[johnu]

 shyams, on 2023-November-20, 20:00, said:

RFK Jr is not getting 200 to 1 odds, he is getting roughly 26 to 1 odds of winning 2024!!

When setting odds for extremely unlikely events, oddsmakers set the odds at orders of magnitude better than the realistic chances would indicate. So if RFK Jr was, as an example, getting 200 to 1 odds, the actual odds may be 2,000 or 20,000 or 200,000 to 1 against. Oddsmakers don't want to go bankrupt as the result of losing a huge payoff on something that is very highly unlikely, but not impossible.

In practice, I would give RFK Jr 0% chance of winning, rounded to maybe 10 places of accuracy, so I question the sanity of anybody putting a bet on him at 26 to 1 odds.

[shyams]

 pescetom, on 2023-November-22, 12:24, said:

I don't bet, but imagine it is the ratio of the profit to the stake (so you get 3 back if you staked 1 at 2 to 1).

This is correct. When traditional (English) betting shops quote 2 to 1, it means you will profit £2 + get your £1 back.

The reason I quote implied win percentages is that different geographies and people read "odds" differently. There are at least three styles:
1 . English: When a bookmaker quotes "2 to 1", it means you get back £3 (incl. your £1 stake) if you win, squander your £1 if you lose.
2 . Decimal: When a bookmaker quotes 3.00, it means the same as above.
3 . American: I understand that a US bookmaker quoting +200 is exactly the same as "2 to 1" or decimal 3.00
A win percentage is easier to understand.


BTW, the fairly high win % for Newsom captures the likelihood that Biden is ripe for a coup by the DNC & the Billionaire class. Ah, US Politics --- there is no business quite like it.

[kenberg]

 shyams, on 2023-November-22, 22:27, said:

This is correct. When traditional (English) betting shops quote 2 to 1, it means you will profit £2 + get your £1 back.

The reason I quote implied win percentages is that different geographies and people read "odds" differently. There are at least three styles:
1 . English: When a bookmaker quotes "2 to 1", it means you get back £3 (incl. your £1 stake) if you win, squander your £1 if you lose.
2 . Decimal: When a bookmaker quotes 3.00, it means the same as above.
3 . American: I understand that a US bookmaker quoting +200 is exactly the same as "2 to 1" or decimal 3.00
A win percentage is easier to understand.


BTW, the fairly high win % for Newsom captures the likelihood that Biden is ripe for a coup by the DNC & the Billionaire class. Ah, US Politics --- there is no business quite like it.

Thanks. I guess I could claim that at least part of the reason that I was confused is that the usage is a little confusing.

But please help me with the other part:

Wherever you got those percentages from, I suppose the source was related to betting. Am I right that if I, say, placed a bet on Biden and won, my return would be determined by the percentages at the close of betting rather than by the percentages when I place my bet? I think (but I am not at all sure), things work that way at the racetrack. I can place a $2 bet on Dobbin, if he wins I get a return based on the percentage of bets that had been placed on Dobbin at the time the betting window closed. My wife Becky, before she met me, dated a guy who went to many races and placed many bets so I could ask her but I would rather ask you.

[shyams]

 kenberg, on 2023-November-23, 07:48, said:

Thanks. I guess I could claim that at least part of the reason that I was confused is that the usage is a little confusing.

But please help me with the other part:

Wherever you got those percentages from, I suppose the source was related to betting. Am I right that if I, say, placed a bet on Biden and won, my return would be determined by the percentages at the close of betting rather than by the percentages when I place my bet? I think (but I am not at all sure), things work that way at the racetrack. I can place a $2 bet on Dobbin, if he wins I get a return based on the percentage of bets that had been placed on Dobbin at the time the betting window closed. My wife Becky, before she met me, dated a guy who went to many races and placed many bets so I could ask her but I would rather ask you.

I think you are visualising a finite pot of money which is aggregated by individuals placing a bet. This pot of money is then distributed to the winners. I read your previous post that seemed to suggest it. To quote from your post # 1059155, "If 25% of the people bet on Biden and you place a dollar bet on Biden, then if Biden wins you get $4, which is the $1 you bet and your $3 profit. Is that much right?"

It may be better to visualise it as a risked pot --- i.e. numerous people place bets with a betting house at differing times and the betting house is managing the pot of funds. At all times the betting house is taking on a risk that some outcomes will result in them losing money from their own pockets. The experts employed by the betting house manage this risk in a variety of ways to ensure that they lose as little as possible on the worst outcome while gaining as much as possible if any other outcome materialises.

When one sees it that way, it is clear that each individual bet placed will get paid off as per odds when they placed the bet, not when the betting window closes. So, in your example if you placed $2 on Dobbin a year ago, the betting house could easily be thinking that Dobbin stands little chance and give you odds of 100 to 1. However, today maybe Dobbin is the new favourite and anyone who places $2 on it will only get odds of 2 to 1.

That you placed a bet when the public knew very little about Dobbin means you gain far more than those placing a bet when more is known about that candidate.

[shyams]

A year ago, in the week or two after DeSantis was reelected Florida Gov with a huge margin, the odds of DeSantis becoming US President in 2024 were almost at 2 to 1. The betting houses were afraid that he was a surefire winner and that betting houses will lose loads when that happens.

Today, all indications are that DeSantis has practically no chance of winning in 2024. Those experts in betting house who decided to wait it out are now almost sure that the DeSantis backers will lose and their betting house will win.

They risked, they will be rewarded for it next year.

[kenberg]

 shyams, on 2023-November-23, 09:13, said:

I think you are visualising a finite pot of money which is aggregated by individuals placing a bet. This pot of money is then distributed to the winners. I read your previous post that seemed to suggest it. To quote from your post # 1059155, "If 25% of the people bet on Biden and you place a dollar bet on Biden, then if Biden wins you get $4, which is the $1 you bet and your $3 profit. Is that much right?"

It may be better to visualise it as a risked pot --- i.e. numerous people place bets with a betting house at differing times and the betting house is managing the pot of funds. At all times the betting house is taking on a risk that some outcomes will result in them losing money from their own pockets. The experts employed by the betting house manage this risk in a variety of ways to ensure that they lose as little as possible on the worst outcome while gaining as much as possible if any other outcome materialises.

When one sees it that way, it is clear that each individual bet placed will get paid off as per odds when they placed the bet, not when the betting window closes. So, in your example if you placed $2 on Dobbin a year ago, the betting house could easily be thinking that Dobbin stands little chance and give you odds of 100 to 1. However, today maybe Dobbin is the new favourite and anyone who places $2 on it will only get odds of 2 to 1.

That you placed a bet when the public knew very little about Dobbin means you gain far more than those placing a bet when more is known about that candidate.

Ok, time to google. Here is an entry from the Brittanica: https://www.britanni.../sports-betting

An excerpt:


For most races (e.g., horses, dogs, camels) and some games (e.g., jai alai), a pari-mutuel wagering system is used. In this system, introduced in the 1860s following the invention of the "totalizator" by Joseph Oller, a calculating machine records the amount bet on each competitor prior to the start of the contest. In horse racing, for example, the "totalizator" calculates the odds, based on the proportion of the total bet on each horse, and determines what should be paid to those who picked the winner. The bookmaker or track owner takes their share by skimming off a percentage of the total amount bet.


This appears to be what I was saying. The amount paid out for picking the winner is determined by what proportion of the bettors placed their bets on the one who won. Maybe it is not totally clear, but I take it as saying that the calculation of what is to be paid out is one calculation, based solely on how many chose that horse at the point when the bidding window closed.
I gather this approach is done sometimes ("most races") but not always.

From Guys and Dolls: Of course it all depends on if it rained last night.

Added thought: Those percentages you gave come from somewhere and perhaps they link to a betting site? If so, the betting site is probably explicit about the rules. If you have links, I could take a look. I am getting the idea that the details vary with the source.

[Winstonm]

post check

[Winstonm]

we are testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.

[pilowsky]

Usually fascists raise concerns about blood poisoning and then storm the Reichstag.
This lot seems to have it backwards.

[pilowsky]

Axios reports that: "Congress erupts after court disqualifies Trump from Colorado ballot."

[Winstonm]

 pilowsky, on 2023-December-19, 19:26, said:

Axios reports that: "Congress erupts after court disqualifies Trump from Colorado ballot."

Axios has it wrong. The GOP is not Congress. The headline should be Republicans throw a hissy fit and cry Wah!

[shyams]

I believe that the disqualification is (at least for now) limited to the GOP Primaries in Colorado. If so, I find it interesting that ...

• The US courts had ruled (some years ago) that the DNC is a private corporation & that courts do not have a right to intervene in how DNC decides on its nominee (incl. how it runs its primaries).
  
• The courts now seem to have ruled that it does have the right to intervene in how the RNC decides on its nominee by interfering in the GOP primaries.

[kenberg]

 shyams, on 2023-December-20, 07:20, said:

I believe that the disqualification is (at least for now) limited to the GOP Primaries in Colorado. If so, I find it interesting that ...

• The US courts had ruled (some years ago) that the DNC is a private corporation & that courts do not have a right to intervene in how DNC decides on its nominee (incl. how it runs its primaries).
• The courts now seem to have ruled that it does have the right to intervene in how the RNC decides on its nominee by interfering in the GOP primaries.

Often I am stunned by how much you and other contributors from outside the US know about our politics. This is in no way a complaint, I welcome your comments. It just seems sometimes that you not only know more about US politics than I know about UK politics but also more than I know about US politics. In this case. I was unaware of the ruling about the DNC that you mentioned.

As to the court's ruling, I doubt it will stand. As to whether it should:

I think I can agree that some people should not be allowed to be on the ballot. I think such a restriction should involve a specific crime that the person has been convicted of.
Axios cites the 14th amendment:

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no one should hold office in the U.S. if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [U.S.], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."


Ok, if Trump is convicted of insurrection or rebellion or of giving aid or comfort to those who do then this prohibits him from holding office and it is at least reasonable to say that if he cannot hold office then he cannot be on the ballot. A 30-year-old is not allowed to be president, so I can imagine that a 30-year-old should not be on the ballot. But we can find legal documentation that the person is not yet 35 when that ruling is made.

I think Trump should be convicted of quite a large number of things. I think he is an awful person, I think he is a menace. But I also think that if he, or anyone, is to be kept off the ballot for engaging in insurrection then this should be because he has been convicted of engaging in insurrection. An indictment is not enough. The guy is a rat, even my conservative friends agree with that. He is scum. But keeping a guy off the ballot needs to be based on being found guilty of something.

[hrothgar]

The Case involving the DNC was issued by a Federal Judge in Florida.
We now have a conflicting ruling coming out of Colorado.

So, up to the Supreme Court it goes.

I'm not sure why one should necessarily believe that the Florida ruling should prevail. (other than the obvious fact that you have a 6-3 Republican majority on the court)

With respect to the Florida ruling, while I agree with the logic that the DNC / RNC are private corporations and should be allowed to do stupid things, there are a bunch of competing considerations, most notably the fact that you want to get this all settled as far in advance of the actual election as possible.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2023-December-20, 09:50, said:

But I also think that if he, or anyone, is to be kept off the ballot for engaging in insurrection then this should be because he has been convicted of engaging in insurrection.

Trump was convicted of engaging in insurrection.
This was a direct finding of the Court in Colorado.

One of the seven judges disagreed (and said so in their dissent)

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2023-December-20, 10:12, said:

Trump was convicted of engaging in insurrection.
This was a direct finding of the Court in Colorado.

One of the seven judges disagreed (and said so in their dissent)

I am not a lawyer or anything close to a lawyer. However.
If I were convicted of insurrection I expect that the consequences would be more severe than telling me that I could not run for president. As they should be.
My guess is that the insurrection under discussion is federal insurrection and I further guess that a conviction for insurrection would lead to a very substantial jail term.
As I say, I am also guessing that this ruling will not stand. As much as I think Trump belongs in jail, I can see why this particular ruling might not hold.

We shall see.

[shyams]

 kenberg, on 2023-December-20, 09:50, said:

Often I am stunned by how much you and other contributors from outside the US know about our politics. This is in no way a complaint, I welcome your comments. It just seems sometimes that you not only know more about US politics than I know about UK politics but also more than I know about US politics. In this case. I was unaware of the ruling about the DNC that you mentioned.

This happened in the 2016 Primaries where the DNC rigged the primaries in favour of the better candidate i.e. President Hillary Clinton --- while denying the (ostentibly) more popular candidate --- Senator Bernie Sanders. (We ought to call her President because, but for the "deplorables" voting against her, she would have deservedly become President)

https://observer.com...ers-supporters/

The above article covers some of the proceedings from that hearing. I don't readily have the press article covering the ruling but I am sure that the Federal judge ruled that DNC had the right to rig the primaries in President Hillary's favour.

[shyams]

 hrothgar, on 2023-December-20, 10:12, said:

Trump was convicted of engaging in insurrection.

Trump has not been convicted of engaging in insurrection.

I am quite sure that Trump has not even been indicted for Insurrection. Jack Smith declined to press any charges under that statute.

[hrothgar]

 shyams, on 2023-December-20, 11:48, said:

Trump has not been convicted of engaging in insurrection.

I am quite sure that Trump has not even been indicted for Insurrection. Jack Smith declined to press any charges under that statute.

How nice for. You're fill of shiite, but its good that you have the courage of your convictions
(pun intended)

[hrothgar]

 shyams, on 2023-December-20, 11:48, said:

Trump has not been convicted of engaging in insurrection.

I am quite sure that Trump has not even been indicted for Insurrection. Jack Smith declined to press any charges under that statute.

FWIW the expression "convicted" is defined as "having been declared guilty of a criminal offense by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge"

Guilty is defined as "culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing"

Griswold versus Anderson clear states:

"We have little difficulty concluding that substantial evidence in the record supported each of these elements and that, as the district court found, the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection."

Note that both this case and the district court found that Trump engaged in an insurrection.

This particular case goes into a whole lot of detail regarding why this is so...