|
Vox Nihili posted:Monmouth dropped as expected, Clinton at 54.7. Should have bought more No. Bleh, I hear ya. A good outcome for sure but those NOs were so cheap for so long...
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
watwat posted:Bleh, I hear ya. A good outcome for sure but those NOs were so cheap for so long... There was an open order for 1100 shares at 40c even after the drop, apparently. Moral of the story is I need to log in before I take a drat shower. Had a bunch of unfilled orders, but someone was kind enough to fill a couple hundred ~32c last night, putting me at 650 total. Could have been another Biden level take if I had been on my toes though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Pataki out, still a few shares floating around. Edit: Pretty much over now. Vox Nihili has issued a correction as of 00:23 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Pataki out, still a few shares floating around. Wow it finally happened
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
The grace period to confirm dropout status is really going to put a bottleneck in things February 2nd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Got some funds burning a hole in my pocket after the end of month markets closed--anyone spot any good deals recently?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Got some funds burning a hole in my pocket after the end of month markets closed--anyone spot any good deals recently? MCCONNELL.RESIGN2016.NO is at $.80 which seems underpriced
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:MCCONNELL.RESIGN2016.NO is at $.80 which seems underpriced What if he loses Senate control eleven months from now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:What if he loses Senate control eleven months from now? To be honest I haven't looked at any Kentucky polls but that seems like a pretty safe election for him. edit: Also I'm not sure if being voted out counts as a resignation announcement, which is what the rules require. Necc0 has issued a correction as of 04:45 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:To be honest I haven't looked at any Kentucky polls but that seems like a pretty safe election for him. He means if Republicans lose their Senate majority. Either way it's pretty long-term for me at this point. But dumping more into Bush Dropout Before IA No isn't doing it for me at this point either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
McConnell isn't up for re-election but if they get whacked hard next year he'd be under intense pressure to resign. Resign his leadership position, I mean, not seat. i say swears online has issued a correction as of 05:03 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Hillary YES Iowa is down to 63 cents, which is incredibly low considering the historical spread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
If that's not your thing, Dropout market should be back Tuesday or Wednesday if you want to dump it into Paul NO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:What if he loses Senate control eleven months from now? If the Democrats gain a majority in the elections in November it won't affect McConnell in any way as the new congress won't take office until January 2017. Unless they blame him for the loss and he resigns immediately instead of just waiting until the end of the season, but that would be called a long shot that the market is predicting with 15% odds. Also on a more big picture new years greeting, good luck to everyone in this coming election year and I hope we all continue to make money sharing good ideas and taking each other out of bad ones. It will be fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Well I'm now the proud owner of 500 shares of Chris Christie to win NH (14c with lots of potential short-term upside as soon as polls start coming out again) and 500 shares of Republicans controlling gov't in 2016 (surprisingly cheap at 27c). Also shoving some more into Bush sticking around until Iowa, too--not sure if there's a safer market in that time frame. I'll sit on the rest and wait for opportunities to present themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Republicans controlling gov't in 2016 (surprisingly cheap at 27c). How it this cheap? This is basically a bet on, if there is a Republican elected president (40%), they'll retain the house (100%) and lose less than 4 seats out of 24 up for grabs in the Senate (X). I know incumbency has a lot of sway here but I don't think X is higher than 50% here. The individual bet for "Will Republicans maintain control of the Senate?" is at 48% also which is probably absurdly high when you consider how many seats Democrats will pick up if they win the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:How it this cheap? This is basically a bet on, if there is a Republican elected president (40%), they'll retain the house (100%) and lose less than 4 seats out of 24 up for grabs in the Senate (X). I know incumbency has a lot of sway here but I don't think X is higher than 50% here. The individual bet for "Will Republicans maintain control of the Senate?" is at 48% also which is probably absurdly high when you consider how many seats Democrats will pick up if they win the presidency. It's cheap becausse the Republicans are really unlikely to lose control of the senate while also winning the presidency. Basically, these events aren't independent of one another and therefore shouldn't be multiplied together to determine the ultimate likelihood. The downticket races tend to follow the upticket races. If the Republican candidate wins the presidency, the Republicans are very unlikely to simultaneously lose 4 seats in the Senate while picking up none themselves. Vox Nihili has issued a correction as of 08:03 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
Right I'm aware of conditional probability and actually had those words written down in the post before deleting them for whatever reason, but that still requires a probability of like 70% if they win the presidency and I don't think it's that much of a lock. 34 seats up for election, 24 of which are R seats. I've been out of school for a while so I forget how to calculate this but if you assume the individual rate of incumbancy winning any given seat is 90%, what's the probability that no more than 4 seats flip?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Peachstapler posted:Hillary YES Iowa is down to 63 cents, which is incredibly low considering the historical spread. What the hell? Betfair hasn't moved at all. Did some Bernie supporter blow $850 for no reason?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
This shift downward is perplexing in the State Department Travel Warning market. I still think it's a gimme because we're in a perpetual state of fear nowadays. Thinking about shifting resources to max this out. https://www.predictit.org/Contract/1564/Will-a-US-State-Dept-worldwide-travel-alert-be-in-effect-on-February-25%2c-2016#data
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:This shift downward is perplexing in the State Department Travel Warning market. I still think it's a gimme because we're in a perpetual state of fear nowadays. Thinking about shifting resources to max this out. After researching past travel warnings, I think this market might be a No. It doesn't look like extensions are too common on global warnings. quote:Right I'm aware of conditional probability and actually had those words written down in the post before deleting them for whatever reason, but that still requires a probability of like 70% if they win the presidency and I don't think it's that much of a lock. 34 seats up for election, 24 of which are R seats. I've been out of school for a while so I forget how to calculate this but if you assume the individual rate of incumbancy winning any given seat is 90%, what's the probability that no more than 4 seats flip? Rather than assign a certain value, I would just look into the predictions that have already been made. For example: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/ There aren't actually that many states in play (many are safe or mostly safe despite being up for election), and current predictions favor a Republican majority in the senate just slightly. Again, though, it's going to rely greatly on the presidential candidates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
Finally getting my Biden money is really making me want to just cash out now, or at least wait until some Trumpmania creates sweeter markets. That or just dump it all into Hillary for President 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
how much did you put in and get out for the biden thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
Gibberish posted:how much did you put in and get out for the biden thing? Some people gamed it much better than me, but I put in ~400 and got over 1k out of it. Biden is a glorious man. Most of my other investments have fizzled, and I've made only like 100 bucks at most from combined efforts elsewhere  . I keep forgetting not to bet on polls
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
Adar posted:What the hell? Betfair hasn't moved at all. Did some Bernie supporter blow $850 for no reason?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
god drat i think anyone could have guessed biden wasnt gonna run, easy fuckin money wish i got in on that
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
I'm going to indirectly toxx these poll predictions with my actual money. You can all laugh at me in a month if I'm wrong: Trump at 35+: YES Cruz at 19+: YES Rubio at 12+: NO Sanders at 30+: NO Clinton at 55+: YES
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Gibberish posted:god drat i think anyone could have guessed biden wasnt gonna run, easy fuckin money You say this now but in the thick of the hype many of us were pretty shaken. It was one of those moments were you began to question your sanity. However most of us didn't buy the hype- literally- and made pretty good money on it. Definitely wasn't easy though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:You say this now but in the thick of the hype many of us were pretty shaken. It was one of those moments were you began to question your sanity. However most of us didn't buy the hype- literally- and made pretty good money on it. Definitely wasn't easy though. Also because Bill Kristol was behind most of the hype.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Riding those swings tho We won't have anything like that again for a while
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Well I'm now the proud owner of 500 shares of Chris Christie to win NH (14c with lots of potential short-term upside as soon as polls start coming out again) and 500 shares of Republicans controlling gov't in 2016 (surprisingly cheap at 27c). I'm rolling a lot of my end of month money into a joint Cruz, Bush and Kasich NOT winning New Hampshire. None of them are going to win and with the magic of linked markets, it only ties up about 80-85 cents for each set of NO, and the bet will pay out 20 cents. You could juice it up even more by betting Rubio NO too, but I'm not brave enough to go there. Either way it will pay out a lot more than the Bush sticking around thru Iowa with a time frame of only one week more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Gettin' extremely bearish on Rubio. At least Christie wants it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Gettin' extremely bearish on Rubio. At least Christie wants it. Yeah, his national trend line looks like he peaked around the beginning of December and has been sliding since then. Might just be noise, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
I can see a path for Christie to win the nomination. Not a likely path but more likely than the 8 cents he is selling for. I still think Trump wins NH and I have 76 shares saying so. But if Christie comes in 2nd, which I think is likely, he becomes a viable establishment choice, perhaps THE establishment choice. If Jeb! comes in 5th or 6th place after a 5th or 6th place showing in Iowa, there will be pressure on him to drop out pronto. All Jeb!'s endorsements/donors will be free to go wherever. Christie just has to convince them that Rubio is a lightweight who isn't trying very hard and he gets the lion's share. If Rubio does poorly on Super Tuesday, there could be a scenario where only Cruz, Christie and Trump are still viable and at that point it becomes apparent that Trump is out of his depth on actual policy and Cruz is a vile piece of poo poo that has no chance in the general. Christie wins and the editorial writer of the Manchester Union Leader gets a plum ambassadorship to some tropical island.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
If a GOPe candidate comes in second in NH, it's over for them. The SEC Primary is looking good for shithead candidates. NH needs to be won by a GOPe candidate or else they won't get the nominee they want, book it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Trump will not win the nomination by winning New Hampshire, he only wins by amassing over 1000 bound delegates. At least so far as "winning" the nomination means he won't have an extremely well funded opponent grubbing for delegates everywhere, who he'll be obligated to debate. The forces that usually operate to anoint a front runner will instead be begging (and paying) candidates to stay in the race.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
wishing I had waited a little longer to get on the HILLARY.YES and TRUMP.NO in Iowa. looks like I'm in it for the long haul
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
A bunch of new polling markets just hit the towers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
Trump polls much worse in Iowa and New Hampshire than he does nationally, and I'm starting to really doubt his ability to actually turn many of his poll supporters into likely voters. I think there's decent odds in putting some money down on TRUMP.ANYPRIMARY16.NO (currently ~.25) and pulling your money out after bad showings in Iowa and NH. I do admit he has a better chance in SC than the other two states that precede it, but I wouldn't discount low results robbing him of the hype he's built up. EDIT: On the other hand, didn't Newt loving Gingrich win SC the last go-around? Misc has issued a correction as of 23:32 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 23:29
|
|
