latest Betfair odds

[jimrtex]

Trump and Biden gain, while Warren drops:

Trump 37.0
Pence 10.0
Warren 7.7
Biden 6.2
M. Obama 5.7
Booker 3.8
Julian Castro 2.9
H. Clinton 2.9
Rubio 2.3
Sanders 2.3
Haley 2.2
Cruz 2.0
Gillibrand 2.0 (Ladbrokes)
Cuomo 1.8
Klobuchar 1.8
Ryan 1.8
Bloomberg 1.5
Kaine 1.2
Harris 1.1

Gillibrand isn’t actually listed on Betfair, so I listed her price on Ladbrokes.  She seemed like the most obvious person not included on Betfair’s list.

Is there any information on volume?

[jimrtex]

Winning individual:

Trump 39.1
Warren 11.9
Pence 9.5
Clinton 6.4
M. Obama 6.0
Biden 5.3
Sanders 3.7
Booker 3.4
Harris 3.4

Trump is back down below 40, after being at 44 a couple of weeks ago.  And Warren’s ahead of Pence again.  Clinton being as high as 6.4 is probably a temporary blip, as it looks like her price spiked today for no apparent reason.  Volume’s still low enough that one overeager buyer can move the prices.

How much would it cost to move the market at this point, say I wanted Booker or Sanders up to 10.0?

[jimrtex]

I'm trying to understand the dynamics of Betfair.

The last match on O'Rourke was at $100 (100 for 1).

Let's say I was the one betting on O'Rourke and I bet $10. If O'Rourke is the nominee, I receive $990 (minus a house cut). So I can see entertainment value of a long shot bet, sort of like playing the lottery.

But the bettor on the other side of the bet is putting up $990 to win $10 if O'Rourke fails.

If I were betting with a friend, I'd have to trust that he'd pay up, or that I could beat him up and take his wallet if he didn't. But somehow, I'm trusting that Betfair will give me the $990 if O'Rourke is nominated, or $10 from me if he is not.

How does Betfair ensure they will get the $990 from the other bettor?

If Betfair collected the $990 now, the bettor has lost the opportunity to invest in a money market and make more money over a 10 month period.

What am I not understanding?

[jimrtex]

Why are they still including such people as Hilldog, when most important deadlines have already passed ? CA, TX, FL, GA, NC etc.

I suspect that there is a lot of hedging going on.

Let's say that you and your twin sister, Brenda Transom, agreed that Clinton had a 1% chance of being nominated. Would you be willing to flip a coin to decide which side of the bet you would take.

$1000 if Clinton is nominated vs, $10 if she is not.

You realize that you can put $1000 in a CD, and make a guaranteed $20, vs. a 50% chance you will make half as much.

But let's say you go ahead and flip the coin, and get stuck with a potential liability of $1000 if Clinton were to win. But what if you could get someone to offer you $20 if Clinton won't win, vs. $1000 if she does.

If she wins, you pay $1000 but win $1000. You're even. Is she doesn't win, you've made $10.

I suspect that there are people putting up money to change the price to produce a perception of a trend. If X is increasing in value, it must be because of some factor such as a good debate. Make a series of small bids, offering more and more. You can be out less than a facebook ad.