posted
It's not the same at all, pooka - it's free to show your support on Facebook, but prediction markets are all about putting your money where your mouth is. They're typically quite accurate, which is why corporations are starting to incorporate them into their business planning.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:HOWEVER, if he goes third, there is a possibility that a third party Paul would attract more democrats then republicans. There are a LOT of dems who are angry that they voted to end the war and ended up with a surge.
Are you saying he will draw votes by affiliated Democrates away from the Democratic candidate or that he will draw alot of undecided voters away from the Democratic candidate?
Personally I am unconvinced Democrats will vote for Ron Paul. His platform is classic Republicanism and that includes getting out of Iraq. That is the only thing he has in common with Democrats IMO. There is far too much he would clash with Democrats over for liberals or people leaning alittle to the left to vote for him. He could get alot of Libertarian votes, but I think he would get FAR more votes that WOULD have gone to the Republican candidate over a Democrat.
Ron Paul + third party candidacy = Democratic Victory.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What do you consider the Bible Belt these days? Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi? Midwest? Plains States?
I'll go looking for some opinion polls if you guys tell me what states you want looked up.
While I haven't read the whole article, just on skimming this wikipedia entry I agree with it for the most part.
quote:In presidential elections, the Bible Belt states of Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia have voted for the Republican candidate in all elections since 1980.[6] Prior to the 1960s the majority of these states generally voted for the Democratic candidate after the formation of the modern Democratic party.
Give me 20-30 minutes, I'll get you some primary polling data on those states.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess my main point of contention is that I'm beginning to think the "Bible Belt" no longer accurately describes a discrete geographic area, e.g. the so-called "deep south." I think the term is better applied to a mindset rather than a group of specific states. While I think there is merit to Belle's claim that Mississippi and Alabama are more likely to vote for Huckabee than Romney based on their religious affiliations, I'm not so sure that there are many other states that vote in a bloc.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alabama - Capital Survey Research Center, November 1st: Fred Thompson 26%, Rudy Giuliani 24%, John McCain 12%, Mitt Romney 9%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Undecided 18%
Some of these results are going to be almost useless. The non-early voting states only get polls taken once a month or so, they don't really care about week to week numbers. But I'm not sure about the details of this poll, in that, I don't know which Republicans were in the poll (if Huckabee was even in it, I mean), and with 18% undecided, it's anyone's race.
Kansas - Research 2000, May 21st: Sam Brownback 18%, Mitt Romney 17%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 7%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Tom Tancredo 2%, All Others >1%
Hard to give this one much credence when it was taken so long ago, but you have to expect that Brownback would still have quite a bit of support. Their primary isn't until April 1st. Expect those numbers to be wildly different.
North Carolina - Public Policy Polling, November 5th: Fred Thompson 24%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Mitt Romney 10%, John McCain 8%, Other 14%, Undecided 25%
Okalahoma - Tulsa World, May 16th: Rudy Giuliani 32%, John McCain 23%, Fred Thompson 15%, Mitt Romney 6%, Sam Brownback 5%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Chuck Hagel 2%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Undecided 13%
South Carolina - American Research Group, November 26th: Rudy Giuliani 23%, Mitt Romney 21%, Mike Huckabee 18%, Fred Thompson 13%, John McCain 10%, Ron Paul 3%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Tom Tancredo -%, Alan Keyes -%, Undecided 10%
Look for this to be one of the more telling numbers. It's a much more up to date poll than any of the others, and while you can bet that any further polls will certainly include Huckabee in them, you aren't likely to see some of those other states polled again for another month.
Texas - IVR Polls, November 15th: Rudy Giuliani 23%, Mike Huckabee 16%, Fred Thompson 16%, Mitt Romney 12%, John McCain 9%, Ron Paul 5%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Duncan Hunter 3%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 11%
From a poll of previous GOP Primary voters. Their primary is in March.
I couldn't find anything on Virginia either, but elsewhere I saw that Giuliani was leading both Oklahoma and Virginia, with McCain behind in both in second place. But those were taken pre-Fred Thompson.
I know all of that wasn't helpful, but it's hard when they don't take polls every month for what are considered to be the less important states.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just thought I'd point out that it's an AP story carried on the Fox News website, not a Fox story...
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think what happened was that Romney and Giuliani both came across as defensive in the YouTube debate. Huckabee will have to get defensive too. But I think the three of them will settle in as the serious contenders. (Unfortunately... I still prefer McCain.)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting numbers. He's in the hunt, certainly. I'd say that his being in the lead doesn't matter, but it'll be great press for him.
Other than that, the Republican nom is a crapshoot, and I don't see that changing in the next four weeks.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone remember the numbers Howard Dean was getting when the first primaries went off 4 years ago? He was dead in the water in a matter of weeks after supposedly being the runaway favorite.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just trying to refresh my memory. I do remember that I thought Dean was better favored to run against Bush based on his leadership temperment (which basically boiled down to him serving as a state executive rather than a legislator).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly, although there has been a corresponding shift, there is a still a disconnect between the InTrade prediction market and that latest poll. For contracts on the probability of the next republican presidential nominee Guiliani is still rating 41.7% (down 0.9%), Romney at 19.8% (down 3.9%) and Huckabee is at 18.0% (up 3.9%)
There is money to be made for some brave soul, much braver than I, if someone thinks that the market is wrong and that Huckabee is really in the lead and not Guiliani...
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dean was leading in national polls, including Iowa, and had a huge double digit lead in New Hampshire. He was also a national fundraising leader, which makes his situation different from anyone's in this year's primary. But Edwards and Kerry surged at the last moment and handed Dean a pretty bad third place defeat. Even then he still had a massive lead in New Hampshire until the infamous "Dean scream," which audience members to this day insist wasn't a big deal because of the noise of the crowd, which the mic didn't pick up.
But the news ran with it, and 700 scream repeats later, Dean lost a 30 point edge in New Hampshire to Kerry and Edwards, which effectively ended his campaign, but vaulted him to DNC chairman.
I'd say the situations aren't really analagous, as Dean was a frontrunner for weeks by huge margins in NH, and was also a serious fundraising titan. His loss I think can mainly be attributed to the scream, and a poor showing in Iowa, but a poor showing in Iowa alone doesn't kill a 30 point lead. That's catastrophic, and none of the Republican candidates have nearly that kind of lead now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the tip, mucus, I probably am that brave but I just bought a car this week so we're strapped.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, unless you really have money that you can afford to lose, I wouldn't play in these markets. As I understand it, the whole thing is a zero-sum game so unless you have insider knowledge or you have some above-average ability to judge how likely events are beyond the ability of everyone else with limited information, you will lose over the long term if only due to frictional costs.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't a zero sum game, but it is a game where prices converge to expected payoffs (indeed, that's the point).
Treat it like day trading. Only play with money you're ready and willing to lose.
Now, sometimes you can make guaranteed money, by finding arbitrage opportunities (such as when two exactly complementary combinations of contracts have non-complementary prices, meaning by buying at the right differential you can guarantee you'll make money, no matter which set comes true).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think InTrade is probably a bit like gambling, in my view, since I wouldn't actually be buying a stock in anything, but in the likelihood of something happening.
Is there any way to short sell Hillary? I actually asked that when you first linked to it yesterday.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Huckabee is a bigot. He's against gay marriage and gay civil unions.
Then aren't all the republican candidates technically bigots? And at least one of the dems, if I remember correctly.
Not saying I don't agree with you.
If they aren't for at least equal rights civil unions then yes. I personally don't believe in "separate but equal" either but it's a lot better than nothing.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I think InTrade is probably a bit like gambling, in my view, since I wouldn't actually be buying a stock in anything, but in the likelihood of something happening.
Is there any way to short sell Hillary? I actually asked that when you first linked to it yesterday.
Sorry, I must have missed it. Yeah, all you need to do is sell a contract based on the probability of Hilary winning the Presidency rather than buying one. It is very much like gambling in fact.
fugu: I could be wrong, but you're going to have to explain why it isn't a zero sum game. As far as money is concerned, it seems very much like a casino, a futures exchange on which inTrade is based on, or any other zero-sum game. For every dollar someone wins, another person needs to lose a dollar. In fact, its a little worse than a zero-sum game because of the trading commissions.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, you meant from that perspective. In the narrow, they're a zero sum game. However, people buying futures are frequently impacted, at least a little, by the futures. This makes it very much not a zero sum game.
For instance, someone whose business is heavily dependent on the price of a certain thing staying low might bet quite a bit that the price of it will become high. This makes him better off no matter what happens (well, assuming he chose the right amount). Similarly, the person who was betting 'against' him might well become better off by their transaction, meaning both people have gained by being on the futures market.
I wonder how common arbitrage opportunities are on intrade.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Alright, of course that means that you're implying that given Pooka's obvious dislike of Hilary Clinton, she should actually bet that Clinton will win. That way if Clinton loses, Pooka will still feel happy despite losing some money and if Clinton wins, she'll have some extra spending money Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
The trick, of course, is figuring out how much you value hilary clinton not winning in dollar terms.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another point here is that this kind of prediction is sometimes self-fulfilling. People will throw their weight behind a candidate who looks likely to win. So in principle, by betting that, say, Obama will win and thus making InTrade report better odds for him, you are slightly increasing his chance of victory. That could be worth a bit of money, too. And what's more, it's an option open even to non-citizens.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a dumb system. That means money is power and voice. Since when was money the official language of the United States?
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: the markets aren't watched that much. By far more of the effect is people who bet too heavily out of line with the odds lose money.
edit: this has been observed, when people try to manipulate the markets in that way. The change in price has rarely lasted more than a short time (hours to a day, depending on market size), as intelligent traders arbitrage the difference in odds away.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And for C3PO: Elections anywhere can be influenced in the same way. Talking about someone being a winner (which is essentially what futures markets are, a bunch of people talking by using money) influences their chances of winning. If it makes you feel any better, the election is probably more influenced by which side of the head the candidates part their hair on (or whether or not they part it at all) than by futures markets
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: If we take the Ron Paul example, imagine if some Ron Paul supporter really wanted to make Ron Paul look like he's doing better than he really is and suddenly starting buying up contracts for his victory. There would be a spike in his "chance of victory."
However, people would start to notice that there would be a strange deviance in the probability of Ron Paul winning and the probability that everyone else loses (which would be represented by the sum of the probabilities of everyone else losing). As fugu said, they could buy one and sell the other, effectively making money from just the difference and forcing the probability down again.
The other problem is that as the probability goes up, it actually starts to become more expensive to buy up Ron Paul contracts making the supporter lose money faster and it actually encourages people to bet against him, to take the bet against him, simply because its such a "good deal."
C3PO: *shrug* Money is the power and voice, but more importantly for the accuracy of the prediction market, it is also the motivation to get accurate results. For example, if someone knew that Obama had a deep dark secret and he was actually a scientologist, then they could sell contracts on his chances and make a bundle of money when the truth eventually comes out. This would not be reflected in the polls, they would not be motivated to reveal this for free.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't think Hillary will stay as high as $64 on an ongoing basis. It would not at all be my intention to buy and hold through the election, but to buy and then sell when there has been an acceptable gain, however I would define that.
Seems like some system my in-laws bought into that was supposed to help them not trade emotionally (yeah, right) reccommended 20%, but if I look at it that way, I don't think Hillary is guaranteed 20% over value. There's just going to be a point, when the Republicans have a clear leader, that it's going to come back to about 50 in my opinion. Okay, I guess that is 20%. But anyway, I would still have to say it's basically gambling, particularly when they dice up into specifice events like "wins the nomination". If we just bought stock in the actual candidate, that would be closer to a legit market (from the "is it gambling" standpoint.)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't possible to 'buy stock in the actual candidate'. There is no way that the candidate can be translated, even theoretically, into value for shareholders, like companies can.
And it isn't a stock market, its a futures market. It is exactly like a futures market in that respect.
It is and it isn't gambling. If you're just out to make money, and you just buy things without arbitraging, then it is gambling. If you're buying it to offset your losses if things go the other direction, then its not gambling (quite the opposite; it reduces your risk). If you're buying arbitrage positions, you're just making money on inconsistencies.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I don't know what a futures market is, then -- probably because most people I talk to money about would not be comfortable with that (i.e. my parents or various books on how to be fiscally responsible).
I mean, I only recently decided I was fed up with not really understanding the Dow. What I learned kind of blew me away (which is that the divisor of the "average" is now less than one.)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, Mormons used the be democrats too. Though it was longer ago than 1960... more like pre FDR.
Actually it was pri Utah statehood. A close to 50-50 split was in place when the state was admitted to the Union. My family was "called" to be Democrats. We are still Democrats, but now because they are the party that currently represents our family's values.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The divisor is just a way of normalizing based on when a stock does a split or a reverse split, so that the value of the DJIA stays the same before or after.
The DJIA isn't complicated, its just a way of calculating an average 'value' for a set of stocks that people for some reason has decided is a good indicator of the performance people are interested in (it certainly isn't a good indicator of a lot of things, so the popularity is probably mostly a historical artifact).
A futures market is a risky business (excepting arbitrage opportunities, of course, and even those require you to do some calculation to make sure you don't lose money, and people mess them up all the time), so yes, it isn't something to invest in, unless you are doing it for fun, or are willing to accept the risk, or have other financial considerations with risk that you are using futures to offset, or are taking the time to identify arbitrage opportunities. In those cases, it is
Btw, there are futures markets you can play without money. You might check out the Hollywood Stock Exchange. Those you can treat as games.
It is very much like gambling. A bet on a roulette wheel can be thought of as buying a future on the ball landing on that number.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:'d have said 1776. What happened in 1782 that I'm forgetting?
The cost of corn liquor stabilized, allowing more easily transportable coinage to replace it in most business trades.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the google ad at the bottom I can vote for Hillary for president RIGHT NOW! Or else it says that Hillary is FOR the year 2008, at least that is something we both agree on. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hillary Clinton, on Issues dictionary, is reported to say she does not support SSM and knows hardly anyone who does. So, yeah. 2%.
The crazy thing about the DJIA is that a change in the index means something very different than what most people think it means. I had always wondered how it got to be such a staggering number (it was in the 2k range when I first started paying attention -- the Black Tuesday of 1987). I supposed a percentage change is still somewhat accurate.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I don't even know what most people think the DJIA is, exactly. There's not much point to it, beyond being available for journalists (and historians, maybe?) to talk about and people who aren't much interested in stock markets to notice.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:'d have said 1776. What happened in 1782 that I'm forgetting?
The cost of corn liquor stabilized, allowing more easily transportable coinage to replace it in most business trades.
Still seems an odd date. Before the Constitution was ratified, the central government didn't have the power to create a national currency, thus there were 13 separate ones. I said 1776 because that's when Wealth of Nations was published, in concert with the Declaration of Independence and what not. Other than that I'd say 1789 when the Constitution was ratified and we unified under a single currency.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When one says "average", one generally thinks of a set of data, the sum of which is divided by the number of items. That's why I'm astonished that the DJIA is a sum of 30 stocks divided not by 30, but by >1. I understand why they do it, so that the DJIA is the same after any split or similar event as before it. It just blew me away.
I was also blown away that no one had ever been able to describe it to me before. I asked various people during the buildup in the 90's and no one seemed to have a good answer. I guess my dad might have told me right when I was very young and I didn't understand the answer.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you may have been going for this. (your link links back to this hatrack page.)
I think with Intrade, though, there's no reason anyone has to trade in a way that reflects reality. Once the price gets too high, won't people stop buying even if the event is happening? Is that how other futures markets work?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
