Betting on Trump Impeachment?

[redietz]

I just wanted to be clear about the election odds thing. This is coming from someone who took Mitt Romney elections ago at long, long odds to win the whole shebang and 12-1 to win the nomination, then hedged the thing for a lovely profit.

I blew it this time. I missed the early sweet spot to bet Trump at long odds before he clinched the nomination, so I did nothing. Well, it turns out there came a time to bet Hillary, then Trump again, then Hillary, then Trump again, had one been patient, racking up auto-profits along the way (I limit the word "arbitrage" to simultaneous wagers). There was a fortune to be made. And the bookmakers weren't idiots -- far from it. There was so much action, they made a killing.

[bocce ball]

There was a fortune to be made.

I'm probably misunderstanding, but that sounds very results-oriented. How was I supposed to know at the time that the odds were "wrong"?

It wasn't obvious to me that Trump would be the next president.

[mickeycrimm]

I'm probably misunderstanding, but that sounds very results-oriented. How was I supposed to know at the time that the odds were "wrong"? It wasn't obvious to me that Trump would be the next president.

I think Redietz is talking about middling. About a year ago Hillary was at -140 and Trump was at +250. You could have bet $140 on Hillary to win $100 and you could have bet $80 on Trump to win $200. It would be a $220 investment. If Hillary wins you cash a $240 ticket for a $20 profit, if Trump wins you cash a $280 ticket for a $60 profit.

[bocce ball]

I think Redietz is talking about middling.

Thanks. He seemed to indicate the wagers were non-simultaneous, which presumably introduces an element of risk.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think Redietz is talking about middling. About a year ago Hillary was at -140 and Trump was at +250. You could have bet $140 on Hillary to win $100 and you could have bet $80 on Trump to win $200. It would be a $220 investment. If Hillary wins you cash a $240 ticket for a $20 profit, if Trump wins you cash a $280 ticket for a $60 profit.

Like a butterfly spread in options?

[mickeycrimm]

Like a butterfly spread in options?

I had to google butterfly spread to see what it was. I don't know anything about stocks. The technique I described is called scalping, at least by Stanford Wong. I imagine that there are sports bettors out there that scalp the money lines when they find numbers out of whack. Like betting the favorite at -120 in one book and betting the underdog at +140 in another book. I have some experience with middling the spread but not the money line. Redietz could probably tell us about it.

[RS__]

Idk nothing about butterflies or stocks n stuff like that.

But in sports gambling (or, in presidential elections or other stuff like that), you can sometimes find lines that aren't accurate. You can:

Middle: For instance if one book has a game total at 38.5 and another at 40.5, you could bet over 38.5 and under 40.5. If it falls within that range, you win $200 (assuming you lay -110 on both sides). If it's above 40.5 or below 38.5, then you lose $10.

Arbitrage: If one book has team A ML at +140 and another has Team B at -120, then you can bet on both teams and guarantee a win (or guarantee a push on one side and a win on the other). As long as the + is greater than the -, it's arbitragable.


The only way to have arbed the presidential election, AFAIK, is if you knew the odds would shift very drastically.....or if you booked a big +EV bet with a person then bet the other side on line. (Ie: my friend booked Hillary over Trump at even money....then bet Trump online at some big + number, guaranteeing a win.)

[redietz]

I'm probably misunderstanding, but that sounds very results-oriented. How was I supposed to know at the time that the odds were "wrong"?

It wasn't obvious to me that Trump would be the next president.

There's always some element of risk, but if you survey a dozen or 15 books, and numbers start to turn at one, then two, then three, and some are lagging (either due to being a tad behind, or not really caring about political wagers, or not moving numbers unless they actually take money), then you can tag the lagging books with a fair amount of confidence that numbers are moving one way and not another.

Nothing about Trump was obvious, but the initial "he didn't have a prayer to win the nomination" odds were wrong. Then numbers swung wildly back and forth. The final swing was after his "grab 'em by the pussy" comments, when he appeared he was dead in the water if you think evangelical white folks in the US care about such things. I personally do not think evangelical white folks care about such things as a population.

P.S. By the way, mickey, John Ferguson (aka Wong) takes credit for a being an expert and innovator regarding a number of things on which he was about 30 years behind. He often does this by coming up with some lingo or catchword that he then proselytizes at every opportunity. Ferguson knows as much about sports betting as your local bookie. For example, his "Wong teasers" were widely recognized as valuable without the moniker at the time of Larry Merchant's National Football Lottery book (circa 1973). But somehow Ferguson gets some kind of credit for "discovering" them.

[bocce ball]

Thanks for the reply. Some of those ideas could potentially be expressed through the financial markets, where the vig is typically much lower (and the betting limits higher). For example, stock futures crashed on election night, creating an opportunity for anyone who understood that Trump's victory would be warmly received on Wall Street.

Now I would guess the opportunity has reversed, as stocks appear euphoric about Trump's prospects for "stimulating" the economy.

I thought the bloodbath in Mexican stocks was overdone, but it's hard to know if one has an edge acting on such opinions.

[redietz]

Bocce, a key element to recognize is that 50 years ago, books generally did not move numbers unless they took money. In fact, there was some rule at the time that money was a necessary component. Today, most books will move lines just to stay in the middle of the bell curve whether they have taken money or not. They are, basically, risk averse to the nth.

But some books will lag, semi-purposefully, in fact, because they would prefer money be a factor in the line moving, and if they delay, they will get that money.

As an old Las Vegas example, the Stardust lines "lagged" when other books moved en masse. The Stardust, one could surmise, either (A) was lazy and sloppy and a beat behind or (B) wanted actual money to propel the line moves. Your choice.