|
Foolishly cashed out my Trump YES for SC last night in a hope that it'd dip back down at some point today and I'd be able to squeak out another couple cents before riding the train into the station. It's since climbed 4c from the point I sold so I guess I'll take my winnings and put them into MA
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
IM DAY DAY IRL posted:Foolishly cashed out my Trump YES for SC last night in a hope that it'd dip back down at some point today and I'd be able to squeak out another couple cents before riding the train into the station. It's since climbed 4c from the point I sold so I guess I'll take my winnings and put them into MA
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Peachstapler posted:You can still get Bernie NO for SC at 86-87 cents which is statistically likely to earn you profit in 4 days. On the other hand it might be the last week to get Super Tuesday markets at a good price. All the new money will jack the volume up after SC. SC isn't for another 11 days for the Dems
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Arkane posted:SC isn't for another 11 days for the Dems
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Rubio is currently at $. 12 to win the Nevada caucus. Any thoughts on how much that could move up if he has a strong SC performance?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
NV is tough -- Romney won both times in 2008 and 2012 with the Mormon support. I imagine if Rubio beats out Cruz in South Carolina for 2nd his price is going to go up, but not by more than 5-10 points if he can't bridge the gap on Trump. Still a good bet to earn a little profit at 12 cents, I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
railroad terror posted:NV is tough -- Romney won both times in 2008 and 2012 with the Mormon support. I imagine if Rubio beats out Cruz in South Carolina for 2nd his price is going to go up, but not by more than 5-10 points if he can't bridge the gap on Trump. Still a good bet to earn a little profit at 12 cents, I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
If you like to gamble a bit with the possibility of a great return, Rubio at .36 for runner-up in SC right now seems like a decent bet. Only because the polls are making this seem more like a true 50/50 coinflip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
railroad terror posted:If you like to gamble a bit with the possibility of a great return, Rubio at .36 for runner-up in SC right now seems like a decent bet. Only because the polls are making this seem more like a true 50/50 coinflip. Those polls were a post-debate bump that will subside by voting day imo. But yeah, it's an ok gamble.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
For the SC runner up I got in Kasich-NO at .89 and took a gamble on 175 shares of Cruz-NO at .45. I'm kind of regretting getting in on Cruz-No though. Going to ride those out and start looking for deals in super Tuesday markets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
a cop posted:Those polls were a post-debate bump that will subside by voting day imo. But yeah, it's an ok gamble. Maybe, but you also have to wonder if Kasich or Jeb will lose support to Rubio. Kasich came out of nowhere after NH and could lose his support just as fast. Jeb’s support is probably more stable, especially with Dubya backing him, but there’s the potential to lose support to Trump’s 9/11 attack. Meanwhile, a successful defense won’t gain him anything; it just treads water.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
a cop posted:Those polls were a post-debate bump that will subside by voting day imo. But yeah, it's an ok gamble. If you're a jeb voter, you're probably looking at these polls and realizing you should switch to Rubio unless you are down with Trump. Right now all of this data is probably from people who aren't sure which one of the two will be in the lead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
The new SCOTUS markets are out - who will he appoint, will the Senate confirm, will the Senate confirm another appointee if they reject the first one, will the Senate hold any vote ever on an Obama nominee, etc. edit: Plus dropout by Super Tuesday markets for Carson, Kasich, and that other one!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
dangling pointer posted:For the SC runner up I got in Kasich-NO at .89 and took a gamble on 175 shares of Cruz-NO at .45. I'm kind of regretting getting in on Cruz-No though. Kasich NO for runner up is now up to 97/98. I doubt he's going to do that well but some of his polling has come in pretty strong. I would be 89% sure, but I'm not 98% sure. I am unloading mine. Betting against Cruz getting runner up is pretty speculative. If you're in deeper than you want to be I would take the loss.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
All good points. Cruz NO I realize is a gamble and am ok with at 75 shares so I took a small loss there unloading the rest. Kasich I have a sell order at .98. I just bought in a week or so ago so I'm still trying to get a feel for markets and how they're affected by debates/polls before I try to flip stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
New markets are up, 3 about the Supreme Court Any speculation about who the next Supreme Court nominee will be? I think it's safe to bet on the senate blocking any Obama appointment, several senators have already vowed to filibuster
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Any speculation about who the next Supreme Court nominee will be? The two district judges that Obama was able to appoint unanimously are the most common theories.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
If you are betting on Cruz.2nd.No in SC you're betting against a really good ground game and for Rubio to magically recover because the press wants him to before his lane is even remotely cleared. I really think that's a sucker bet and am taking the opposite side. Supreme Court: somebody like Singh or another flawless district judge would be a perfect political pick here but you're really betting on whether any of them will take the nomination if offered, knowing it will probably fail and sink their future SC chances in the process. This is not a lock for any of the A list. I would gamble here and go for some B-listers, but not Lynch or a Republican. Adar has issued a correction as of 22:52 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Would it really sink their future chances though? If it gets blocked before they reach the hearing stage wouldn't they basically get out with their reputation intact for a potential Clinton nomination?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Corrupt Politician posted:Would it really sink their future chances though? If it gets blocked before they reach the hearing stage wouldn't they basically get out with their reputation intact for a potential Clinton nomination? The optics are so bad on that the chances are much higher they get a hearing and then get shot down on whatever magic bad disqualifying thing the Judiciary Committee can come up with. Given that the thing will still be magically bad and disqualifying a few years from now it's not a lock for any A lister to take it even if they really don't have any skeletons in the closet (and everyone's got a few of those).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
It does depend how the Senate decides to sit on their hands and hold their breath till the mean Obama goes away though. If the Judiciary Committee just refuses to do anything, then being nominated isn't going to hurt the nominee. If the Judiciary Committee decides that the nominee has been kissed by too many liberal unicorns, well they'll still have been kissed by too many liberal unicorns next time. Though if the Democrats take back the Senate, the nominee is once again safe from the tyranny of unicorn kissing haters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Adar posted:The optics are so bad on that the chances are much higher they get a hearing and then get shot down on whatever magic bad disqualifying thing the Judiciary Committee can come up with. Given that the thing will still be magically bad and disqualifying a few years from now it's not a lock for any A lister to take it even if they really don't have any skeletons in the closet (and everyone's got a few of those). I don't think this process is any more likely to pull up skeletons in the closet than every proceeding since Bork. It has been accepted for some time that if you can find a skeleton you can nix the nominee, it's just the blanket "bad ideology, no" that hasn't happened yet. Any nominee would be vetted to ensure there's no skeletons with or without the current imbriglio. What's more likely is that the person gets no up-or-down vote and stays in limbo, which means that Clinton/Sanders would face serious pressure to back the nominee up if they were elected (especially as they're going to be running on how unfair it is that person isn't getting a fair shake and a fair vote). The more interesting thing is how oddly confident (relatively speaking) the markets are that Obama will manage to get someone though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Any idea how long before we can expect Obama to announce a nominee? I'd bet on it but I don't want to lock up my money for a month when I could be putting it into Super Tuesday. Edit: Also, would Obama's top picks really expect to be nominated in the future by president Clinton/Sanders? Obama will want to choose someone safe and moderate so he can hammer the GOP for rejecting an obviously acceptable candidate, whereas a future Dem president would have a liberal Senate and be free to make much more bold choices. Corrupt Politician has issued a correction as of 23:51 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
The only reason I can think for predictit to be leaning toward yes is either the people putting in bets so far don't realize how it looks right now, or the trickle of Republicans back tracking from "no consideration" to "well, depends on the nominee" has people thinking it'll get through eventually. I've got a few single digit YES bids because I think that if I can get them I could then flip them later, or hold onto them as a crazy bet. Corrupt Politician posted:Any idea how long before we can expect Obama to announce a nominee? I'd bet on it but I don't want to lock up my money for a month when I could be putting it into Super Tuesday. It'll probably be about as quickly as isn't rude after Scalia is put in the ground. As for his choice, while he isn't likely to nominate a crazy liberal, he isn't likely to nominate much of a moderate either. A life time appointment isn't really something you want to waste on someone just so you can say you got them through. Especially when President Clinton/Sanders is going to be all but forced to take up the banner for your nominee when they get elected if the Republicans just stonewall. Gyges has issued a correction as of 23:58 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't think this process is any more likely to pull up skeletons in the closet than every proceeding since Bork. It has been accepted for some time that if you can find a skeleton you can nix the nominee, it's just the blanket "bad ideology, no" that hasn't happened yet. Any nominee would be vetted to ensure there's no skeletons with or without the current imbriglio. What's more likely is that the person gets no up-or-down vote and stays in limbo, which means that Clinton/Sanders would face serious pressure to back the nominee up if they were elected (especially as they're going to be running on how unfair it is that person isn't getting a fair shake and a fair vote). I'm saying there's a difference between skeletons and "skeletons" and it's not like President Hillary would mean the "skeletons" no longer applied.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Corrupt Politician posted:Any idea how long before we can expect Obama to announce a nominee? I'd bet on it but I don't want to lock up my money for a month when I could be putting it into Super Tuesday. A week from Friday, at latest, according to the press. I'd advise betting on nominees, not appointees, since the latter are so far out that any money you can make on them will be better spent on quick easy bets in the primaries. If you bet on appointees, I'd say pick whoever you think Obama will nominate then ride that wave and sell immediately after nomination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
There are enough nominees listed that just betting no one all of them should turn a profit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
SolTerrasa posted:A week from Friday, at latest, according to the press. I'd advise betting on nominees, not appointees, since the latter are so far out that any money you can make on them will be better spent on quick easy bets in the primaries. Where did you see that Obama would make a choice that quickly? Historically it takes a few weeks to do the really in-depth review of candidates to find any skeletons in the closet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
They took out Gain when you preview a sale... are they trying to make it harder to calculate fees? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
KASICH.SCPRMRY16.GOP.3RD NO looks like free money at .92
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
When Trump wins SC, as long as Rubio doesn't come in 2nd, I'll be 5% away from doubling my money 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
https://www.predictit.org/Contract/1846/Will-OPEC-announce-an-oil-production-quota-of-less-than-315-MBPD-by-June-30#data Am I wrong in thinking this is 100% NO?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:https://www.predictit.org/Contract/1846/Will-OPEC-announce-an-oil-production-quota-of-less-than-315-MBPD-by-June-30#data Based off of today's signals with them & Russia I'd say it's less likely than what the market is predicting but certainly not a lock. 4 months is a long time
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Looking at the list of potential nominees you can bet on, I'd be more than happy to max out no on Kamala Harris. Ain't no way Obama nominates the likely future junior Senator from California. No matter how hot an AG she is. I'd also feel safe betting against any of the white guys. Shanmugam was in Bush's Solicitor General office, so no chance in hell he's getting nominated unless he's actually secretly been attending Comintern Meetings with Bernie. Loretta Lynch would be a 100% Obama just trolling pick, so she's not getting the nod either. Kelly and Srinivasan are probably the most likely on the list considering they just recently got 97-0 confirmations, also Kelly is apparently liked by Grassley. An electoral play would be to nominate a Hispanic and just wait for the GOP to talk about Trump's wall while laughing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
nachos posted:KASICH.SCPRMRY16.GOP.3RD NO looks like free money at .92 ARG shows him at 14% tied with Cruz. This is an outlier from the others. It looks reasonably safe, but I wouldn't label it as free money. If you can hold out another week, I'd say Hillary YES or Bernie NO is trading around there, and that pretty much is free money
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
gently caress the supreme court market, no telling how long that poo poo will take!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
a cop posted:gently caress the supreme court market, no telling how long that poo poo will take! Obama's nominating someone fairly quickly. Probably a few days past a month at the most. As bullshit as the Republican stonewalling is, Obama needs to start sending nominees fairly quickly so that we're still a ridiculous amount of time out for maximum optics. If Obama actually ends up sending a slew of competent nominees that the Senate just refuses to even look at, that'll look like absolute poo poo for the GOP in the election. But he needs to start moving soon so he has time to float highly competent people for the Senate to ignore like a 5 year old given broccoli.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Someone could probably make a decent amount flipping NOs on "will someone be appointed" when the republicans first start blockin'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Thoughts on why Will the Senate vote on any SCOTUS nominee before Obama leaves office? averages 50˘ (albeit with ±10˘ bid–ask spread)?quote:Following the launch of this Market, at least one individual nominated by President Obama to the Supreme Court shall receive a confirmation vote in the U.S. Senate before President Obama leaves office. Not letting any nominees out of committee has terrible optics. The Senate doesn’t have to approve them, they can just put on a show of “look at these losers Obama is sending us”.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
Trump Poll 35% up 27 today, might cash out and put into Cruz 2nd in SC. YES for Bush dropout before Super Tuesday seems hilariously overpriced to me at 69 cents. The Real Paddy has issued a correction as of 12:36 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 12:32
|
|