Ron Paul’s odds are getting better and better.
Well, according to the people at Sportsbook.com anyway. Gambling911.com ran a story a bit ago about Ron’s odds going from 100 to 1, to 15 to 1, and finally down to 8 to 1.
“The old taunt reflects a deep economic principle: Talk is cheap, but if someone is willing to risk money, it means they’re serious,” writes Tim Harford of Slate.com, a general-interest publication offering analysis and commentary about politics. “Put the principle into action and you realize that electoral forecasters should pay as much attention to the betting odds as to the opinion polls.
“When money is on the line, informed people, perhaps including insiders, have an incentive to turn their knowledge into cash by making big bets. In the process they make the odds more accurate. And of course, there are several reasons to lie to pollsters, but no reasons to make a money-losing bet.”
on September 16th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
If anyone out there really believes this I’d be happy to bet you $100 that Ron Paul will not be elected President in 2008 (and pay you $800 if he is).
Wayne, Kyle? Anyone want to lay out a scenario where Ron Paul wins the primary, let alone the general? Or are you envisioning a third-party run?
on September 16th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I don’t actually think his odds are that good.
I do think he’s doing much better than anyone expected, and I hope he continues to do so.
on September 16th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Yeah, I kind of thought so. Do any of your hard core libertarian friends think differently? That could be the surest investment I ever made.
What is better than people expect? 2-3% in national polls? Coming in higher than 5th in any of the early primaries?
I’ll be interested to see if he runs as a third party. And if he does, if he’ll draw more Dems (attracted to his anti-war stance) than Reps (attracted to his hot views on cutting the federal government by 80%).
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I believe he’d take more Ds than Rs.
on September 17th, 2007 at 12:45 am
No one I know is actually diluted enough to think he’ll win.
Yeah, pretty much.
You’re probably right. He’ll also be helped by the fact that pretty much all of the candidates are terrible.
It reminds me of the South Park episode on voting…
on September 17th, 2007 at 11:30 am
He won’t run third party. I believe he’s already started up his reelection committee for his House seat, so that’s a pretty good indication of where he thinks he’s headed. His ‘88 presidential campaign was more about getting out his message than winning office and I think he views this run in a similar light.
on September 17th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Wrong. See here for an example of the inefficiencies of gambling lines.
In particular, “And of course, there are several reasons to lie to pollsters, but no reasons to make a money-losing bet.” The non-pecuniary benefits that Ron Paul followers have in improving the odds, and thus generating a positive publicitly buzz (which, in fact, may actually improve the odds), greatly outweigh the pecuniary cost of placing a bet. Additionally, in this way, they can drive the market forces toward Paul though his odds are lower than presented, which actually is a reversal of a reflection of the market; it’s a fixing of the market!
on September 17th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
The comments section of your link is great. The odds are there to help the bookies make money, not as an attempt to accurately reflect the odds of winning. That seems to make the most sense.
And yes, you’re right, there are reasons to make a “money-losing bet”. I think you’re overemphasizing your point a little though =)
on May 12th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Soma….
Soma….