Ron Paul Odds Slashed Dramatically: 15 to 1 from 200 to 1

[TheConstitutionLives]

According to Sportsbook.

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Odds-053107.html

Nice little quote from the article...

"Representatives from Sportsbook.com agree that the backing of Paul is has been significant enough to shorten odds to what might very well amount to the biggest slashing in online gambling history."

[Bryan]

You beat me to the post- :) more great quotes:

Ron Paul is a serious contender whose grass roots campaign is growing dramatically," explains Payton O'Brien, Senior Editor of Gambling911.com, one of the world's leading political betting news sources. "No other single candidate for US President has received the type of interest generated here at Gambling911.com."

Case in point, articles on Ron Paul in some cases generated four times the amount of interest than both Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani articles combined.

[Kaleb]

also FTA...

"For online gamblers a win would mean more than just money in one's own pocket. Ron Paul is the only candidate with 20 to 1 or better odds of becoming the next US President who supports legalized online gambling. A handful of his colleagues, including Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, attached an measure to curb some forms of online gambling to an unrelated port security act.
Paul considered the act "underhanded" and a perfect example of what is wrong with today's political system. Paul was also one of the few who had no other choice but to vote against the port security act due to the slimy tactics used during the waning days of Congressional session last October in getting the measure passed into law. "

This is a HUGE point in RP's favor, especially when speaking with Republicans who still buy the neo-con line on the war. The freedom message unites us again!

[Bradley in DC]

Ok, fine, on the one hand, it's a ploy to get the Dr. Paul fanatics (there really isn't a better word for us, is there?) to open our wallet--for them. On the other hand, the articles and exposure are great.

I was curious how much exposure it might mean for us so I plugged it into my Alexa link with the websites of Dr. Paul and the top tier:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=ronpaul2008.com&site1=joinrudy2008.com&site2=mittromney.com/&site3=johnmccain.com/&site4=www.gambling911.com&y=r&z=1&h=400&w=700&range=1m&size=Large&url=ronpaul2008.com

[jon_perez]

Hmmmm if I had wagered earlier before at 200 to 1, is there a way to arbitrage it today and take some immediate profit... ;)

[jon_perez]

By the way I don't agree with the article's characterization that "Ron Paul supports online gambling".

What Ron Paul supports is a "hands-off" government approach to the internet - a libertarian stance. Certainly, I don't think Ron Paul believes that that such an approach will lead to all good results. (Online gambling can be a scourge for those addicted to it.) But the reasoning behind this stance is that if the government were to interfere and to regulate internet activities, the results would be worse than if it just steps back and let things sort themselves out. (The Libertarian ideal kind of reminds me of Taoism which says that best form of governance is hands-off governance.)

People should realize that this is an experiment in political ideas and like all utopian ideas/ideals will lead to its own pros and cons, but the climate seems to be demanding such a change and it does seem that many people would like to see such steps towards 'liberty' taken.

Those who support libertarian ideals should just keep this in mind and walk into it with both eyes open.

Libertarianism is virtually anarchism and I think this sort of -ism will only work in a society of mature, well-educated citizens who will not use freedom to indulge in vice or see it as a license to practice corruption. In other words, freedom and an active sense of morality have to go hand-in-hand.

[lucky]

So I should not do the immoral thing and gamble or be told I can't because it can't be taxed by the Government. I did enjoy some low stake Poker now and again and believe if I want to waste my money then it is up to me not the Feds.

[ChooseLiberty]

Intrade.com might be a good source to watch -

Current stats for top Republican nominees - eyeball rounded - are:

Giuliani 26%
Romney 23%
Thompson Fred 24%
McCain 18%
Gingrich 3%
Huckabee 2%
Ron Paul 2%
then lots of others below Dr. Paul.

These change on a daily basis. I have no doubt that Dr. Paul will move up the ranks. According to their charts he has moved up from around .25% for the month of May so it's a very large jump percentage wise while Giuliani is dropping.

According to the article Sportbook gives 15/1 or 6%

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

I just placed my bet. They suckered me in. Money well spent as I was able to forward that article to a couple friends who think there are 5 of us out here running programs to Digg articles a spam polls.

When his odds are cut again following this round of betting following this article, I can then forward them that article.

This is all a question of chicken or egg. Is there a big RP following, or is there a perception of a big RP following. Doesn't matter, because one becomes the other. Keep it up!

[NMCB3]

(Online gambling can be a scourge for those addicted to it.)Yes, so can ice cream cones, but its not the governments role to protect us from ourselves. :)

[DjLoTi]

Online poker fans. Another huge demographic that would be a big boost to the amount of Ron Paul supporters.

[Bryan]

Yes, so can ice cream cones, but its not the governments role to protect us from ourselves. :)
I guess I should have specified that even though I'm posting about gambling I never gamble out of principle yet understand I have no business telling others if they can or not. I do however have somewhat of a liking with ice cream. :)

[X_805]

I have no business telling others if they can or not.

You have every right to tell others whether they should or should not gamble, but no one has any right to force their decision. Persuasion. :)

[UtahApocalypse]

When the bookies have to set new odds that's not just some online hackers LOL

[mconder]

"Online gambling can be a scourge for those addicted to it."

It can also be an opportunity for them to learn and grow as they overcome an addiction. Some will fail and others will come out stronger than ever. Free-agency is a good thing for humans.

[Bradley in DC]

Gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math.

[joshdvm]

Ok, fine, on the one hand, it's a ploy to get the Dr. Paul fanatics (there really isn't a better word for us, is there?) to open our wallet--for them. On the other hand, the articles and exposure are great.



I'm not much of a gamlber, so how does that work? It seems like the only checkrein on a bookie laying odds that are 'too low' would be a loss of customers to other bookies offering the 'correct' higher odds. In the absence of such competition, however, there would be no checkrein on a bookie offering the smallest possible payout--no matter how astronomical the candidate's true odds in reality were. In other words, there seems to be no incentive for the bookie to offer the true odds, and every incentive to offer odds that are way too low. Only competition can remedy that, and in the absence of competition it does look like just a ploy to get the faithful (naive ?[suckers?]) to place bets with the wrong payout. If this is true, the article is meaningless vis-a-vis Paul's true chances--unless, of course, someone can provide links to other bookies that have similarly lowered their odds.

[joenaab]

It's good press and a sign that people are waking up quickly to RP's candidacy. As DjLoTi wrote, online gambling is a large demographic and there is only one candidate defending them from regulation.

There is another article on their site promoting Ron Paul and they provide the text of a speech he gave in Congress opposing regulation of the Internet. It is a powerful speech.

It might be a good idea to create a list of gambling sites/blogs that allow comments posted after articles so we can participate and raise awareness. The site that ran that article does not allow comments.

[Disenfranchised]

Hello everyone, 1st time poster, frequent lurker...

Not sure if anyone is familiar with "The Sports Guy" who is basically an OpEd writer for ESPN.com.

I pretty much despise ESPN these days, but I obsessively check for new columns by TSG on a daily basis. His schtick is that he's a sportswriter from a fan's perspective. Comes across very down to earth and reasonable. And the kicker is that he is very funny.

He is THE MOST popular OpEd writers for their site. Can't remember the exact stats, but it's something like 4 million hits a month or something like that. He's very popular.

Anyway, he has frequently vented his anger in his columns that online betting is illegal. He is very interactive w/ his fans, often having online chats and doing articles with questions / comments from his email.

So anyway, I emailed him letting him know that Paul didn't vote to make online gambling illegal. He's a very influential guy - I often read other columnists for Fox Sports and ABC parroting his comments within hours. And his fanbase is rabid.

I also left out the fact that he is a close friend to Jimmy Kimmel and used to write for his show.

Anyway, I thought it wouldn't hurt to point him out to Ron - as in his most recent mailbag feature someone asked who he'd vote 4 pres and he answered "anybody is better than what we have now".

I'd encourage all of you to read some of his articles, maybe familiarize yourself w/ his work, and then email him and note that Ron Paul isn't against our right to gamble online.

So here's a link to email him:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=feedback/sportsguy

Here's a link to his subject archive:

http://sports.espn.go.com/keyword/search?searchString=Bill_Simmons