris in 2019, exit poll gave them a huge majority and it was dead as a betting market 2 minutes later:eek:

Crazy because the Theresa May election and 2016 Trump election were demented on Betfair, anyone who is half serious about betting and were trading that night and lost money .....