Odds still to high
Trump Opens Up 16 point lead with independents
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
For that to happen your runner would have to drop to a 40-45% chance of winning because you have to figure in the bookies take. At which point you are betting on an underdog. So you are saying you would never bet on a presidential favorite...even though favored to win?
You do understand that any bet is equally in favor of the bookie, yes?
Caveat: In baseball the book designs it's odds to make more money from bets on the favorites.
Is this the reason you won't bet a dime on Hillary Rotten?
Because you don't like the size of the bookies take?
So let me break this down so it's infinitely clear.
First, let's back the bookies take out of the equation.
If odds are set correctly, and do reflect reality, then you can bet an underdog or a favorite every day, even every hour of the day, and at the end of the year your balance will be exactly as if you flipped a coin and were paid out 1 dollar for every dollar you bet. That's a 1/1 risk reward.
Now, if you throw in the bookies take, your balance will reflect exactly as stated above, minus all the commissions/vigs you gave away to play. (Pay-To-Play, sound familiar?)
Thus, if odds are TRUE, your risk to reward is indeed 1/1.
Since the odds are true as you say and/or advise, why don't you have a bet down?
First, let's back the bookies take out of the equation.
If odds are set correctly, and do reflect reality, then you can bet an underdog or a favorite every day, even every hour of the day, and at the end of the year your balance will be exactly as if you flipped a coin and were paid out 1 dollar for every dollar you bet. That's a 1/1 risk reward.
Now, if you throw in the bookies take, your balance will reflect exactly as stated above, minus all the commissions/vigs you gave away to play. (Pay-To-Play, sound familiar?)
Thus, if odds are TRUE, your risk to reward is indeed 1/1.
Since the odds are true as you say and/or advise, why don't you have a bet down?
On the other hand, if the odds are not TRUE, and don't reflect reality, then it could be said that "the odds are too high", which is what you said. But is that what you meant...that the betting odds don't truly reflect Killary's actual chances, on the ground, at the ballot boxes?
If so, then you are right, it's not a good bet...or at least not the kind of 1/1 bet you would take.
If so, then you are right, it's not a good bet...or at least not the kind of 1/1 bet you would take.
Its worse than that. In this poll they fudged independents down to 14% to get Clinton up 6 points. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/2016_Reuters_Tracking_-_Core_Political_10.25_.16_.pdf
This all over again
That's a joke and a half.