Ron Paul Odds slashed!!!

[CaliforniaGold]

http://www.point-spreads.com/politics/012808-ron-paul-presidential-betting-odds-slashed.html


Look at this article! This is fantastic!
We are gaining momentum!

[hillertexas]

Ron Paul winning the Republican Nomination have been slashed from 25 to 1 down to 10 to 1 odds at BodogLife.com.

:)

[defcreative]

Wow, thats good.

[homah]

There might just be a bunch of zealous supporters who were willing to take a flier on him at 25-1. Bodog might think they can get away with offering lower odds and still get just as many people to take the bet. If his odds have dropped at a number of books, I'd be more likely to believe his actual odds of winning have improved.

[Ron2Win]

Considering he started 200:1 I think we are doing pretty good.

[bp2519]

Bah - Hate to be the downer, but these odds mean nothing.
Bodoglife had him at 5-2 at one point.
Intrade had him up to 10% chance to win nomination a couple months back but now he is at 2%.
I trust intrade a lot more than a random website's odds.

[homah]

Bah - Hate to be the downer, but these odds mean nothing.
Bodoglife had him at 5-2 at one point.
Intrade had him up to 10% chance to win nomination a couple months back but now he is at 2%.
I trust intrade a lot more than a random website's odds.

nah, you're not a downer. he's +6800 at bookmaker.com, +9000 at matchbook.com (i just bet 20 to win 1800 for shits and giggles). bodog is notorious for offering crappy odds on longshot bets like this because their bettors are for the most part brain dead.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Intrade had him up to 10% chance to win nomination a couple months back but now he is at 2%.

Has Intrade actually been predictive of anything we've seen? Huckabee surged when the media started pimping his good poll numbers, McCain surged when he won New Hampshire, Giuliani collapsed when actual votes were cast, etc.

[RPSignbomb]

http://www.point-spreads.com/politics/012808-ron-paul-presidential-betting-odds-slashed.html


Look at this article! This is fantastic!
We are gaining momentum!

I think its because Thompson dropped out. 10:1 seems a bit high, I would not take that bet. I will however give money to Dr. Paul :)

[RonPaulFTFW]

do gamblers vote?

[bp2519]

Has Intrade actually been predictive of anything we've seen? Huckabee surged when the media started pimping his good poll numbers, McCain surged when he won New Hampshire, Giuliani collapsed when actual votes were cast, etc.

I'm not quite sure the point you're trying to make. But intrade does respond in realtime to any perceived shifts, so in that sense yes it is the ultimate predictive tool.

[JMann]

Betting odds are set so that there are equal number of people betting either way. A bookie doesn't look to win money because more people take one team or the other. Ideally a bookie will have exactly 50% take one team and 50% take the other team. This way he makes the 10% commission and can't lose a penny. For those that don't know you bet $110 to win $100.

[homah]

do gamblers vote?

if they are like me, they absolutely will now, given all the garbage the government has pulled in the past year (such as holding hostage for 6 months Neteller funds that were the rightful property of U.S. citizens).

i don't really understand the question. why wouldn't a gambler vote?

[surf]

down to 50:1 at William Hill
(but ahead of Huck and Edwards)

[hawks4ronpaul]

do gamblers vote?

Voters gamble.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[dbhohio47]

Betting odds are set so that there are equal number of people betting either way. A bookie doesn't look to win money because more people take one team or the other. Ideally a bookie will have exactly 50% take one team and 50% take the other team. This way he makes the 10% commission and can't lose a penny. For those that don't know you bet $110 to win $100.

I don't know that much about betting with bookies.... but, I do know a little about pari-mutuel wagering (the "house's" cut, or vigarish, is taken out before the pari-mutuel pools are established). In that case, a $1 bet on 10:1 odds pays $10. Why the hell would anyone bet $110 to win $100?!

[homah]

I don't know that much about betting with bookies.... but, I do know a little about pari-mutuel wagering (the "house's" cut, or vigarish, is taken out before the pari-mutuel pools are established). In that case, a $1 bet on 10:1 odds pays $10. Why the hell would anyone bet $110 to win $100?!

That is how typical spread bets are set up so that the house makes money. For the Super Bowl, if they offer the Giants +13 at +100 odds (bet $100 to win $100) and the Pats -13 at +100 (again betting $100 to win $100), they wouldn't make any money. When you have to bet $110 to win $100, the house theoretically makes $10 on every $220 wagered ($110 on each side) with no risk, assuming the bets are balanced between both teams. In reality, the books can never balance the bets perfectly, nor do they always wish to (they will expose themselves to an acceptable level of risk to achieve a greater return).

BTW, in pari-mutuel pools they are taking a much bigger cut than in sports betting. Just because you get paid $10 on a 10:1 bet doesn't mean they aren't taking a cut.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

if they are like me, they absolutely will now, given all the garbage the government has pulled in the past year (such as holding hostage for 6 months Neteller funds that were the rightful property of U.S. citizens).

i don't really understand the question. why wouldn't a gambler vote?

They should, but places like the Poker Players Alliance would rather talk about Barney Frank and congressional gambling studies. :rolleyes: Last time I looked, anyway. There's such a clear choice here.

[homah]

They should, but places like the Poker Players Alliance would rather talk about Barney Frank and congressional gambling studies. :rolleyes: Last time I looked, anyway.

I haven't followed that stuff much recently, but if they aren't getting out and voting (for Dr. Paul), my reaction is something like this... :eek: :confused: :( :mad:

[blakjak]

i agree, this really is meaningless

even more meaningless than "mainstream polls"

[cosm95]

www.betfair.com has him at 75:1 - 95:1 (you can either back him, or lay him), so mid market for Ron paul is 85:1. that is a real open market, not a bookie's odds.

[dbhohio47]

homah:

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I misread your original post, interpreting it to mean that on $110 advanced on a WINNING bet, you would only receive back $100. (essentially, losing $10 for winning the bet).

I wasn't implying that the house "cut" on the pari-mutuel pools were somehow fairer.....their take is quite significant..... but, at least you don't lose money on a winning bet.