The 2024 US presidential election.

[Bald Rick]

The betting odds at Oddschecker still have Trump as the favourite (4/5) with Harris at 5/4.

Does that mean that the market is wrong, and its a chance to make some money?

Oddly enough (pun intended) the odds todayon betfair for a Trump win are exactly the same as they were in late May (1.88) and a little shorter than they were back in January when I got him at 2.44.

 

[The Ham]

The betting odds at Oddschecker still have Trump as the favourite (4/5) with Harris at 5/4.

Does that mean that the market is wrong, and its a chance to make some money?

The bookies don't always get the odds right vs the outcome locally for the UK general election the Lib Dems had worse odds at winning than Labour, but the result was that Labour were a long way behind the Tories who came second to the Lib Dems.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The bookies don't always get the odds right vs the outcome locally for the UK general election the Lib Dems had worse odds at winning than Labour, but the result was that Labour were a long way behind the Tories who came second to the Lib Dems.

Bookmakers calculate their odds to ensure that, based on the cash level of bets for various outcomes, their out payments to winning bets are less than their retained income from the unsuccessful bets. Their aim is to make a profit. They do not try to predict outcomes in any other way, indeed if they did the result might be ruin. Laying odds in a fast-moving situation such as on-course betting is a very interesting continual mathematical calculation but needs no knowledge of the horses' or dogs' performance.

The level of betting for each outcome might reflect the views of a large proportion of the population and therefore have some relevance but be careful when looking at stakes laid in the case of an event which itself may have a financial penalty or advantage.

If, for instance, one party has expressed an intention to make a sector of the population worse off by £x some of those who would be affected may lay a bet on that party being successful with the stake ensuring a payout, in this case, of £x. So, if the party concerned doesn't win the punter loses the stake but if it does indeed win then the financial loss by the policy of the party is offset by the winnings. People staking bets in this manner do not have any special knowledge of the outcome indeed it's very likely that they don't know, and that's why they're placing the bet.

 

[Bald Rick]

The bookies don't always get the odds right vs the outcome locally for the UK general election the Lib Dems had worse odds at winning than Labour, but the result was that Labour were a long way behind the Tories who came second to the Lib Dems.

Betfair exchange isn‘t a bookies in the traditional sense, it is ‘peer to peer’ which means the market decides the odds, not betfair. The betfair market on the US presidential election is very well developed, with over £40m traded so far (and all sat in Betfair‘s account until November, earning 5%+). Compared to the market for a local MP, where if it did more than £1000 of trade it would be unusual. (except where Conservatives bet on themselves of course).

 

[brad465]

Compared to the market for a local MP, where if it did more than £1000 of trade it would be unusual. (except where Conservatives bet on themselves of course).

A sign of how much the world has moved in the last month (both here and the US) that I forgot about that particular scandal till you mentioned it here.

The 2020 US election must have been a lucrative trade for bookmakers (and certain punters), given not only its profile, but the count took so long it was possible to bet for at least a day after polls closed in a period of intense drama.

 

[Bald Rick]

The 2020 US election must have been a lucrative trade for bookmakers (and certain punters), given not only its profile, but the count took so long it was possible to bet for at least a day after polls closed in a period of intense drama.

Certainly was!
as was 2016, especially for those who got Trump at 10/1 or so several months out

 

[jon0844]

I heard today that Trump was projecting with the whole 'She said she was Indian and then she became black' as when his family first came to the USA in the 1940s, as Germans they didn't think they'd be very popular (especially renting properties to Jewish people) - so they lied and pretended they were Swedish.

Not literally the same thing, but it must be still in his head that as he might pretend to be something he was not, that's what other people would do.

 

[brad465]

Certainly was!
as was 2016, especially for those who got Trump at 10/1 or so several months out

There was an analysis someone published somewhere at the end of 2016 about how much a £5 (or £10) bet placed in 2015 would return if placed on Leicester winning the Premier league, Trump winning the Presidency, and Brexit as a combo, which came to several million pounds. It used Leicester's 5000/1 odds at the start of the season, Trump on about 100/1 when he confirmed he was running and whatever Brexit odds were, but they were nowhere near as long as the others, even though not the favourite at the time.

 

[jon0844]

There are occasionally high payoffs for some '1 in a million' bets but not only are they rare enough not to really matter, but I remember speaking to a friend who worked for William Hill saying they usually made a big deal of such events, pretending to be devastated.

Having people think you can beat them gets them gambling more!

 

[DoubleLemon]

There are occasionally high payoffs for some '1 in a million' bets but not only are they rare enough not to really matter, but I remember speaking to a friend who worked for William Hill saying they usually made a big deal of such events, pretending to be devastated.

Having people think you can beat them gets them gambling more!

Would they not be insured for these type of scenarios as they are so infrequent?

 

[Magdalia]

Bookmakers calculate their odds to ensure that, based on the cash level of bets for various outcomes, their out payments to winning bets are less than their retained income from the unsuccessful bets. Their aim is to make a profit. They do not try to predict outcomes in any other way, indeed if they did the result might be ruin. Laying odds in a fast-moving situation such as on-course betting is a very interesting continual mathematical calculation but needs no knowledge of the horses' or dogs' performance.

There are occasionally high payoffs for some '1 in a million' bets but not only are they rare enough not to really matter,

There is a well known instance of bookmakers suffering significant losses. In 1996 the jockey Frankie Dettori won all seven races on the card at a race meeting at Ascot, on cumulative odds of about 25000-1. The Racing Post estimated that the bookmakers lost about £40m.

The level of betting for each outcome might reflect the views of a large proportion of the population and therefore have some relevance but be careful when looking at stakes laid in the case of an event which itself may have a financial penalty or advantage.

If, for instance, one party has expressed an intention to make a sector of the population worse off by £x some of those who would be affected may lay a bet on that party being successful with the stake ensuring a payout, in this case, of £x. So, if the party concerned doesn't win the punter loses the stake but if it does indeed win then the financial loss by the policy of the party is offset by the winnings. People staking bets in this manner do not have any special knowledge of the outcome indeed it's very likely that they don't know, and that's why they're placing the bet.

This is what is known as "hedging your bets". Its origins are with bookmakers hedging potential big losses in their own book by placing bets with other bookmakers. It did not work in the Frankie Dettori example because all of the bookmakers were exposed together.

Since financial deregulation in the 1970s and 1980s it became common for hedging to become a feature of financial markets via, for example, derivative instruments and short selling.

To get back to the subject matter, I suspect that most big betting on elections is hedging against other financial risk, rather than gambling on the outcome of a two person race.

Would they not be insured for these type of scenarios as they are so infrequent?

Fundamentally, all insurance is a form of betting. When your insurance company writes your policy it is betting that it will make money because you won't need to claim. Insurance companies, like bookmakers, will lay off their big exposure, for example to natural disasters, by hedging the risk with other insurance companies, and there are specialist businesses that only deal with reinsurance.

But in the same way that insurance companies will hedge their risks with other insurance companies, bookmakers will hedge their risks with other bookmakers, because that's where there is a market that knows how to price the risk.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Just picked my wife up from Atlanta airport. Interstate 75 was basically shut with a way over the top ( imo) motorcade with must have been close to 70 police on motorcycles, huge number of police cars, a SWAT vehicle ambulance and armored cars etc. It was Trump.

The reason I say this in general is, in election year especially, ordinary people’s lives get affected. I managed to get there to greet my wife but still hugely disruptive. I will be glad when it is all over.

 

[brad465]

Just picked my wife up from Atlanta airport. Interstate 75 was basically shut with a way over the top ( imo) motorcade with must have been close to 70 police on motorcycles, huge number of police cars, a SWAT vehicle ambulance and armored cars etc. It was Trump.

The reason I say this in general is, in election year especially, ordinary people’s lives get affected. I managed to get there to greet my wife but still hugely disruptive. I will be glad when it is all over.

I know the US is a big place, but does an election really need to go on as long as it does (like basically a year)? In the UK we can do all the campaigning in 6 weeks (although even this is seen as excessive by some and that 4 is enough).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I know the US is a big place, but does an election really need to go on as long as it does (like basically a year)? In the UK we can do all the campaigning in 6 weeks (although even this is seen as excessive by some and that 4 is enough).

Yes and in fact if a candidate declares middle of the year before it can go on for about 18 months. Really tedious. I much prefer the British system even though it is flawed in its own way.

 

[birchesgreen]

Then you have the period between the election and the actual handover which is another two months. I suppose these time scales are a legacy from when the US was ia huge country that could only be traversed by foot or horse so you needed plenty of time for an election. In the age of jet airliners and internet its no longer necessary.

 

[edwin_m]

I know the US is a big place, but does an election really need to go on as long as it does (like basically a year)? In the UK we can do all the campaigning in 6 weeks (although even this is seen as excessive by some and that 4 is enough).

It's the flipside of having fixed terms. If everyone knows when the election will be then they can plan out their campaign from the way out. They also have to do two campaigns - making themselves attractive to the party members for the primaries and then (usually) tacking back to the centre to appeal to swing voters.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's the flipside of having fixed terms. If everyone knows when the election will be then they can plan out their campaign from the way out.

But I'm pretty sure there are European countries that have fixed terms, but don't seem to have a problem with campaigns getting artificially extended as a result. As did the UK during the 2010 Parliament: Everyone basically knew when the next election was going to happen, but we didn't end up with a years-long election campaign as a result.

 

[JamesT]

But I'm pretty sure there are European countries that have fixed terms, but don't seem to have a problem with campaigns getting artificially extended as a result. As did the UK during the 2010 Parliament: Everyone basically knew when the next election was going to happen, but we didn't end up with a years-long election campaign as a result.

Except we did, the parties were manoeuvring around well before the election. e.g. this article from December 2014 talking about limits on campaign funding kicking in https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...ion-campaign-officially-begins-what-does-mean

Although anyone who’s been watching British politics closely for the past six months would be forgiven for thinking it had already started, the general election campaign officially begins today.

 

[jon0844]

T

I know the US is a big place, but does an election really need to go on as long as it does (like basically a year)? In the UK we can do all the campaigning in 6 weeks (although even this is seen as excessive by some and that 4 is enough).

Trump never stopped campaigning. It is so odd that they hold rallies throughout their presidency.

 

[nlogax]

Kamala Harris has picked Tim Walz as her VP candidate. The more I read + listen to him the more I'm impressed. A down-to-earth straight talker who seems to have done a great deal of good in the state of Minnesota.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/06/harris-walz-vp/

Harris’s choice for a running mate was among the most closely watched decisions of her fledgling campaign, as she sought to bolster the ticket’s prospects for victory in November and rapidly find someone who could be a governing partner. In picking Walz, she has selected a seasoned politician with executive governing experience and signaled the importance of Midwestern battleground states such as Wisconsin and Michigan.

Walz’s foray into politics came later in life: He spent more than two decades as a public school teacher and football coach, and as a member of the Army National Guard, before running for Congress in his 40s. In 2006, he defeated a Republican to win Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District — a rural, conservative area — and won reelection five times before leaving Congress to run for governor.

Walz was first elected governor in 2018 and handily won reelection in 2022. Though little-known outside his state, Walz emerged publicly as one of the earliest names mentioned as a possible running mate for Harris, and in the ensuing days he made the rounds on television as an outspoken surrogate for the vice president.
“These are weird people on the other side. They want to take books away, they want to be in your exam room. … They are bad on foreign policy, they are bad on the environment, they certainly have no health care plan, and they keep talking about the middle-class,” Walz told MSNBC in July. “As I said, a robber baron real estate guy and a venture capitalist trying to tell us they understand who we are? They don’t know who we are.”

 

[AlterEgo]

Very safe married white man with a wife and kids. Decent pick, potentially. Haven't heard him speak before though!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Very safe married white man with a wife and kids. Decent pick, potentially. Haven't heard him speak before though!

Brings total balance to the ticket. Good choice. Midwest

 

[birchesgreen]

The Trumpists are in full attack mode... so that indicates it is a good choice for the Democrats

 

[nlogax]

Here's an interview with MSNBC's Jen Psaki from a week or two ago which is a good intro to what Walz is about. Positive stuff.

 

[ainsworth74]

There's also this fairly adorable video from last year as well:

x.com

x.com

Seems slightly less weird than most other senior Republicans and certainly less so than JD Vance.

 

[Cowley]

I listened to an interview with him a few days ago and I thought he had an excellent calming manner about him. I’m really quite pleased that he’s the pick.

It was on here if anyone wants to listen:

Harris Surges, Vance Sinks (feat. Gov. Tim Walz)

Pod Save America · Episode

open.spotify.com

 

[43096]

Very safe married white man with a wife and kids. Decent pick, potentially. Haven't heard him speak before though!

And he was the one who made the comment calling Trump "weird", which the MAGAmob really cannot cope with. Let's hope he has some more similarly effective barbs ready to go!

 

[Busaholic]

I listened to an interview with him a few days ago and I thought he had an excellent calming manner about him. I’m really quite pleased that he’s the pick.

It was on here if anyone wants to listen:

Harris Surges, Vance Sinks (feat. Gov. Tim Walz)

Pod Save America · Episode

open.spotify.com

I've got to be pleased, if only because his name is so close to my own.

 

[brad465]

Walz dropped an absolute belter at the rally regarding JD Vance: "I got to tell you, I can't wait to debate the guy...that is if he's willing to get off the couch and show up."

 

[edwin_m]

Walz dropped an absolute belter at the rally regarding JD Vance: "I got to tell you, I can't wait to debate the guy...that is if he's willing to get off the couch and show up."

Isn't the "couch thing" proved to be fake news (someone posting a forged page from Vance's book?)? If so probably not wise to amplify it.