latest Betfair odds

[Mr. Morden]

Betfair’s % probability of each of the following being elected president in 2020:

http://sports.betfair.com/?mi=120637747&ex=1

Trump 27.0
Warren 11.4
Pence 10.6
M. Obama 5.7
Julian Castro 4.3
Rubio 4.0
Sanders 4.0
Booker 3.6
Kaine 2.5
Ryan 2.4
H. Clinton 2.3
Cuomo 1.8
Haley 1.8
Cruz 1.5
Klobuchar 1.5

[Mr. Morden]

Trump 28.2
Warren 11.1
Pence 10.0
M. Obama 5.7
Sanders 4.2
Julian Castro 3.8
Bloomberg 3.7
Booker 3.1
H. Clinton 2.6
Ryan 2.3
Cuomo 2.2
Rubio 2.0
Haley 1.8
Biden 1.7
Harris 1.7
Kaine 1.7
Klobuchar 1.5

[Mr. Morden]

The betting markets are totally discredited. Both Bremain and Hillary traded at 85-90% literally minutes before the decisive votes started getting reported. These reflects the biases of their urban, center-left, sources of dumb money.

If Betfair had existed Since WW2, then it (or any other betting markets out there) would have had the guy who ended up winning the presidency favored in their market on election eve in every presidential election from 1952 to 2012.  Now, because the underdog wins one time, they're "discredited"?

[Mr. Morden]

The betting markets are totally discredited. Both Bremain and Hillary traded at 85-90% literally minutes before the decisive votes started getting reported. These reflects the biases of their urban, center-left, sources of dumb money.

If Betfair had existed Since WW2, then it (or any other betting markets out there) would have had the guy who ended up winning the presidency favored in their market on election eve in every presidential election from 1952 to 2012.  Now, because the underdog wins one time, they're "discredited"?

Then all they do is reflect conventional wisdom, and magnify it. There's no evidence they add anything of value.

Yes, they are conventional wisdom aggregators.  I thought that was obvious.

The point is that it's not always obvious to everyone reading about politics how to synthesize the conventional wisdom into a number.  X is the frontrunner to win the primary or the general election or whatever, but how much of a frontrunner?  How much of a chance does the 2nd or 3rd place guy have?  Sure, any of us who follows this stuff can come up with our own numbers, and if we track the races closely enough, we can potentially even beat the market.  But seeing what the collective CW of the market is in numerical form is still something that's of interest to some of us.

[Mr. Morden]

The betting markets are totally discredited. Both Bremain and Hillary traded at 85-90% literally minutes before the decisive votes started getting reported. These reflects the biases of their urban, center-left, sources of dumb money.

If Betfair had existed Since WW2, then it (or any other betting markets out there) would have had the guy who ended up winning the presidency favored in their market on election eve in every presidential election from 1952 to 2012.  Now, because the underdog wins one time, they're "discredited"?

Then all they do is reflect conventional wisdom, and magnify it. There's no evidence they add anything of value.

Yes, they are conventional wisdom aggregators.  I thought that was obvious.

The point is that it's not always obvious to everyone reading about politics how to synthesize the conventional wisdom into a number.  X is the frontrunner to win the primary or the general election or whatever, but how much of a frontrunner?  How much of a chance does the 2nd or 3rd place guy have?  Sure, any of us who follows this stuff can come up with our own numbers, and if we track the races closely enough, we can potentially even beat the market.  But seeing what the collective CW of the market is in numerical form is still something that's of interest to some of us.

This is philosophical Mumbo jumbo. The point is, if a 90% chance of a result 30 minutes before poll closing on election night can be wrong, what is the hope of any number being predictive this far out? These markets claim to predict events, not capture conventional wisdom.

I don’t understand.  Of course a 90% chance of a result 30 minutes before poll closing can be wrong.  It *should* be wrong 10% of the time.  If it was wrong 0% of the time, then it shouldn’t be given a 90% chance.  It should be a 100% chance.  This holds whether the odds are given 30 minutes in advance or 30 years in advance.  The difference being that you have more information when the event in question is occurring tomorrow than if it’s years in advance, and so you should see more 90% or 95% or 99% odds being quoted if the event is happening imminently, because there are fewer unknowns at that point.

With regard to “conventional wisdom” vs. “likelihood of the event happening”, I think you might be making a false distinction here.  There is no such thing as an absolute “probability of an event happening” in a real world social science event like an election.  You can talk about the probability of winning a hand of poker or something like that.  There’s an objectively right answer to the question of “What is the probability of being dealt a straight flush?”  But “What is the probability of a candidate winning this election?”….unless you have access to quantum level data on the brain states of every individual voter, it doesn’t make sense to talk about an *objective* probability on the outcome.

Now you can make models using objective inputs (usually based heavily on polling numbers), like 538 does.  But there is no one “right” model.  They all make simplifying assumptions about which parameters to include and how, and while some will have better track records than others, there’s no way to prove which one is “right”.

But betting markets make no pretense of being objective.  They’re the collective subjective wisdom of whoever is doing the betting, based on whatever criteria they choose to use (and presumably many of the people betting do take models from folks like 538 into account, though obviously there are no such models yet for an event as distant as the 2020 election).  I’m not sure how anyone can think it works any differently from that.  The markets have no “special knowledge” that the rest of us don’t have access to, unless you’ve got insider trading from someone with access to internal polling numbers, or something like that.  But I’m assuming that that’s rare.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, you’re just flat out wrong on this one, I’m afraid.  I frequently check betting markets to see what the conventional wisdom on elections says.  

If you’re saying that many/most people who look at these numbers think that they’re getting some kind of special knowledge out of it, that goes beyond simply aggregated conventional wisdom, then I agree that the average news consumer probably does think that way.  But the average news consumer is wrong on a lot of things.  

[Mr. Morden]

Many betting sites are offering odds on who will win the general election, but the only one I’ve found offering Democratic nomination odds is Betway:

https://sports.betway.com/#/politics/us/us-presidential-election/985177_us-presidential-election-democratic-nominee-2020

Warren 28.6
Kaine 18.2
Booker 12.5
Cuomo 11.1
Clinton 9.1
M. Obama 9.1
de Blasio 6.7
Castro 5.9
Klobuchar 5.3
Duckworth 4.8
Harris 4.8
Sanders 4.8

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[Mr. Morden]

Warren back up to a tie with Pence for second place:

Trump 38.5
Pence 8.0
Warren 8.0
M. Obama 5.7
Ryan 4.2
Booker 3.7
Clinton 3.7
Biden 3.1

[Mr. Morden]

Gillibrand’s still not listed on “Betfair Exchange” (the Intrade-like peer-to-peer version from which I normally post prices).  So instead I list her latest share price on the regular Betfair site.

Trump 41.3
Pence 8.7
Warren 8.0
M. Obama 5.3
Biden 5.0
Gillibrand 3.8 (regular Betfair)
Booker 3.4
Clinton 2.9
Sanders 2.5
Ryan 2.3
Castro 2.1

[Mr. Morden]

Gillibrand’s still not listed on “Betfair Exchange” (the Intrade-like peer-to-peer version from which I normally post prices).  So instead I list her latest share price on the regular Betfair site.

Trump 41.3
Pence 8.7
Warren 8.0
M. Obama 5.3
Biden 5.0
Gillibrand 3.8 (regular Betfair)
Booker 3.4
Clinton 2.9
Sanders 2.5
Ryan 2.3
Castro 2.1

Gillibrand has no business being listed as a presidential candidate.

Why?

Convince me otherwise.

She campaigned in both Iowa and New Hampshire (for Clinton and other Democratic candidates) this year.  She has a leadership PAC which gave out more money to Democratic candidates this year than did the PACs of Booker or Warren.  And unlike Booker and Warren, she gave to early state House candidates Ann McLane Kuster (NH), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), and Monica Vernon (IA).  She did a bunch of politicking at the Democratic Convention this year, as noted in the Tea Leaves thread.  She’s been asked multiple times since the election if she’s going to run for president in 2020, and (unlike Franken, Kaine, and Warner) does not rule it out, simply saying things like “I’m running for reelection in 2018” and “I have no plans to run for president”, which isn’t really a denial that she’s going to be making plans soon.  She reached out to Clinton’s donors in late November:

Gillibrand reaching out to Hillary's donors.

Interesting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that doesn’t count all the hints of presidential ambition she dropped in ~2012-2014 which were covered in the 2016 Tea Leaves thread, including earlier NH visits, and coming out with a book in 2014.

Seriously, how many more hints does she need to drop?

[Mr. Morden]

Trump 44.2
Pence 8.7
Warren 8.0
M. Obama 5.0
Biden 4.5
Gillibrand 3.8 (regular Betfair)
Booker 3.7
Clinton 3.7
Sanders 2.3
Castro 2.0
Ryan 1.8
Bloomberg 1.7
Rubio 1.7
Cuomo 1.5
Harris 1.4
Kaine 1.3
Kasich 1.3
Haley 1.2
Klobuchar 1.2
Ivanka Trump 0.7

[Mr. Morden]

Gillibrand’s still not listed on “Betfair Exchange” (the Intrade-like peer-to-peer version from which I normally post prices).  So instead I list her latest share price on the regular Betfair site.

Trump 41.3
Pence 8.7
Warren 8.0
M. Obama 5.3
Biden 5.0
Gillibrand 3.8 (regular Betfair)
Booker 3.4
Clinton 2.9
Sanders 2.5
Ryan 2.3
Castro 2.1

Gillibrand has no business being listed as a presidential candidate.

Why?

Convince me otherwise.

She campaigned in both Iowa and New Hampshire (for Clinton and other Democratic candidates) this year.  She has a leadership PAC which gave out more money to Democratic candidates this year than did the PACs of Booker or Warren.  And unlike Booker and Warren, she gave to early state House candidates Ann McLane Kuster (NH), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), and Monica Vernon (IA).  She did a bunch of politicking at the Democratic Convention this year, as noted in the Tea Leaves thread.  She’s been asked multiple times since the election if she’s going to run for president in 2020, and (unlike Franken, Kaine, and Warner) does not rule it out, simply saying things like “I’m running for reelection in 2018” and “I have no plans to run for president”, which isn’t really a denial that she’s going to be making plans soon.  She reached out to Clinton’s donors in late November:

Gillibrand reaching out to Hillary's donors.

Interesting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that doesn’t count all the hints of presidential ambition she dropped in ~2012-2014 which were covered in the 2016 Tea Leaves thread, including earlier NH visits, and coming out with a book in 2014.

Seriously, how many more hints does she need to drop?

None of this makes her capable of becoming a serious candidate.  Next.

I mean, do you seriously think that, if she runs, she's not going to be included in polls and not going to be invited to the debates?  Because that's more than good enough to end up getting listed as a presidential candidate on betting markets.

[Mr. Morden]

So the various online oddsmakers are finally starting to list Democratic nomination odds.  Now, as a reminder here, the Betfair odds I list are from “Betfair Exchange”, which is the peer-to-peer version, meaning that betters trade with each other directly (a la Intrade back in the day), and they set the price.  Since the Dem. nomination is brand new and has such low volume so far, the share prices are kind of ridiculous.  Here are the top five right now:

Betfair Dem. nomination
Warren 41.7
Booker 20.0
Sanders 14.3
M. Obama 13.5
Biden 11.1

So just the top five alone add up to over 100, which is rather ridiculous.  But again, low volume, and it’ll get sorted out in the next few weeks to something more reasonable.

But there are other online oddsmakers where the prices are set by bookies.  Here are William Hill and Ladbrokes prices…

William Hill Dem. nomination
Warren 13.3
Booker 11.1
M. Obama 11.1
Cuomo 9.1
Sanders 9.1
Kaine 6.7
Biden 5.9
Brown 5.9
Castro 4.8
Clinton 4.8
Gillibrand 4.8
Klobuchar 4.8

Ladbrokes Dem. nomination
Warren 12.5
Booker 11.1
M. Obama 11.1
Sanders 11.1
Cuomo 9.1
Kaine 7.7
Biden 5.9
Brown 5.9
Hickenlooper 3.8
Warner 2.9

Ladbrokes GOP nomination
Trump 59.9
Pence 20.0
Rubio 3.8
Ryan 3.8
Haley 2.9

[Mr. Morden]

Betfair numbers are starting to settle down a bit in the Dem. nomination market, but still low volume, and pretty much everyone’s share prices are high compared to what you find on sites where the prices are set by bookies…with the top 8 alone adding up to more than 100:

Warren 20.0
Booker 19.2
M. Obama 13.5
Sanders 13.2
Biden 11.1
Castro 9.1
Clinton 9.1
Cuomo 9.1

[Mr. Morden]

Betfair's now taking bets on whether the following people will run for prez in 2020:

Booker 73
Cuomo 66
Gillibrand 39
Mark Cuban 23

[Mr. Morden]

Do they have which party will win yet?

Betfair's market on that is still very low volume, so adds up to way more than 100%.  But every bookie now has the Dems as being at least slightly favored to win.  E.g., Ladbrokes has it as 58% chance of the Dems winning, 42% for the GOP.  Most of the others have it a bit closer.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[Mr. Morden]

The individual nomination markets are still too volatile to pay much attention to, but Trump is down to a 54% chance to win the GOP nomination, which is the lowest he’s been since the market opened back in December.  Correspondingly, he’s been dropping and Pence has been gaining in the winning individual market:

Trump 34.5
Pence 13.4
Warren 10.0
M. Obama 6.2
Clinton 5.4
Booker 4.5
Biden 4.2
Ryan 3.8
Sanders 3.8
Harris 3.3

[Mr. Morden]

Betfair now giving Trump just a 49% chance of being the 2020 Republican presidential nominee, and Ladbrokes is giving him about the same.  His chances of making it through his entire first term without leaving office early is bouncing around but in the mid-50s, so if he's not renominated, the market seems to think it'll probably be because he's out of office early (via either death, resignation, or impeachment), rather than because he stays in office but opts not to run again, or stays in office, runs again, but loses the nomination.

[Mr. Morden]

Predictit now has markets on whether the following people will run for president in 2020, with the following % probabilities that they’ll run:

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Category/6/US-Elections

Booker 66
Gillibrand 46
Cuomo 42
Klobuchar 40
Sanders 27
Cuban 20
Zuckerberg 18

Meanwhile, on Betfair, Trump to win the 2020 GOP nomination has rebounded, and is back above 50.  It’s now at 54.1.  Trump to make it through his entire first term without leaving office early is now at 55.9.

[Mr. Morden]

Predictit has added Warren, Cruz, and Kasich to their list of people for whom they’re taking bets on whether they’ll run for president or not.  Here are the Predictit odds on whether these folks will run for president in 2020 or not:

Booker 65
Gillibrand 50
Warren 48
Cuomo 43
Klobuchar 31
Sanders 30
Cuban 26
Kasich 20
Cruz 18
Zuckerberg 17

[Mr. Morden]

Predicit now gives both Cuomo and Warren a better than 50/50 chance of running…

Booker 66
Cuomo 54
Warren 52
Gillibrand 48
Klobuchar 36
Sanders 30
Kasich 26
Cuban 25
Cruz 23
Zuckerberg 16

[Mr. Morden]

It's very strange to me how Cruz and Kasich are so close to each other. Cruz would never have it in him to primary Trump, while Kasich has made several moves indicating a potential run.

Yes, I agree.  Kasich challenging Trump in the primary is *possible*.  But it's highly unlikely to happen with Cruz.  Cruz does want to run for prez again though, so I suppose if Trump opts not to run for a second term, then we could see Cruz 2020, but what are the odds of that happening?

[Mr. Morden]

Betfair prices still bouncing around a lot with low volume, though Warren remains the favorite for the Dem. nomination, and Trump is now below 50% to be nominated again on the GOP side…

Dem. nomination

Warren 15.6
Harris 10.0
Clinton 9.1
M. Obama 9.1
Booker 7.7
Klobuchar 6.9
Biden 6.7
Cuomo 6.7
Sanders 6.7
Kaine 6.5

GOP nomination

Trump 48.1
Pence 14.7
Ryan 14.7
Cotton 8.7
Haley 7.7

The betting exchanges with the prices set by bookies are more stable.  Here, for example, are the #s at William Hill for the Dem. nomination:

Warren 13.3
Booker 12.5
M. Obama 10.0
Cuomo 9.1
Sanders 9.1
Clinton 7.7
Kaine 6.7
Brown 5.9
Hickenlooper 5.9

Other bookies are similar.  I do wonder how long the betting on Michelle Obama will last…

[Mr. Morden]

Trump has taken a serious beating on the winning individual market these past few days.  He’s now under 30 to be reelected in 2020:

Trump 27.7
Pence 9.5
Warren 9.5
M. Obama 6.8
Biden 4.8
Clinton 4.8
Ryan 4.2
Kaine 4.0
Sanders 4.0
Booker 3.6
Zuckerberg 3.1
Castro 2.5
Brown 2.4 (Bet365)
Gillibrand 2.4 (Bet365)
Harris 2.4
Hickenlooper 2.3

(Brown and Gillibrand still aren’t listed on the winning individual market for Betfair, so I list their latest prices on Bet365.)