Miers Nomination Tanking on TradeSport

[Bigdaddydvo]

Traders estimate the probability of her confirmation to be about 38%. It's a huge drop when trading opened at her initial nomination of 91%. Here's the trends:

http://www.tradesports.com/aav2/search.jsp?z=1129940823958&searchText=Harriet+Mier s

I still think she's a better than 50% chance. The expectations are getting so low on her confirmation hearing that if she sounds halfway prepared, she's probably going to pleasantly surprise people.

Does anyone here ever bet on this sort of stuff on this site?

You do understand how books work don't you? You understand about the "vig?"

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
You do understand how books work don't you? You understand about the "vig?"

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't

[ptmusic]

Who cares about that.

Whatchoo mean "Next Year, USC"???

-ptmusic

[Bigdaddydvo]

On the news this morning there is talk of White House contingency plans for a Miers nomination pullback. This is reported a day after the contract went way south, so traders are obviously aware that something serious is amiss with her nomination.

If she continues to underwhelm Senators on both sides of the aisle during her office calls, I expect the White House to pull the plug in the next week.

(Off topic) Also, USC has a year left tops before Notre Dame reassumes dominance in their series.

vig = vigorish, the juice = the books profit

The oddsmaker sets the spread based on how he sees the result. The book wants half of the bets one way, half the other. Losers pay their bet plus the vig. Book pays winners and keeps the vig. (His finder/broker fee.)

If too much action goes one way or the other, the book lays off what he can. Finds another book with opposite problem and they balance their action. Books are the middle men and can't lose.

Outside of personal preferences, books don't give a rat's ass who wins/loses. They're just looking for as much action as they can handle.

You do understand how tradesports works, don't you?

Must admit when I looked the first time I didn't research the site. It looked like an online betting parlor (book). Made as assumption based on my quick visit.

I read your post. Ooooops, I must've screwed up. I went back. Found this...

"TradeSports.com is a person-to-person trading "Exchange". It allows you to trade in the most innovative, transparent and exciting way on financial, sporting, current events, entertainment and many similar events. TradeSports members trade directly with each other, bypassing the middle-man.

When you trade on TradeSports you are pitting your wits against other members of TradeSports. TradeSports provides the platform whereby members can trade between themselves without paying a Sportsbook margin or vig. The winning member will receive the profits, the losing member pays the loss.

With no vig, no juice, no artificial spread, TradeSports charges a small transaction charge per lot traded."

If this "little fee" ain't vig, what do you call it?

I always figure "If it looks like a duck....."

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The vig is not relevant to the politics forum. Looking at the Tradesports odds lets you see the consensus probability of anything happening. Miers dropping from 93% to less than 50% tells us that the conventional wisdom has changed from "she'll definitely get confirmed" to "Rove will probably plant cocaine in her car soon."

You have got to be kidding!

All it means is that there are people willing to put money down on their opinion and an equal number of people willing to put up money that the opposite happens.

No, the vig is not relevant to this forum. Someone asked what it was. I explained.

The fact that the OP's link pointed to a site that takes bets and charges a fee/vig for doing this service caused me to question the value of the site in relation to the Subject. I'd even question his association (as in, "Follow the money") with this site since he's not posted in this thread since he opened it.

You might look at the site as a form of opinion poll. That happens to make a buck while making opinions known. An honest, straightforward and honorable undertaking. As in, Free Market.

As to whether the opinions expressed/bet on constitute Conventional Wisdom, I'm layin' 9-2 against. Wanna bet?

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[lehighguy]

Since real money is involved instead of opinion you get the "most" accurate representation of actual event probabilities.

That said, I've made a good bit on tradesports. Often people let thier emotions drive their betting instead of logic. The result is mispricing, especially in the smaller markets (like which states Bush would win). This concept is the same one that allows stock traders or sports bettors to beat the odds if they can accurately predict the mispricing.

OK.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the OP's link pointed to a site that takes bets and charges a fee/vig for doing this service caused me to question the value of the site in relation to the Subject. I'd even question his association (as in, "Follow the money") with this site since he's not posted in this thread since he opened it.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is commonplace with people who have like 3 posts. Rest assured I have nothing to do w/the folks at Tradesports.

I think it's significant because the financial incentive involved with being correct is high....leading most to believe that information derived from the market is accurate.

It was actually proposed to use a Tradesport type of market to predict terrorist attacks so the U.S. could know where the highest probabilities of attacks are. There was plenty of moral opposition to it (how can people make money predicting terrorist attacks?) but the information provided from such markets would be invaluable.

Hence my conclusion is that if the market says she has a low probability of confirmation, it is probably correct.

I don’t know what the 3 posts reference means but if you say you’re not associated with Tradesports I’ll accept that. I saw a link that looked like spam and it seems I was wrong. Not the first time. If I offended you, please accept my apology.

I understand your thoughts about the validity of the bettors opinions. A bet is frequently an opinion based on a helluva lot more than a hunch. Smart bets anyway.

Thanks for your reply.

btw, I wouldn’t put anything on her, either. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Nepa]

did anyone read the rules to these?

[ QUOTE ]
Harriet Miers Senate Confirmation
This contract will expire at 100 upon confirmation, by the US Senate, of Miers appointment to the Supreme Court.
The contract will expire at 0 if Miers receives a negative vote in the Senate or if her nomination is withdrawn for any reason.
If the Senate vote is a tie, then the contract will be expired based on the result of the Senate's own tie-breaker.
Number of Affirmative Votes
All contracts will be unwound if the nominee fails to get an up or down vote on the US Senate floor
Further Clarification added Oct 13th, 2005:All vote contracts will be unwound if the nomination is officially withdrawn for any reason.

NOTE:
*Any significant changes to Vote Protocol in the Senate may result in amendments to the above contract rules. Contracts will remain open as long as the nominee is still the President's nominee.


Clarification added September 05, 2005
The contracts listed relate to any possible appointment to the US Supreme Court


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a really stupid contract. How can any bet on this with these rules. I guess you can play it as a freeroll. Does anyone else see why?

[ QUOTE ]


This is a really stupid contract. How can any bet on this with these rules. I guess you can play it as a freeroll. Does anyone else see why?



[/ QUOTE ]

Since this thread was lying peacefully in it's grave, until you came along and bumped it, I'm layin' 11-3 nobody gives a s**t.

/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


This is a really stupid contract. How can any bet on this with these rules. I guess you can play it as a freeroll. Does anyone else see why?



[/ QUOTE ]

Since this thread was lying peacefully in it's grave, until you came along and bumped it, I'm layin' 11-3 nobody gives a s**t.

/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't mean to piss you off. She might be lying in her political grave in a few weeks herself. But don't forget she is a really really nice person.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a really stupid contract. How can any bet on this with these rules. I guess you can play it as a freeroll. Does anyone else see why?

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you didn't really think this was a freeroll /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[El Barto]

Tradesports sucks with this kind of bet. They should never have stopped carrying the contracts on all the potential nominees until someone is actually sworn in.

So what if the Miers contract would be going at 85 while the Luttig contract would scrape along the floor at .5 during the period when she was the nominee. The market was still unresolved and their system should have reflected this.

Picking a nominee does not end the process. Tradesports has dropped the ball again.