|
I hope Romney Run goes up a bit more so I can get in on the action
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
Arkane posted:you lost money in two states with sparse polling, where trump was assumed to be ahead but lost badly haha, fair enough. That's why I put "(imo)" in there. AK hadn't been polled for a month and a half, and Trump was only +4. I was playing swings both ways here, got caught at a bad moment - stupid decisions. The point about sparse polling is still fair of course MN's last poll was more than a month before, and actually had both Rubio (+5 vs DT) and Cruz (+3 vs DT) ahead of Trump, so it's not exactly comparable +13 and +17 in polls in IL/KY within the last 10 days are - again, "imo" - very different. But the good thing is we'll know the answer soon I guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
What are everyone's thoughts on the GOP Kansas market?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:What are everyone's thoughts on the GOP Kansas market? Seems like Cruz country to me. Wouldn't bet the farm on it, but I'd say 60%-70% chance of Cruz taking. Not a huge difference culturally or demographically from Oklahoma. I base this on nothing other than anecdotes and gut instinct. I'm also seeing the Gop thinking the Cruz gunshot to the chest is preferable to the Donald cyanide. deathbysnusnu has issued a correction as of 02:19 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:This isn't really the correct answer, the correct answer is that it's Trump+5 right now at 31/26.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
In big on TrumpSpeak Yes (and its coordinate Noes).
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Would you believe I read the wrong poll and that was Michigan? Oh I just thought you were stating national numbers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Arkane posted:you lost money in two states with sparse polling, where trump was assumed to be ahead but lost badly
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:What are everyone's thoughts on the GOP Kansas market? I'm 90% sure Rubio WON'T win, so I got Rubio NO
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Having money on Trump not getting the most time makes Cruz and Rubio slightly more tolerable. Any idea who the other guy is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Having money on Trump not getting the most time makes Cruz and Rubio slightly more tolerable. Any idea who the other guy is? That's John Johnson, Governor Of The Plains
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Trump killing it at the debate, shares still available in TrumpNOM for .66 wtf
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:In big on TrumpSpeak Yes (and its coordinate Noes). 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
ho-ly-poo poo hope none of you bet against trump's speaking time
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
A little! But man I didn't expect it to be like this, holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Trump killing it at the debate, shares still available in TrumpNOM for .66 wtf finally it's heading up
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
After reading the Kansas Republican Party's page about their caucuses, I'm beginning to think it might not be a death trap for Trump: http://www.ksgop.org/#!frequent-questions/c1a8i Yes, they are restricted to registered republicans, but: -Voters may arrive between 10am and 2pm -Voters cast a secret ballot So perhaps the Cruz persuasion slime will not be as effective as it was in Oklahoma, which is already sort of like Texas Junior. On the other hand, Cruz has a campaign presence in Kansas and Trump has essentially none. For 20c, I think Trump is a decent buy, given that the only poll (now a few weeks old) showed him with a solid lead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Secret ballot is good for Cruz, see Boosted_C5 and neighbors. Anyone willing to admit what they do for a living, especially the whales? I'm self-employed, getting my MBA because I'm bad and wrong
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
It looks like someone went crazy and bought a ton of PENCE.RNOM this morning. Today's volume shows 38,000 shares. I'm glad I left my order open to max out on NO at .99 Thanks for the free $7, PredictIt
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
God I hope Romney RUN becomes the new Biden market, even if it's just a sliver of what it once was. He's back down from 18-19% chance to "only" 12-13% chance right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
railroad terror posted:God I hope Romney RUN becomes the new Biden market, even if it's just a sliver of what it once was. He's back down from 18-19% chance to "only" 12-13% chance right now. I sincerely thought this was going to quickly return to .01-.02 within a day or two but it looks like a small handful of idiots are gonna keep this propped up for a while 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Secret ballot is good for Cruz, see Boosted_C5 and neighbors. How does that follow? People are more likely to support Trump if they don't have to admit it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
I still can't believe "will the GOP win 370 electoral votes" is at 12 cents. That is absolutely free money if you don't mind letting $850 sit for a few months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
nachos posted:... if you don't mind letting $850 sit for a few months. It's this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
nachos posted:I still can't believe "will the GOP win 370 electoral votes" is at 12 cents. That is absolutely free money if you don't mind letting $850 sit for a few months. Also, a lot can change in 8 months' time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Also, a lot can change in 8 months' time. If something happens in this country that turns the tides that far in favor of Republicans, everyone is gonna have a hell of a lot more problems than being out $850. That said, that could be the difference between survival and being taken and enslaved by the Trumpenreich.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
NYT model appears to have predictions for every remaining state: http://nytimes.com/2016/03/05/upshot/if-super-tuesday-voting-pattern-continues-donald-trump-will-reach-delegate-target.html?referer=
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:NYT model appears to have predictions for every remaining state: http://nytimes.com/2016/03/05/upshot/if-super-tuesday-voting-pattern-continues-donald-trump-will-reach-delegate-target.html?referer= This is good and their election night models have been good but I'd suggest people should not be too literal with their predictions. They are basically just modeling on demographics based on a regression of who supports which candidate. It is pretty good for rank ordering which states different candidates should be strong in, but it cannot take into account news, events, campaign activity, ads, strategic voting, closed vs open, caucus vs primary, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
G-Hawk posted:This is good and their election night models have been good but I'd suggest people should not be too literal with their predictions. They are basically just modeling on demographics based on a regression of who supports which candidate. It is pretty good for rank ordering which states different candidates should be strong in, but it cannot take into account news, events, campaign activity, ads, strategic voting, closed vs open, caucus vs primary, etc. Yes but PI users don't need to know that. Let's get that comment section filled an ride some flipwaves!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Serious q: Is strategic voting even statistically significant? It seems like if it does exist even by a few percentage points it'd be negated by people doing the same thing in the other direction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
So are these bets literally as simple as staring at something that is split 80%/20% then taking the obvious choice of 80% and reaping the rewards from morons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Serious q: Is strategic voting even statistically significant? It seems like if it does exist even by a few percentage points it'd be negated by people doing the same thing in the other direction. It's funny, but no one actually knows. There have been multiple attempts to figure out what effect strategic voting has on elections with little success. There is some - for example, third party candidates almost always register more support in polls than they actually get, and many people interpret this as strategic voting. But it's not clear. It's extremely difficult to measure actual preference vs. strategic preference. I think most people believe strategic voting has a relatively minor effect, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Yes but PI users don't need to know that. Let's get that comment section filled an ride some flipwaves! i prefer when they just bet on RCP averages without further context I don't really know what to do with KS tomorrow, I might just play it on movement during the day. I think Cruz is overpriced but I don't really want to bet against him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Sylink posted:So are these bets literally as simple as staring at something that is split 80%/20% then taking the obvious choice of 80% and reaping the rewards from morons? You can do that, but you're risking 100% of your bet for a 20% gain. In general, always betting on the "sure thing" is a bad strategy. If you had bet on Trump winning Alaska, which was heavily favored by PredictIt, you'd basically be out your entire investment right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Sylink posted:So are these bets literally as simple as staring at something that is split 80%/20% then taking the obvious choice of 80% and reaping the rewards from morons? Sometimes, but the more likely outcome is just as often badly overweight because people flock to the safe money. As an example, while the Alaska caucus results were being counted, Trump held a lead of some 50 votes at 10% reporting and Trump Yes/Cruz No was holding strong at almost 90 cents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Ok, I can see that, I at least did some research instead of just going with the flow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:NYT model appears to have predictions for every remaining state: http://nytimes.com/2016/03/05/upshot/if-super-tuesday-voting-pattern-continues-donald-trump-will-reach-delegate-target.html?referer= They've got Rubio winning Kansas? Really? Should I sell my NO shares now while I can still get a profit off them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
FourLeaf posted:They've got Rubio winning Kansas? Really? Should I sell my NO shares now while I can still get a profit off them? I wouldn't consider Rubio the favorite but hanging onto Rubio No is probably a bad idea. That model is good for him, he is in Kansas today for multiple events, and his campaign has been running more Ads on tv there than anyone else. Seems like they're targeting it. He probably won't win, but a NO share there is a lot higher downside than upside edit: Disclosure, I own a bunch of Rubio yes in KS. G-Hawk has issued a correction as of 19:55 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:52
|
|