New Tradesports rankings

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Edwards still strong, although Richardson isn't far behind.
Fred Thompson hits a new record high. Unlike fellow 4th placed Edwards, he's leading the next placed guy by a factor of 3.

Democrats
Clinton 47.2
Obama 31.5
Gore 12.0
Edwards 7.0
Richardson 4.9
Biden 0.9
Clark 0.4
Dodd 0.2
Warner 0.2
Kerry 0.2
Bayh 0.1
Vilsack 0.1


Republicans
Giuliani 41.7
McCain 22.5
Romney 16.7
F. Thompson 9.9
Gingrich 3.3
Hagel 2.7
Huckabee 2.3
Rice 1.5
Brownback 1.1
Bloomberg 0.7
Cheney 0.4
J. Bush 0.3
T. Thompson 0.2
Hunter 0.2
Powell 0.2
Paul 0.1
Tancredo 0.1
Owens 0.1

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I still can't believe Gore is so high.

[Eraserhead]

I still can't believe Gore is so high.

A lot of peons think he will try to swoop into Edwards spot.

[Mr. Morden]

If Gore were to announce tomorrow that he's running, how high do you think his share price would be the following day?  That is, does the market actually think that he'll probably run?  Or do they think that there's about a one in five or one in six chance that he's running, but that if he does run, he'd be the overwhelming favorite?

[Mr. Morden]

When do the 1st Quarter fundraising #s come out?  About a week or so into April?  That would mean that that's coming up in just about two weeks.  I would imagine that we'll see a lot of movement on Intrade based on how those numbers come out.

National Journal's current predictions are:

Clinton $35 million
Obama $23 million
Edwards $15 million
Biden $9 million
Dodd $8 million
Richardson $8 million

Romney $25 million
McCain $20 million
Giuliani $15 million
Brownback $6 million
Hunter $6 million
T. Thompson $6 million
Gilmore $5 million
Huckabee $5 million

So even though the differences could be small, whoever comes in 4th on the Dem. side could get a bit of a bump (assuming no surprises among the top 3).

And whoever comes in 4th on the GOP side would also likely get a bump.  If Romney really does end up out-fundraising everyone else on the GOP side, he'll get a bump too....maybe even enough to put him ahead of McCain on Intrade for a short time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Most major Democrats go down, except Clinton. There are now only 6 Democrats above 0.3, of whom Gore is the only one who hasn't filed with the FEC.
Fred Thompson and Bloomberg surge at the expenses of McCain and Giuliani. Fred Thompson now has over half as much as McCain.

Democrats
Clinton 48.0
Obama 30.4
Gore 10.9
Edwards 6.9
Richardson 4.3
Biden 1.1
Clark 0.3
Dodd 0.2
Warner 0.2
Kerry 0.2
Bayh 0.1
Vilsack 0.1


Republicans
Giuliani 40.5
McCain 20.2
Romney 16.8
F. Thompson 11.0
Gingrich 3.3
Hagel 2.9
Huckabee 2.3
Rice 1.5
Bloomberg 1.4
Brownback 1.1
J. Bush 0.7
Cheney 0.4
Paul 0.4
T. Thompson 0.2
Hunter 0.2
Powell 0.2
Tancredo 0.1
Owens 0.1

[WalterMitty]

so mike bloomberg is 7 times more likely to be teh gop nominee than chris dodd is to be the dem nominee?

umm.  no.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why is Vilsack the only Democrat to go up?

Democrats
Clinton 47.5
Obama 29.4
Gore 10.6
Edwards 6.9
Richardson 4.3
Biden 1.0
Clark 0.3
Dodd 0.2
Warner 0.2
Kerry 0.2
Vilsack 0.2
Bayh 0.1


Republicans
Giuliani 40.5
McCain 20.2
Romney 16.3
F. Thompson 9.8
Hagel 3.4
Gingrich 3.3
Huckabee 2.9
Rice 1.5
Brownback 1.1
Bloomberg 0.8
Cheney 0.4
J. Bush 0.3
T. Thompson 0.3
Paul 0.2
Hunter 0.2
Powell 0.2
Tancredo 0.1
Owens 0.1

[Jacobtm]

A question about tradesports: How do you bet against a candidate? Are there futures contracats like on the stock market, or is there some other mechanism for betting that a contracts price will decline?

[ag]

so mike bloomberg is 7 times more likely to be teh gop nominee than chris dodd is to be the dem nominee?

umm.  no.

Relative pricing of near-zero probability events is not likely to be reliable. For starters, what's the volume there? And, in any case, the price differences are pretty small in absolute terms.  I would say that, for all practical intents and purposes, both are (correctly, in my opinion) viewed as having pretty much zero chance of winning their parties' nomination. I would disregard pretty much all numbers below 4 or 5 as just noise.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

When is Gore going to start dropping?

[Boris]

When is Gore going to start dropping?

as the Iowa Caucus nears.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Biden drops from 1.0% to 0.4%. There are now only 5 Democrats over 0.4%.
Obama loses, Gore gains.
Basically no movement on the Republican side.

Democrats
Clinton 47.8
Obama 28.8
Gore 11.0
Edwards 6.8
Richardson 4.4
Biden 0.4
Clark 0.3
Dodd 0.2
Warner 0.2
Kerry 0.2
Vilsack 0.2
Bayh 0.1


Republicans
Giuliani 40.5
McCain 20.2
Romney 16.3
F. Thompson 9.8
Hagel 3.4
Gingrich 3.3
Huckabee 2.9
Rice 1.5
Brownback 1.1
Bloomberg 0.9
Cheney 0.4
J. Bush 0.3
T. Thompson 0.3
Paul 0.2
Hunter 0.2
Powell 0.2
Tancredo 0.1
Owens 0.1

[Eraserhead]

Look for Thompson to fly over Romney soon.

[Mr. Morden]

Look for Thompson to fly over Romney soon.

Maybe.  But the thing holding Thompson back is that there's doubt about whether he's actually going to run.  As long as there's that uncertainty, he can only go so high.

[Verily]

Look for Thompson to fly over Romney soon.

Maybe.  But the thing holding Thompson back is that there's doubt about whether he's actually going to run.  As long as there's that uncertainty, he can only go so high.

Gore's denials haven't stopped him...

[Mr. Morden]

Maybe.  But the thing holding Thompson back is that there's doubt about whether he's actually going to run.  As long as there's that uncertainty, he can only go so high.

Gore's denials haven't stopped him...

But he's still only at 10.8.  I don't know.  Where do you think Gore would be on Intrade if, tomorrow, he announced that he was running?  And where would Thompson be on Intrade if, tomorrow, *he* announced he was running?

[TomC]

But Thompson hasn't been denying. He said he was leaving the door open. Much more of an affirmation than Gore's statements.

The GOP right wing will not let Rudy Giuliani win this nomination. With McCain fading (and never really being a darling of the right) there is a hole in the field. Thompson is going to fill that void.

Here in Tennessee, I have noticed a concerted effort to boost support for Thompson. WQhen he is mentioned on a blog, especially negatively, there are dozens of responses within 24 hours. There is clearly a "home state" organization in place for Thompson. Key word: organization. He will run. I've placed my bet.

[jimrtex]

A question about tradesports: How do you bet against a candidate? Are there futures contracats like on the stock market, or is there some other mechanism for betting that a contracts price will decline?

The part of Tradesports not related to sports is now called
Intrade

You are actually making a bet with another individual.  Tradesports/Intrade is not a bookmaker where you bet against the house, but more of a broker.

If Edwards is at 7.0, it means that the last trade, someone bet 7.0 that Edwards would win, and someone else bet 93.0 that Edwards would not win.  The winner of the bet will collect 100.0.  In this case the contract value is $10, so the above bet would be $0.70 vs. $9.30.

Let's say that you ask 7.0 for Edwards (you are seeking someone willing to bet 7.0 that Edwards will win), and later the value of Edwards declines.  You might be able to bid 5.0 on Edwards at a later date, and close out your position, giving you a net gain of 2.0 (you have bet a total of 98.0 with a guarantee of 100.0).

I'd think if you were wanting to make money this far out, you would be trying to anticipate price shifts, rather than predict the ultimate winner.

[Jacobtm]

A question about tradesports: How do you bet against a candidate? Are there futures contracats like on the stock market, or is there some other mechanism for betting that a contracts price will decline?

The part of Tradesports not related to sports is now called
Intrade

You are actually making a bet with another individual.  Tradesports/Intrade is not a bookmaker where you bet against the house, but more of a broker.

If Edwards is at 7.0, it means that the last trade, someone bet 7.0 that Edwards would win, and someone else bet 93.0 that Edwards would not win.  The winner of the bet will collect 100.0.  In this case the contract value is $10, so the above bet would be $0.70 vs. $9.30.

Let's say that you ask 7.0 for Edwards (you are seeking someone willing to bet 7.0 that Edwards will win), and later the value of Edwards declines.  You might be able to bid 5.0 on Edwards at a later date, and close out your position, giving you a net gain of 2.0 (you have bet a total of 98.0 with a guarantee of 100.0).

I'd think if you were wanting to make money this far out, you would be trying to anticipate price shifts, rather than predict the ultimate winner.

Though you would need to first buy Edwards, correct? So if I think that Edwards will drop from 8 to 4 in the next week, I would first have to buy Edwards contracts at the current price, and couldn't make any money, right? I'd have to wait until I think he's undervalued, buy, wait till he's overvalued, and then sell. But if you think someone will make a steady decline and end up not winning, (such as Clinton, who I'm really thinking about), is there a way to make money?

[elcorazon]

A question about tradesports: How do you bet against a candidate? Are there futures contracats like on the stock market, or is there some other mechanism for betting that a contracts price will decline?

The part of Tradesports not related to sports is now called
Intrade

You are actually making a bet with another individual.  Tradesports/Intrade is not a bookmaker where you bet against the house, but more of a broker.

If Edwards is at 7.0, it means that the last trade, someone bet 7.0 that Edwards would win, and someone else bet 93.0 that Edwards would not win.  The winner of the bet will collect 100.0.  In this case the contract value is $10, so the above bet would be $0.70 vs. $9.30.

Let's say that you ask 7.0 for Edwards (you are seeking someone willing to bet 7.0 that Edwards will win), and later the value of Edwards declines.  You might be able to bid 5.0 on Edwards at a later date, and close out your position, giving you a net gain of 2.0 (you have bet a total of 98.0 with a guarantee of 100.0).

I'd think if you were wanting to make money this far out, you would be trying to anticipate price shifts, rather than predict the ultimate winner.

Though you would need to first buy Edwards, correct? So if I think that Edwards will drop from 8 to 4 in the next week, I would first have to buy Edwards contracts at the current price, and couldn't make any money, right? I'd have to wait until I think he's undervalued, buy, wait till he's overvalued, and then sell. But if you think someone will make a steady decline and end up not winning, (such as Clinton, who I'm really thinking about), is there a way to make money?

you want to "sell short".  not sure if that's possible or not.  Basically that is just selling shares you don't own, leaving you responsible to "pay them off" if they ultimately become worth something.  Theoretically, you can later buy them for less if you turn out to be correct that the shares will go down, thus eliminating your ultimate downside, but also capping your profits.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Fred Thompson surges, currently 12.0, had a record high spike of 15.0 earlier. He's closing in on Romney and McCain. He is now almost quadruple the guy in 5th place (Gingrich).
Hagel (timetable vote) and Huckabee tank.

Democrats
Clinton 48.5
Obama 29.0
Gore 10.6
Edwards 7.3
Richardson 4.3
Biden 0.4
Clark 0.3
Dodd 0.2
Warner 0.2
Kerry 0.2
Vilsack 0.2
Bayh 0.1


Republicans
Giuliani 40.3
McCain 20.2
Romney 16.2
F. Thompson 12.0
Gingrich 3.2
Hagel 2.8
Huckabee 2.0
Rice 1.6
Brownback 1.1
Bloomberg 0.5
Cheney 0.4
J. Bush 0.3
T. Thompson 0.3
Hunter 0.2
Powell 0.2
Tancredo 0.2
Owens 0.1
Paul 0.1

We're really seeing a tiered system

Democrats:
Tier 1: Clinton, Obama
Tier 2: Gore, Edwards, Richardson
Tier 3: everyone else

Republicans:
Tier 1: Giuliani
Tier 2: McCain, Romney, F. Thompson
Tier 3: Gingrich, Hagel, Huckabee, Rice, Brownback
Tier 4: everyone else

[jimrtex]

Though you would need to first buy Edwards, correct? So if I think that Edwards will drop from 8 to 4 in the next week, I would first have to buy Edwards contracts at the current price, and couldn't make any money, right? I'd have to wait until I think he's undervalued, buy, wait till he's overvalued, and then sell. But if you think someone will make a steady decline and end up not winning, (such as Clinton, who I'm really thinking about), is there a way to make money?

All contracts will eventually end up at 100 or 0.  If you bet against Clinton (she is currently 48.5 to win, or 51.5 to lose) you would collect the 100 at the time she is not nominated.

[Mr. Morden]

Thompson has now shot all the way up to 13.3, while Huckabee has plummetted to 0.2(!!).  If anyone ever had any interest in buying Huckabee shares, now would probably be a good time.

They should add Thompson to the "winning individual" section.  I'd be curious to see what kind of odds he would get for the general election.  (Also curious about what kind of odds he'd get if they added him to the VP section.)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clinton gains at Obama's expense.
Huckabee totally tanks to 0.2, although he's got bids at 0.4 now. It's also been bad, but not as bad, for McCain and Hagel.
Fred Thompson could pass Romney this week. He's now beating the next ranked person (Gingrich) by over a factor of 4.

Democrats
Clinton 49.0
Obama 28.0
Gore 10.6
Edwards 7.2
Richardson 4.3
Biden 0.4
Clark 0.3
Dodd 0.2
Warner 0.2
Kerry 0.2
Vilsack 0.2
Bayh 0.1


Republicans
Giuliani 40.2
McCain 20.2
Romney 16.2
F. Thompson 13.0
Gingrich 3.1
Hagel 1.8
Rice 1.6
Brownback 1.1
Bloomberg 0.5
Cheney 0.4
J. Bush 0.3
T. Thompson 0.2
Huckabee 0.2
Hunter 0.2
Tancredo 0.2
Paul 0.2
Powell 0.1
Owens 0.1