Presidential race now a pick-em

[Clarkmeister]

-105 on both sides at Pinnacle.

I don't know....sure seems like a good bet on Bush to me.

[The Dude]

Can you explain what '-105' means? What would be the difference, say, if they were both -50?

[Ed Miller]

Can you explain what '-105' means? What would be the difference, say, if they were both -50?

-50 is meaningless. If the number is minus, you must lay that much to win $100. So to bet on either Kerry or Bush, you must lay $105 to win $100.

If the number is plus, you bet $100 to win that much. So +200 is the same as paying 2-to-1. Even money is denoted either EVEN, +100, or -100.

EDIT: This is also what's called a 10-cent line. If the line were to move to favor Bush significantly, it might look like Bush -130, Kerry +120. The book's vig is the 10 cents in the middle.

You also commonly see 20-cent lines. So -110/-110 would be a pick 'em, and it might be Bush -135, Kerry +115 if Bush were favored.

[Cyrus]

I know this is not going to sound too objective, since my personal preference is known to be with Kerry, but so be it: I feel that the polls so far indicate an extreme uneasiness on the part of the Bush followers and that there is a significant probability that we may actually witness a blow out in favor of Kerry come election time.

The qualitative bases of my (speculative) argument are as follows:

- Most of the major criteria for picking a candidate point against Bush except for the "most important one", ie making a clear choice, whereby the people art approximately divided. This shows that there is a lot of loyalty in the Bush camp but such baseless loyalty tends to give way at some point in time, or at least outside the hard-core support.

- The news from most pro-Bush media do not support Bush as much (and as such), but rather tend to focus on the war against Iraq. In other words, there is an element of patriotic "grin-and-bear-it", which tends to crumble when a credible patriotic alternative is identified. (In more words, it's up to Kerry to convince about 10% of middle-roaders that he is not going to sell off the country to the Chinese. Or thereabouts.)

- There is simply nothing new, refreshing or alternative coming out of the GOP camp. Neither in ideas, nor in persons. (McCain being a glaring exception.) This signifies to the voters something like "the Bush camp believes that everything so far has been done correctly" - a message that is clearly at odds with the popular mood. Even a cosmetic change is absent. Essentially the Bush camp is not just asking for a vote of confidence for the next 4 years, it is asking for an implicit endorsement of the last 4 years!

- The offshore bookies have reversed course and this is not a good sign for an incumbent President. (For instance, I don't recall Clinton until very close to the 1992 election getting the favourite’s spot.)

The makings are there, IMHO, for a potential sweep, even if the polls continue to show a divided electorate until very late.

[Toro]

I saw something very interesting last week while vacationing in Newport R.I. There were a bunch of young adults with DNC Tshirts who were soliciting donations.

As you approached them, they said "would you like to help us beat George Bush this November". My wife replied that she intended to and that she was voting for Kerry to which the kid replied, "yes we are part of the Kerry campaign".

I thought it odd that they approached it this way. In the old days the candidates wouldn't even mention their opponents name, but here they not only said the opponents name but didnt say their candidate's name until my wife said it first.

So even they know, to get elected, it has to anti-Bush and not pro Kerry. Sad state of affairs that of all the qualified people in this country, we are reduced to choosing between those two.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
there is a significant probability that we may actually witness a blow out in favor of Kerry come election time.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you consider a blow out? Too many current red states will go to Bush. Zilcho possibility of a Kerry landslide IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
- Most of the major criteria for picking a candidate point against Bush except for the "most important one", ie making a clear choice, whereby the people art approximately divided. This shows that there is a lot of loyalty in the Bush camp but such baseless loyalty tends to give way at some point in time, or at least outside the hard-core support.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really come up with some sh*t /images/graemlins/smile.gif. No baseless loyalty for Kerry?

[ QUOTE ]
- There is simply nothing new, refreshing or alternative coming out of the GOP camp. Neither in ideas, nor in persons. (McCain being a glaring exception.) This signifies to the voters something like "the Bush camp believes that everything so far has been done correctly" - a message that is clearly at odds with the popular mood. Even a cosmetic change is absent. Essentially the Bush camp is not just asking for a vote of confidence for the next 4 years, it is asking for an implicit endorsement of the last 4 years!

[/ QUOTE ]

What prey tell are the new, fresh ideas coming from the Democratic camp? Besides raising taxes, what are the major differences in what the candidates are proposing in policy? So far in this election I've seen the same old crap from each candidate. The same half truths, red herrings, non sequiters, irrelevant rhetoric and what have you are the norm again in this presidential election. My take is that the voting public doesn't really want to examine issues very deeply and think about them all that much. The pols are all too willing to oblige.



[ QUOTE ]
- The offshore bookies have reversed course and this is not a good sign for an incumbent President. (For instance, I don't recall Clinton until very close to the 1992 election getting the favourite’s spot.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The betting lines are such that the action is balanced on both sides so the books are guaranteed a profit from the vig. Unless you can make a convincing arguement to me that the smart money is moving the lines then I think it is a reflection of what the betting public discerns in the polls.

[ QUOTE ]
The makings are there, IMHO, for a potential sweep, even if the polls continue to show a divided electorate until very late.

[/ QUOTE ]

A sweep of what? The Republicans are likely to increase their majorities in both houses of Congress.

[Nemesis]

It seems that the electorate isn't split currently.

W is for win.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040725/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_road_to270&cid=694&ncid=716

[Cyrus]

Notice I have not even brought up the issue of the debates. If George W Bush does accept to debate Kerry on national TV, the president's prospects look even dimmer. No pun intended.

If anyone believes that the president is going to come out of the debates unaffected, or even with improved standing, I would be interested to know why and on what basis (eloquence, wit, record in office, etc) he could achieve that.

"A sweep of what? The Republicans are likely to increase their majorities in both houses of Congress."

My post was specifically and explicitly about electing the next president. Not about Congressional elections.

...You should give this matter a more serious thought, methinks, along the lines of not just a Bush acolyte but an advantage player, in case you consider yourself one. There might be some possibilities for locking a win at the books. Do your homework.

[GWB]

Nemesis,

I love your avatar. I hope it starts a trend /images/graemlins/grin.gif


Cyrus,

I am a terrible debater, as we let everyone know back in 2000. I hope to enter them with low expectations again this year. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif


http://www.georgewbushstore.com/images/100_2106.jpg

[jokerswild]

The title of your post reveals your hate mongering racial slant.

Here's a repeat post for fools like you:

The CIA and FBI were prevented from sharing information with each other prior to the Patriot Act. They were not prevented from briefing the President. The President could have ordered these briefings immediately in response to the brief entitled "Bin Ladin determined to attack within the United Sates" on 9-06-01. The CIA and FBI can offer intelligence to the President, and he or a delegated 3rd party (such as the National Security advisor) could have collated that information. Certainly chatter picked up by the NSA, the FBI warnings 2 months prior, and warnings to the CIA from Israeli and Russian intelligence could have been addressed. Bush could have asked the FBI to report regarding known Al Queda operatives and domestic surveillance of suspected cells. Moussaoui (sic) was already in custody in Minnesota. He could have ordered the treasury department and the IRS to report any suspicous wire transfers. This alone would have identified Atta as a suspect. Transactions larger than $10,000 are reported by law. Atta recieved a 100k wire transfer from a Pakistani intelligence officer (to Atta within the USA) one week prior to 9-11. It probably would take the NSA a few hours to come back with a list of suspicious transactions. The CIA monitors stock market puts from overseas. UAL had an exponentially larger than average amount of puts placed on its stock from a subsidiary of Duestche Bank formerly run by Buzz Krongard. Krongard was a high level CIA officer that I believe was 3rd in line to DCI. Warnings could have been shared with airports. The military could have been placed on alert status. The power of the President of the USA to act is almost endless.

Bush did nothing. He did nothing the day of the attacks, and he did nothing but badger the intelligence community to come back with Saddam as an answer afterwards. This is legitimate criticism. Bush has held no one accountable to date other than Bin Ladin and Saddam. He quit pursuing Bin Ladin and focussed on Iraq contrary to all evidence. He stands accused of lying to the American public regarding Iraq. Almost a thousand Americans are now dead. The threat of Al Queda attacks is greater. Thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead. The public is out a minimumm of 100 billion dollars in tax money while Bush coddles the Saudis and the Pakistanis. At the same time, his cronies in the oil business make billions from the taxpayers. The same companies also refuse to account to the UN for billions from the Iraqi fund established by Presidential executive order.

The only proof of nuclear technology being shared in the region comes again from Pakistan. A Pakistani scientist has admitted exporting nuclear technology to Libya, and North Korea. That scientist has not been punished by Musharif. Musharif is a dictator for life that came to power by a military coup. This alone is a damning indictment of Middle East policy. Rice went on television and had the stupidity to state that no one in the National Security network had ever imagined that terrorists would use airplanes as bombs. This has been proven false. Even if the scenario had not been outlined previously by US intelligence officials in recent history (it had) prior to 9-11, it doesn't take a genius to realize that Japanese kamikazis attacked American vessels in WWII using airplanes as bombs.

Bush now blames the intelligence community for Iraq.
The CIA has responded by the publication of Imperial Hubris, and permitting damning photographs to be removed from Abu Gharib.

The USA is stuck fighting an insurgency that has no end in site, while the military is undermanned. All in all, Bush's policies and reaction to 9-11 stand as gross failures

[Utah]

If anyone believes that the president is going to come out of the debates unaffected, or even with improved standing, I would be interested to know why and on what basis (eloquence, wit, record in office, etc) he could achieve that.

Same reason that the debates helped him against Al Gore. People fundamentally relate to GWB. Gore "beat" GWB in the debates but GWB gained from them because people didnt like how Gore came across. Its not a High School debate match. Its a popularity contest. No one likes Kerry, not even the democrats.

I think Edwards would be a tough debate match for GWB because people relate to him as well. I remember Edwards trouncing Kerry in the debates. I still love his line, "that is the longest answer I have ever heard to a yes or no question".

[Cyrus]

"Can you explain what '-105' means?"

Ed Miller explained it already. The books state the amount of money you need to put down to make that bet in order to win $100 (it's always stated in units of $100). So -$200 means you wager $200 to win $100 (and you get back your own $200 of course).

You can bet an amount that is not exactly as stated in the book's line. You can bet, for example, $450. The amount you stand to win with such a bet is derived by the formula implicit in the book's line. (If the book's line is -$150, then by betting $450 you stand to win $300.)

"What would be the difference, say, if they were -50?"

If the line was -$50 that would mean that you'd have to bet $50 to win $100. Which is the same thing as betting $100 to win $200, and it is stated by the books as +$200.

The books, as soon as they move the amount you have to bet below the unit of $100, they change sign, from negative (-) to positive (+) and then state the amount you win by betting $100.

Hope this helps.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I know this is not going to sound too objective, since my personal preference is known to be with Kerry,(NO [censored]?) but so be it: I feel that the polls so far indicate an extreme uneasiness on the part of the Bush followers (MORE WISHFUL THINKING)and that there is a significant probability that we may actually witness a blow out in favor of Kerry come election time.MORE PROOF THAT IGNORANCE IS TRULY BLISS!

The qualitative bases of my (speculative) argument are as follows:

- Most of the major criteria for picking a candidate point against Bush except for the "most important one", ie making a clear choice, whereby the people art approximately divided. This shows that there is a lot of loyalty in the Bush camp but such baseless loyalty tends to give way at some point in time, or at least outside the hard-core support. AND THE "ABB" CREW ARE NOT BLINDLY AND FOOLISHLY LOYAL?

- The news from most pro-Bush media do not support Bush as much (and as such), but rather tend to focus on the war against Iraq. In other words, there is an element of patriotic "grin-and-bear-it", which tends to crumble when a credible patriotic alternative is identified. (In more words, it's up to Kerry to convince about 10% of middle-roaders that he is not going to sell off the country to the Chinese. Or thereabouts.) IN CASE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DOES COME UP WOTH A TRUE PATRIOT THEY MIGHT REALLY HAVE A CHANCE. THE WAR CRIMES FLIP-FLOPPER KERRY DOESN'T QUITE QUALIFY.

- There is simply nothing new, refreshing or alternative coming out of the GOP camp. Neither in ideas, nor in persons. (McCain being a glaring exception.) This signifies to the voters something like "the Bush camp believes that everything so far has been done correctly" - a message that is clearly at odds with the popular mood. Even a cosmetic change is absent. Essentially the Bush camp is not just asking for a vote of confidence for the next 4 years, it is asking for an implicit endorsement of the last 4 years! AND THE OLD "WOE IS ME" ROUTINE FROM THE DEMMIES IS FRESH AND ENDEARING?

- The offshore bookies have reversed course and this is not a good sign for an incumbent President. (For instance, I don't recall Clinton until very close to the 1992 election getting the favourite’s spot.) BOOKING 101, GET THE MONEY EVEN ON BOTH SIDES SO THIS ACTUALLY SHOWS THAT A BUSH VICTOEY IS MUCH MORE LIKELY IF YOU WANNA BELIEVE THE BOOKS

The makings are there, IMHO, for a potential sweep, even if the polls continue to show a divided electorate until very late. FINALLY WE AGREE ABOUT THE SWEEP BUT YOU HAVE MISSED ALL THE OBVIOUS CLUES AS USUAL, HINT: THE SWEEP WILL NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THE TWO DONS OR IS THAT JOHNS?

[/ QUOTE ]

Face it Cyrus, "FOUR MORE YEARS" really does have a nice ring to it! /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Jimbo

[Clarkmeister]

"The betting lines are such that the action is balanced on both sides so the books are guaranteed a profit from the vig. Unless you can make a convincing arguement to me that the smart money is moving the lines then I think it is a reflection of what the betting public discerns in the polls."

I submit that there is no more accurate predictor of anything than the current betting line. If there was, you and many others would be using it for profit. Also, it doesn't follow that the "smart money" would be on one side or the other and one should find out which side, because if the line was still "off", the smart money would keep betting it until there was no longer an edge. Meaning the current line is one which the smart money no longer thinks is exploitable.

[craig r]

i think the only way to make money at this would be to go for the hedge...which i haven't looked at the line today, but it seems the time to hedge might have already passed. but, if the line is still in bush's favor, the smart play would have been to take kerry at plus odds and then after the DNC, take bush at plus odds. but, if the line is a pk right now, then i don't think there is a bet here at all. there is just too many things that will/can happen before november. but (and big "but") if the gamblers who bet on sports (not pros, but "gamblers;" i.e. people who bet how they want an event to turn out) are republicans then there might be some value in betting kerry if he gets to + odds again. but, like i said, i don't think there is any value either way on this bet. and even if something big happens between now and november the line will move anyways.