Ron Paul Odds Slashed From 15 to 1 to 8 to 1

[andrewgreve]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but I didn't see it. Anyways, it was posted August 7th. Good stuff.

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Odds-080707.html

[Birdlady]

Nice thank you. It is now blogged!

[JPFromTally]

That's big news. These online casinos are hedging their bets.

[WannaBfree]

from 100 to 1, to 15 to 1 and now 8 to 1.

[PatriotOne]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but I didn't see it. Anyways, it was posted August 7th. Good stuff.

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Odds-080707.html

I was just wondering yesterday when they would slash the odds. I figured RP was due for it.

Isn't this an interesting comment to ponder?:

"When money is on the line, informed people, perhaps including insiders, have an incentive to turn their knowledge into cash by making big bets. In the process they make the odds more accurate. And of course, there are several reasons to lie to pollsters, but no reasons to make a money-losing bet."

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

That's awesome! GO RON PAUL!

[DisabledVet]

Hmmm Stephanopolis or Vegas odds.....

[Ron Paul Fan]

It has been posted and it's not really big news. As a couple of us explained in one of the other 20 threads on this topic, the lines go up or down based on the number of people betting on them. If a lot of people are taking Ron Paul at 200:1 then the line will keep shifting down. I used the example of when the Yankees play anybody, a lot of people bet on them which causes the odds to shift towards them and makes it more advantageous to bet the Yankee's opponent. When they played the Tigers in last years playoffs many people took the favored Yankees to win the series and it drove the line up so much that it was a really good investment for smart bettors to take the underdog Tigers and they cashed in.

[Birdlady]

It has been posted and it's not really big news. As a couple of us explained in one of the other 20 threads on this topic, the lines go up or down based on the number of people betting on them. If a lot of people are taking Ron Paul at 200:1 then the line will keep shifting down. I used the example of when the Yankees play anybody, a lot of people bet on them which causes the odds to shift towards them and makes it more advantageous to bet the Yankee's opponent. When they played the Tigers in last years playoffs many people took the favored Yankees to win the series and it drove the line up so much that it was a really good investment for smart bettors to take the underdog Tigers and they cashed in.

I don't think you understand though. We are the underdog and we are catching up to the Julie Annie's and the same as McRomney now.

[Ron Paul Fan]

I don't think you understand though. We are the underdog and we are catching up to the Julie Annie's and the same as McRomney now.

No, I don't think you understand. Let's flip it around and use the Tigers. If a lot of people were betting on the underdog Tigers, the line would keep going towards them like it is with Ron Paul. It's not that the betting sites think his odds are greatly improved, it's the number of people betting on him at 200:1 that makes his odds go down.

[PatriotOne]

It has been posted and it's not really big news. As a couple of us explained in one of the other 20 threads on this topic, the lines go up or down based on the number of people betting on them. If a lot of people are taking Ron Paul at 200:1 then the line will keep shifting down. I used the example of when the Yankees play anybody, a lot of people bet on them which causes the odds to shift towards them and makes it more advantageous to bet the Yankee's opponent. When they played the Tigers in last years playoffs many people took the favored Yankees to win the series and it drove the line up so much that it was a really good investment for smart bettors to take the underdog Tigers and they cashed in.

But people don't place $ on something they don't think has a chance to win. The point is, people do think he has a chance to win and are not buying into the MSM hype. As a trend in general, this is a good thing.

[Sematary]

It has been posted and it's not really big news. As a couple of us explained in one of the other 20 threads on this topic, the lines go up or down based on the number of people betting on them. If a lot of people are taking Ron Paul at 200:1 then the line will keep shifting down. I used the example of when the Yankees play anybody, a lot of people bet on them which causes the odds to shift towards them and makes it more advantageous to bet the Yankee's opponent. When they played the Tigers in last years playoffs many people took the favored Yankees to win the series and it drove the line up so much that it was a really good investment for smart bettors to take the underdog Tigers and they cashed in.

stealing your sig lines for another forum. :-)

[Birdlady]

No, I don't think you understand. Let's flip it around and use the Tigers. If a lot of people were betting on the underdog Tigers, the line would keep going towards them like it is with Ron Paul. It's not that the betting sites think his odds are greatly improved, it's the number of people betting on him at 200:1 that makes his odds go down.

I completely disagree. It's too early to be betting like that in my opinion. People who are betting now are betting for the winner. Not the loser.

Now if it were 3 hours before the General election you might be right, but we have many months to go before the Primaries.

[paulitics]

No, I don't think you understand. Let's flip it around and use the Tigers. If a lot of people were betting on the underdog Tigers, the line would keep going towards them like it is with Ron Paul. It's not that the betting sites think his odds are greatly improved, it's the number of people betting on him at 200:1 that makes his odds go down.

Yeah, but aren't people betting to make money? The equilibrium is the point at which risk = reward. The more people willing to bet that he will win will improve his odds, until a new equilibrium is set, where the risk exceeds the reward.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Ok, but anyone that thinks Ron Paul is 8-1 at the point to win the nomination is crazy. The Yankees example is kind of a bad example, but the point was to try and explain that the odds go up or down based on the number of people betting on one side. In the political betting, no one can bet the other side of the 8-1. If they could then I guarantee you Dr. Paul's odds would go back up to something closer to the 35-1 that's on tradesports.com and add to the fact that betting on politics is not something that a lot of people do so it will be more sensitive to a major change like in Dr. Paul's odds than a sports bet.

[fletcher]

Ok, but anyone that thinks Ron Paul is 8-1 at the point to win the nomination is crazy.

Actually he's 7-1 to win the nomination, 8-1 to win the presidency.

[ronpaulitician]

it's the number of people betting on him at 200:1 that makes his odds go down.
His odds were previously at 15:1.

It was the number of people betting on him at 15:1 that made his odds go down to 8:1.

Now his odds are the same as Romney's.

[torchbearer]

from 100 to 1, to 15 to 1 and now 8 to 1.

Actually, it started with no odds of winning... then went to 200 to 1, then to 100 to 1 ...etc.