Trump's odds have been rising on other sites as well, just not quite as far as on Polymarket. Could just be arbitrage, but those opportunities should dry up very quickly for those who have the cash and trust these sites.
I don't necessarily agree that betting markets are better for predictions than polls because of reasons like this.
For example, Ronda Rousey v. Holly Holm had 4000:1 odds for Holly in Vegas because the media over-hyped Rousey.
What we've been seeing in the betting markets is the populism of free market, but also monied interests (both among Dems & Reps) to sway said market one direction or another.
Markets help push through bullshit and push polls, but a good poll is better than a betting odds.
the Journal worked to substantiate the notion that the concentrated bets represent some form of intentional narrative-control scheme,
If somebody wants to buy a large stake they aren't going to do it all at once since that'll spike the price.
If the true odds were 52/48 the price would quickly go from 52¢ Trump to like 90¢ Trump and most of their shares will be purchased at 90¢, then the price will settle back close to 52¢. They'd have 90¢ shares the consensus valued at 52¢.
Buying over a long period gives the market time to soak up the bet without excessively raising the odds.
the betting odds are currently firmly for Trump. if a billionaire is buying up the markets, then the betting odds will not be reliable. not sure what their motivation could be.
You get rewarded if you win with this bet, right? The motivation could be as simple as making easy money.
In any case, what is the significance of having betting odds be reliable (besides avoidance of 'the house' deceiving their customers)?
The shorter the odds, the lower the return on your investment, so if one person is investing millions in order to narrow the odds, he's also diminishing his own potential profit margin. Unless he's collaborating with others who've bet on very long odds the other way, which is illegal, but that wouldn't stop them.
The effect seems to be to make Trump supporters and Republicans in general so overconfident that turnout might be suppressed if enough people feel they don't have to vote. That's the real danger, because it would make it easier to rig the election.
I see. I do wonder about the real influence of a political betting market on voter outlook. As far as I know, reporting on election betting is fairly new. Do Republicans (or others leaning in this direction) really pay any more attention to that than, say, public polling?
I plan to vote regardless, but yes, I put more stock in betting site odds than public polling. Public polling is vulnerable to people concealing their views, it’s vulnerable to only certain cohorts responding, and, of course, it’s vulnerable to top down bias in fudging the methodology to get the results you want to publish. In theory, a prediction market doesn’t have those weaknesses because it’s reflective of people with actual stakes, in the form of their bet, predicting what they think is most likely to happen in order to try to win money.
I’m not saying that the only explanation is that someone is specifically investing millions of dollars to make Trump voters overconfident, but I am saying that yes, there’s an argument to be made that betting markets are a form of polling and thus a potential tool to shape public opinion.
Trump's odds have been rising on other sites as well, just not quite as far as on Polymarket. Could just be arbitrage, but those opportunities should dry up very quickly for those who have the cash and trust these sites.
I don't necessarily agree that betting markets are better for predictions than polls because of reasons like this.
For example, Ronda Rousey v. Holly Holm had 4000:1 odds for Holly in Vegas because the media over-hyped Rousey.
What we've been seeing in the betting markets is the populism of free market, but also monied interests (both among Dems & Reps) to sway said market one direction or another.
Markets help push through bullshit and push polls, but a good poll is better than a betting odds.
polls are tainted by the pollsters, their sample data, and how the poll questions were written.
betting markets are tainted by hype.
I trust hype more than pollsters, but shit like this goes to show that even hype is not the be all end all.
If somebody wants to buy a large stake they aren't going to do it all at once since that'll spike the price.
If the true odds were 52/48 the price would quickly go from 52¢ Trump to like 90¢ Trump and most of their shares will be purchased at 90¢, then the price will settle back close to 52¢. They'd have 90¢ shares the consensus valued at 52¢.
Buying over a long period gives the market time to soak up the bet without excessively raising the odds.
unless
a- they want to buy a VERY large stake
or
b- they want to spike the price
the betting odds are currently firmly for Trump. if a billionaire is buying up the markets, then the betting odds will not be reliable. not sure what their motivation could be.
You get rewarded if you win with this bet, right? The motivation could be as simple as making easy money.
In any case, what is the significance of having betting odds be reliable (besides avoidance of 'the house' deceiving their customers)?
The shorter the odds, the lower the return on your investment, so if one person is investing millions in order to narrow the odds, he's also diminishing his own potential profit margin. Unless he's collaborating with others who've bet on very long odds the other way, which is illegal, but that wouldn't stop them.
The effect seems to be to make Trump supporters and Republicans in general so overconfident that turnout might be suppressed if enough people feel they don't have to vote. That's the real danger, because it would make it easier to rig the election.
I see. I do wonder about the real influence of a political betting market on voter outlook. As far as I know, reporting on election betting is fairly new. Do Republicans (or others leaning in this direction) really pay any more attention to that than, say, public polling?
I plan to vote regardless, but yes, I put more stock in betting site odds than public polling. Public polling is vulnerable to people concealing their views, it’s vulnerable to only certain cohorts responding, and, of course, it’s vulnerable to top down bias in fudging the methodology to get the results you want to publish. In theory, a prediction market doesn’t have those weaknesses because it’s reflective of people with actual stakes, in the form of their bet, predicting what they think is most likely to happen in order to try to win money.
I’m not saying that the only explanation is that someone is specifically investing millions of dollars to make Trump voters overconfident, but I am saying that yes, there’s an argument to be made that betting markets are a form of polling and thus a potential tool to shape public opinion.
The odds were 5/1 on trump when he won in 2016.
Which is still far closer than those ridiculous polls that said things like “97% chance Hillary wins” on Election Day.
Or someone who can bet $30 million probably have information that we don't.