Lots of action in the VP market since my last post, a really good VP nugget and a terrific little little PPH find/exploit dealing with the lottery. Let's dive right in.
In my last post I detailed my case against Kamala Harris as VP. A few days after that Politico came out with an article basically saying that Kamala Harris was in the lead in the betting markets and that Biden had started the vetting process with her. None of this was news but nonetheless she got a big bump that day on Predict It, going from 28% to 38%. She slowly slid from there to 32% until Biden made his "you aint black" statement, which put her up to 34% currently. Klobuchar has been in second place. Her price dropped to 16% the day of the article and has drifted up to 20% currently.
After Biden's latest gaffe ("if you don't know if you're for me or from Trump then you ain't black"), I'm a lot less optimistic about Klobuchars chances. I think that the DNC was already afraid of alienating their minority base if they rolled out two old white people again - now with this latest comment I just don't see them picking a white woman from Minnesota who polls terribly among black voters. Of course, the other school of thought is that the left is so gung-ho against Trump that they'll vote Dem no matter what, and they should go with the midwestern white governor to capture undecided voters.
Even thought I think it'll be a terrible pick, I'm starting to think it will be Harris. Not just because of Biden's latest gaffe, but there's another really interesting reason. My little nugget for the day: Wikipedia. You can actually track politicians pages and see how often they get edited and by whom. In the run up to Tim Kaines VP announcement in 2016, his wikipedia page had a crazy amount of edits - way more than anytime previously and way more than the other people in the running. Well someone has looked into the wikipedia edits of the people in the running this time, and Kamala Harris has a lot more than anyone else. I don't want to post the link with the actual numbers but if you dig hard enough you can find it. It's like more than 4 times the edits as anyone else. And the person doing the editing seems to be a Biden staffer or at least connected to him in someway. Personally I think this is a pretty big find. I generally think that all public info is already imbedded into an efficient markets price, and I guess this wikipedia edit info is technically public information, but how many traders in this market do you think actually know that? That Tim Kaines wikipedia page was edited furiously in the lead up to his announcement, and now Harris's page is undergoing the same thing? I don't know the number and I could be wrong of course, but I wouldn't bet on more than half. So is it really factored into the line? Honestly I don't know. But I do know one thing; if Biden does end up picking Harris, then we can really look into this wikipedia edit thing as a leading indicator of all kinds of changes.
I still think the vetting process is going to be tough on Harris and all the things I said about her in my last post still apply. There is a LOT for Trump to go after if Biden picks Harris, but the sad thing is is that none of that may matter. The twitter/online mob seems to be fully behind Harris and there have been more than a few articles out since Bidens latest gaffe saying now his pick MUST be a black woman. It is starting to feel like Harris is squarely in the lead now. Not just because she's ahead in betting markets but in the media and everywhere online, too.
I got in on Harris at +175 risking 1.5 units the day of the Politico article, which is about break-even right now. That was the best I could get, now the only Harris I could find is +125 which is obviously way too low. I'll post a full update on everything I have in this market but it's basically the same: if it's Klobuchar or Warren I win a bunch, if it's Whitmer (which it won't be) I win a little, if it's Harris I lose a little, if it's Abrams, Baldwin or Grishman I lose about half of my total investment in this market, and anyone else I lose it all. I have almost the exact same amount at risk in this market as I have to win if/when Biden is officially named the nominee so in some sense it's a free roll. I'll continue to watch and be ready to pounce on the +125 if her prices shoots up again but like I said before, I'm basically standing pat here. Definitely learned some lessons in this market that I'll get into after the election.
Since my last post the betting opportunities available to me have slowly but surely dwindled down. That's why there hasn't been a post in a while; not much to post about. Really looking forward to sports starting back up again.
I had a good week on one account doing horse matchup arbs so that got shut off. Same with video game arbs at two places, and I got the stock sections shut down on another account. This is generally what happens; you find a good exploit, hit it hard for a couple weeks or months if you're lucky, it gets shut down (or you do) and you find another market or account and start it over again. However, this time I found something quite niche and something I've never even looked at before; the lottery.
One of my accounts offers bets on a local lottery drawing. It's really small and I've never seen it anywhere else so I don't mind explaining it. It's simple; they draw 5 balls from a pool of balls numbered 1 through 39. The bet offered is if the lowest number ball pulled will be over or under 5.5. Under is even odds. Well it doesn't take a math genius to figure this one out. The odds of any ball being 1-5 are 12.8%. Multiply that times 5 (since they pull 5 times) and you get 64%. I'm getting it at even odds! And it's actually even better than that since whatever ball they pull can't be pulled again. So as non 1-5 balls get pulled, the odds of a 1-5 ball coming through increase. That means my odds are even better than 64%. This is a huge edge and it's almost every day. I'm sure this too will get shut off fairly soon but it's nice in the meantime. This is the kind of stuff that I just love.
That's it for now. I found something that will let people sign up to get e-mails whenever I make a new post that I'll have ready for next time. Other than that have a good long weekend everyone, stay safe and check back soon!
Sunday, May 24, 2020
Wednesday, May 6, 2020
Political Look Around, Stocks, And VP Deep Dive
Sorry for the delay with this post. I've been planning on and half-writing a really long and in-depth post about Biden and the Tara Reade stuff and how awful and hypocritical the Democrats and their base have been but I just can't bring myself to do it. We are saturated with political blogs and news commentary already and everyone has their own opinion that they just have to share. Do I really want to pile on and scream 'HEY HERE IS WHAT I THINK' into this void? If you follow the news you know the same thing as everyone else and no one changes their minds about anything anymore, so I'm going to keep a pretty strict focus on here to talk politics only as it pertains to betting markets.
We'll get into a couple political markets today and do a DEEP dive into the VP market, but first let's get an updated unit count on everything (couple primary bets settled).
Two primary/caucus bets settled from way back in my first post: Wyoming and Ohio. I had Biden for one and 'anyone but Bernie' for the other which both won obviously for a pick up of 6.7 units. So adding those in overall on the blog I'm up 25.78 units. 19.68 in politics, 1.53 in stocks, 6.07 for the NFL draft, and down 1.5 units in Tom Brady futures. Not bad. Politics has been my bread and butter since I started this a few months ago, but the draft was really good too. Breaking even between stocks and the Brady bets isn't ideal considering how juicy those stock arbs and middles were though.
Looking back, I think that there is definitely room for improvement on my end and to be honest, more so than I would have thought had I not done this blog. Going over my positions like this in hindsight with such detail isn't something I've ever really done before and I think it'll help me moving forward.
I could certainly be a little bit slower and more methodical in my approach. I'm so used to chasing steam and picking off rogue numbers where you have to be SO fast. A literal one second hesitation can be the difference between getting an amazing +EV bet and a bad, widely available -EV bet.
I remember one time when I was really hammering away on an NFL Sunday morning and picked off what I thought was a pretty good off market number on the Jets. The market was all even 3's and one of my random accounts had the Jets at -2.5 -110. So I unloaded on it with the intention of buying back some +3 for the half-middle/arb (I remember the game had a super low total too, as all those Rex Ryan-awful-offense-elite-defense-teams always had). But then I heard my coffee was ready in the kitchen. The entire market was at an even 3 and not moving so it wasn't like there was a mad rush to bet the +3 and finish the arb. And I wanted my coffee! So I went into the kitchen, made myself a nice cup and come back to the screen going all completely red for the Jets game, meaning every book/the entire market was moving! I tried with all my accounts but the 3's were gone. The market was now at 2.5/2 and I had to lock in some loss betting the other side (I probably took the ML and the heart-attack polish middle to be honest).
Ever since then I've always had a pretty hard and fast rule; never leave the computer without finishing off a position. It's a good rule to have overall but you can add some caveats: it depends on the market and matters proportionally with the duration of the ticket. So if you're betting on a game that starts in an hour or less, you better just pull off any arbs or middles at the same time or at least don't leave your battle-station before you close everything. But if you're betting political futures which don't settle for 6 months, obviously it doesn't apply (as much). But you are taking a risk whenever you leave a big position open. I do keep open positions always on the top (front?) of my mind - almost like leaving browser tabs open. If I have any big positions open, sort of like how I was loaded up on Biden/Democrat to win overall but I always planned on buying back close to (if not more than) all of it on Trump, I'll keep that in my mind all the time until I close it. I'll be looking for any news that might affect it, good or bad, and trade accordingly.
Anyway, as I was saying I'm used to firing quickly and moving on and it's served me well. But with politics and even the draft, I have days and days to make these bets - sometimes longer. So maybe I should slow down a bit and do more analysis. It's not like there's a whole lot of competition in these markets right now anyway.
The most action I've been getting down on day to day these past few weeks though has been betting on the stock market. Three of my accounts now are putting up markets for where the Dow and S&P will close for a given day and predictably it's been like taking candy from a baby. (Another awesome analogy by the way. Back in the day some asshole must have swiped some candy from a baby and been like 'holy shit I can't believe how EASY that was!') All you have to do is watch the markets in real time and pounce when there's a big move. The only limiting factor is the tiny limits but with three accounts dealing it and one account taking decent amounts, I'm able to get enough down to be worth it. I can't post the bets here since they happen so fast and would be useless, but maybe I'll pick a week and post every bet every night. The usual bet is "where will Dow or S&P close at the end of day tomorrow" but sometimes they pick a date further out. Generally I've been ending up with overs every night with a quarter or half hedge on the under if the spread is big enough. I haven't hit a middle yet but I'm up overall a good chunk. You can see how the Dow and S&P have been steadily climbing since the end of March. I'll try to come up with a way to post my bets as I make them to get them counted on here.
Ok so let's get into politics. Real quick summary of recent news to get everyone up to speed:
-Democrats, and to a larger extent the media, dug themselves an enormous Stacey Abrams sized hole, viciously going after Brett Kavanaugh and tying themselves into the absolutely absurd premise that baseless accusations should automatically and instantly be "believed" if the accuser is a woman and the accused is a man.
-Predictably this has backfired tremendously as Biden has been accused of a credible sexual assault by a former staffer and now the media/democrats have to make a choice. Double down on 'believe all women', not just when the accused is someone you happen to disagree with politically, or admit they have no principles whatsoever and the whole Kavanaugh thing was nothing but a farce and a dirty political maneuver with only one motive; hurt Trump and the Republicans in any way possible. (As much as I can't stand Alexandria Cortez (AOC), she was one of the only notable leftists that I saw who didn't throw the entire MeToo movement under the bus with her statements. As much as it scares me I could see AOC running for president in 8 or 12 years.)
-Now Trump and the Republicans have all kinds of new ammo to use in attack ads in the upcoming months. Simply putting up statements made by Biden and other notable Democrats (including maybe his VP...remember how vicious Kamala was?) from the Kavanaugh hearing/fiasco and then statements made about the Tara Reade allegation side by side is (presumably) going to look really bad for Dems.
Now the only question that matters for our purposes; how does all this effect the betting markets? Well let's check in.
Biden is at 79% to win the nomination right now which hasn't moved much since the beginning of March. He topped out at 90% on March 20th and bottomed out at 76% on March 29th. Tara Reade has been trying to tell her story since the 90s, but it first went public on March 25th on a podcast. It took until April 12th for really anyone in the mainstream media to pick it up when the New York Times finally published an in-depth investigation into her claims. The NYT article pushed Biden all the way from 87% on April 8th to.... get ready for it... 82% on April 12th/13th. And then all the way back up to 86% before sliding slowly since then and settling in at around 80%. So not much change really. The biggest surprise in this market for me is Hilary Clinton currently sitting in second place at 11%. Either really dumb money or really smart money there I think.
I've been reading quite a few articles lately about how 'Biden to win the nomination' at 80% is actually one of the best bets on PredictIt you can find right now. The logic is basically that this is over and the only way anyone but Biden becomes the nominee is if he dies or gets 'MeToo'd' to death and is forced to step down. They think that this number should really be like 97, 98% and the only reason it isn't is that the PredictIt.com's user base skews more towards young republican males. It doesn't matter a whole lot to me either way since I'm maxed out on Biden to win the nomination already at around -130 with 13ish units, plus none of my books even offer this market anymore. But it did get me thinking about PredictIt.com in general and if their prices aren't as efficient as I initially thought. It is true that the average person with an active predictit account is quite different than the average US citizen (or more precisely, the average voter). I listened to a podcast with the guy who started and still runs PredictIt and they got into what the typical user looks like. Just as you'd suspect, it skews heavily towards youngish males, white, affluent and republican. So this is something I'll have to keep in mind going forward. To be safe, I should probably penalize all Trump/republican prices on there a small amount and maybe give a slight bump to left-leaning stuff. Probably just penalize though.
There's a fairly bizarre price discrepancy on there right now as well, also dealing with Biden's chance to win (and also dealing a blow to my PI efficient market theory). For the market 'which party wins the election', they have Democrats at 54% and Republicans at 50%. Which makes little sense on its own since why would anyone buy Dems to win at 54 if you can buy Republicans NOT to win at 51. But to complicate things further, for the market 'who wins the election', they have Trump at 49% and Biden only at 43%. This is obviously pricing in the fact that there is a non zero chance that Biden drops out and Dems still win, but doesn't that seem too wide of a discrepancy? I mean the election is like 6 months away. So I think there is still some value to be had betting on Biden but only if you want to tie up money for 6 months betting at bridge jumper prices.
And now for the main course. The market I've been watching the closest and feel like I have the best insight into: the Democrat VP market! Here's where we are currently:
Kamala Harris: 28%
Amy Klobuchar: 22%
Liz Warren: 15%
Cortez Masto: 8%
Abrams/M. Obama/Whitmer: 7%
A while back I referenced an article that I thought was really good that mentioned there was a shortlist of about 12 women with the top three being Harris, Klobuchar and Liz Warren and we see that coming to fruition here. My instincts about Whitmer being a flash in the pan seems to have been right - too bad I didn't listen to myself and got it in bad with her. I did good though on jumping on Klob-bot and Warren early (the Warren prices especially were quite good. +2000!)
As has been the case all along here, my biggest exposure (aside from a complete unknown winning) is a Kamala Harris win. But here's what I think: the next step for the Biden campaign will be an intense background check and vetting process for his shortlist/top 3, and I think they'll uncover some shady stuff about Harris. At least shady or controversial enough to keep her off the ballot and out of Trump's cross hairs. There just seems to be too much smoke with her for there not to be any fires. And in today's polarized political climate where the mainstream media is so obviously left-leaning, especially when it comes to anything to do with defeating Trump, I don't think she or any prominent Democrat has had to worry all that much about being deeply investigated and attacked in the news. Just look at the coverage surrounding Brett Kavanaugh as opposed to the Biden/Reade stuff. Biden did over 10 interviews since her allegation before any reporter even brought it up! But obviously Trump and his campaign will be looking for everything and anything to attack, so I just can't see Biden leaving himself open to such obvious and easy attacks. In short, I think that the anti-Trump bias that the mainstream media very obviously has has left a gap in media-coverage for democrats shady (but not outright illegal) behavior that Trump will pounce on.
I mean, just google Kamala Harris and read for 10 minutes. In 2010 as DA for San Fransisco, she withheld information about a police lab tech who had been accused of intentionally sabotaging her work and stealing drugs. Harris knew about it and did nothing. A judge 'condemned her indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants constitutional rights'. Harris THEN contested the ruling, lost, and more than 600 cases were thrown out.
As AG, she appealed a judges order that the death penalty was unconstitutional by making 'the bizarre argument that "the decision undermines important protections that our courts provide to defendants" (The approximately 740 men and woman waiting execution in CA might disagree)' - NYT 1/7/19.
She flip flopped on recreational marijuana. She opposed a bill requiring her office to investigate officer related shootings. She refused statewide standards for police body cams. She has a downright abysmal record in wrongful conviction cases (just google Kevin Cooper) and has repeatedly fought tooth and nail to do anything and everything in her power to keep very clearly innocent people locked up.
And then there was her disaster of a presidential campaign. That it was an abject failure seems to be one of the only things that everyone, left or right, agrees with. For starters, she had her sister run the campaign which you know is just never a good idea. Juan Rodriguez was the official campaign manager, but the scoop seems to be that he was badly handcuffed by the sister who had to approve everything. Here's an excerpt from a Politco article. Does this sound like someone who would make a good VP?
“It’s a campaign of id,” said one senior Harris official, laying much of the blame on Rodriguez, but also pointing to a leaderless structure at the top that’s been allowed to flail without accountability. “What feels right, what impulse you have right now, what emotion, what frustration,” the official added. The person described the current state of the campaign in blunt terms: “No discipline. No plan. No strategy.”
She received over 600k in "donations" to her DA campaign, 'violating campaign finance law and incurring the largest fine for such an offense in the city's history.' -Medium, 2/26/19.
From the same article: Kamala accepted two appointments from Willie Brown to high-paying, part-time state boards — including one she had no training for — while being paid $100,000-year as a full-time county employee.
Brown was known to reward friends and allies. He gave Harris a brand-new BMW and also appointed her to two commissions in state government where, according to SF Weekly, she was paid $400,000 over five years. One of the positions, an appointment to the California Medical Assistance Commission, paid a $99,000 annual salary for attending two meetings a month.
She let high-profile criminals get away with murder, literally.
She covered for Catholic pedophiles and rapist cops.
She was one of the country's most aggressive proponents of civil asset forfeiture and successfully opposed a bill to reform civil asset forfeiture in 2011 and even sponsored a bill to expand it in 2015.
According to the LA Times: “A 2010 report by the Northern California Innocence Project cited 707 cases in which state courts found prosecutorial misconduct over 11 years. Only six of the prosecutors were disciplined, and the courts upheld 80% of the convictions in spite of the improprieties, the study found.”
Read that again. 707 cases had prosecutorial misconduct. 6 prosecutors were disciplined and 80% of the convictions were upheld.
Honestly I could go on and on and on (and on). This was literally 20 minutes of whats publicly out there on google from media who despise her political rivals, and it's only a snippet of that. Just this stuff alone I think is damaging enough, but imagine what the Trump campaign can find with months of intense digging (and then spin).
So I feel confident that it won't be Kamala Harris as VP. I think Biden will make a show out of considering and vetting her and maybe Stacey Abrams to pander to black voters, but ultimately won't pick her. That leaves Klobuchar as the favorite and Liz Warren close behind. Either of them and I win a bunch so I'm basically standing pat here. Not that I have much of a choice being maxed out mostly, but some of my accounts still have this market up and I have a little bit of room left on some so I may take nibbles here and there. I don't consider anyone else to be a serious threat and I'm covered with Whitmer anyway so I'm pretty much all set here.
For me day to day gambling has been light but steady. I'm getting lots of juicy video game arbs but with tiny limits. Same with horse racing matchups which have been surprisingly tasty, and of course the stock market stuff. My volume is obviously way down but my ROI has been over twice as good as it normally is. All in all I'm clicking right along, doing whatever I can to find that EV. I have some more political bets with the House and Senate I'll get into on my next post.
As always, thanks for reading and check back again soon!
We'll get into a couple political markets today and do a DEEP dive into the VP market, but first let's get an updated unit count on everything (couple primary bets settled).
Two primary/caucus bets settled from way back in my first post: Wyoming and Ohio. I had Biden for one and 'anyone but Bernie' for the other which both won obviously for a pick up of 6.7 units. So adding those in overall on the blog I'm up 25.78 units. 19.68 in politics, 1.53 in stocks, 6.07 for the NFL draft, and down 1.5 units in Tom Brady futures. Not bad. Politics has been my bread and butter since I started this a few months ago, but the draft was really good too. Breaking even between stocks and the Brady bets isn't ideal considering how juicy those stock arbs and middles were though.
Looking back, I think that there is definitely room for improvement on my end and to be honest, more so than I would have thought had I not done this blog. Going over my positions like this in hindsight with such detail isn't something I've ever really done before and I think it'll help me moving forward.
I could certainly be a little bit slower and more methodical in my approach. I'm so used to chasing steam and picking off rogue numbers where you have to be SO fast. A literal one second hesitation can be the difference between getting an amazing +EV bet and a bad, widely available -EV bet.
I remember one time when I was really hammering away on an NFL Sunday morning and picked off what I thought was a pretty good off market number on the Jets. The market was all even 3's and one of my random accounts had the Jets at -2.5 -110. So I unloaded on it with the intention of buying back some +3 for the half-middle/arb (I remember the game had a super low total too, as all those Rex Ryan-awful-offense-elite-defense-teams always had). But then I heard my coffee was ready in the kitchen. The entire market was at an even 3 and not moving so it wasn't like there was a mad rush to bet the +3 and finish the arb. And I wanted my coffee! So I went into the kitchen, made myself a nice cup and come back to the screen going all completely red for the Jets game, meaning every book/the entire market was moving! I tried with all my accounts but the 3's were gone. The market was now at 2.5/2 and I had to lock in some loss betting the other side (I probably took the ML and the heart-attack polish middle to be honest).
Ever since then I've always had a pretty hard and fast rule; never leave the computer without finishing off a position. It's a good rule to have overall but you can add some caveats: it depends on the market and matters proportionally with the duration of the ticket. So if you're betting on a game that starts in an hour or less, you better just pull off any arbs or middles at the same time or at least don't leave your battle-station before you close everything. But if you're betting political futures which don't settle for 6 months, obviously it doesn't apply (as much). But you are taking a risk whenever you leave a big position open. I do keep open positions always on the top (front?) of my mind - almost like leaving browser tabs open. If I have any big positions open, sort of like how I was loaded up on Biden/Democrat to win overall but I always planned on buying back close to (if not more than) all of it on Trump, I'll keep that in my mind all the time until I close it. I'll be looking for any news that might affect it, good or bad, and trade accordingly.
Anyway, as I was saying I'm used to firing quickly and moving on and it's served me well. But with politics and even the draft, I have days and days to make these bets - sometimes longer. So maybe I should slow down a bit and do more analysis. It's not like there's a whole lot of competition in these markets right now anyway.
The most action I've been getting down on day to day these past few weeks though has been betting on the stock market. Three of my accounts now are putting up markets for where the Dow and S&P will close for a given day and predictably it's been like taking candy from a baby. (Another awesome analogy by the way. Back in the day some asshole must have swiped some candy from a baby and been like 'holy shit I can't believe how EASY that was!') All you have to do is watch the markets in real time and pounce when there's a big move. The only limiting factor is the tiny limits but with three accounts dealing it and one account taking decent amounts, I'm able to get enough down to be worth it. I can't post the bets here since they happen so fast and would be useless, but maybe I'll pick a week and post every bet every night. The usual bet is "where will Dow or S&P close at the end of day tomorrow" but sometimes they pick a date further out. Generally I've been ending up with overs every night with a quarter or half hedge on the under if the spread is big enough. I haven't hit a middle yet but I'm up overall a good chunk. You can see how the Dow and S&P have been steadily climbing since the end of March. I'll try to come up with a way to post my bets as I make them to get them counted on here.
Ok so let's get into politics. Real quick summary of recent news to get everyone up to speed:
-Democrats, and to a larger extent the media, dug themselves an enormous Stacey Abrams sized hole, viciously going after Brett Kavanaugh and tying themselves into the absolutely absurd premise that baseless accusations should automatically and instantly be "believed" if the accuser is a woman and the accused is a man.
-Predictably this has backfired tremendously as Biden has been accused of a credible sexual assault by a former staffer and now the media/democrats have to make a choice. Double down on 'believe all women', not just when the accused is someone you happen to disagree with politically, or admit they have no principles whatsoever and the whole Kavanaugh thing was nothing but a farce and a dirty political maneuver with only one motive; hurt Trump and the Republicans in any way possible. (As much as I can't stand Alexandria Cortez (AOC), she was one of the only notable leftists that I saw who didn't throw the entire MeToo movement under the bus with her statements. As much as it scares me I could see AOC running for president in 8 or 12 years.)
-Now Trump and the Republicans have all kinds of new ammo to use in attack ads in the upcoming months. Simply putting up statements made by Biden and other notable Democrats (including maybe his VP...remember how vicious Kamala was?) from the Kavanaugh hearing/fiasco and then statements made about the Tara Reade allegation side by side is (presumably) going to look really bad for Dems.
Now the only question that matters for our purposes; how does all this effect the betting markets? Well let's check in.
Biden is at 79% to win the nomination right now which hasn't moved much since the beginning of March. He topped out at 90% on March 20th and bottomed out at 76% on March 29th. Tara Reade has been trying to tell her story since the 90s, but it first went public on March 25th on a podcast. It took until April 12th for really anyone in the mainstream media to pick it up when the New York Times finally published an in-depth investigation into her claims. The NYT article pushed Biden all the way from 87% on April 8th to.... get ready for it... 82% on April 12th/13th. And then all the way back up to 86% before sliding slowly since then and settling in at around 80%. So not much change really. The biggest surprise in this market for me is Hilary Clinton currently sitting in second place at 11%. Either really dumb money or really smart money there I think.
I've been reading quite a few articles lately about how 'Biden to win the nomination' at 80% is actually one of the best bets on PredictIt you can find right now. The logic is basically that this is over and the only way anyone but Biden becomes the nominee is if he dies or gets 'MeToo'd' to death and is forced to step down. They think that this number should really be like 97, 98% and the only reason it isn't is that the PredictIt.com's user base skews more towards young republican males. It doesn't matter a whole lot to me either way since I'm maxed out on Biden to win the nomination already at around -130 with 13ish units, plus none of my books even offer this market anymore. But it did get me thinking about PredictIt.com in general and if their prices aren't as efficient as I initially thought. It is true that the average person with an active predictit account is quite different than the average US citizen (or more precisely, the average voter). I listened to a podcast with the guy who started and still runs PredictIt and they got into what the typical user looks like. Just as you'd suspect, it skews heavily towards youngish males, white, affluent and republican. So this is something I'll have to keep in mind going forward. To be safe, I should probably penalize all Trump/republican prices on there a small amount and maybe give a slight bump to left-leaning stuff. Probably just penalize though.
There's a fairly bizarre price discrepancy on there right now as well, also dealing with Biden's chance to win (and also dealing a blow to my PI efficient market theory). For the market 'which party wins the election', they have Democrats at 54% and Republicans at 50%. Which makes little sense on its own since why would anyone buy Dems to win at 54 if you can buy Republicans NOT to win at 51. But to complicate things further, for the market 'who wins the election', they have Trump at 49% and Biden only at 43%. This is obviously pricing in the fact that there is a non zero chance that Biden drops out and Dems still win, but doesn't that seem too wide of a discrepancy? I mean the election is like 6 months away. So I think there is still some value to be had betting on Biden but only if you want to tie up money for 6 months betting at bridge jumper prices.
And now for the main course. The market I've been watching the closest and feel like I have the best insight into: the Democrat VP market! Here's where we are currently:
Kamala Harris: 28%
Amy Klobuchar: 22%
Liz Warren: 15%
Cortez Masto: 8%
Abrams/M. Obama/Whitmer: 7%
A while back I referenced an article that I thought was really good that mentioned there was a shortlist of about 12 women with the top three being Harris, Klobuchar and Liz Warren and we see that coming to fruition here. My instincts about Whitmer being a flash in the pan seems to have been right - too bad I didn't listen to myself and got it in bad with her. I did good though on jumping on Klob-bot and Warren early (the Warren prices especially were quite good. +2000!)
As has been the case all along here, my biggest exposure (aside from a complete unknown winning) is a Kamala Harris win. But here's what I think: the next step for the Biden campaign will be an intense background check and vetting process for his shortlist/top 3, and I think they'll uncover some shady stuff about Harris. At least shady or controversial enough to keep her off the ballot and out of Trump's cross hairs. There just seems to be too much smoke with her for there not to be any fires. And in today's polarized political climate where the mainstream media is so obviously left-leaning, especially when it comes to anything to do with defeating Trump, I don't think she or any prominent Democrat has had to worry all that much about being deeply investigated and attacked in the news. Just look at the coverage surrounding Brett Kavanaugh as opposed to the Biden/Reade stuff. Biden did over 10 interviews since her allegation before any reporter even brought it up! But obviously Trump and his campaign will be looking for everything and anything to attack, so I just can't see Biden leaving himself open to such obvious and easy attacks. In short, I think that the anti-Trump bias that the mainstream media very obviously has has left a gap in media-coverage for democrats shady (but not outright illegal) behavior that Trump will pounce on.
I mean, just google Kamala Harris and read for 10 minutes. In 2010 as DA for San Fransisco, she withheld information about a police lab tech who had been accused of intentionally sabotaging her work and stealing drugs. Harris knew about it and did nothing. A judge 'condemned her indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants constitutional rights'. Harris THEN contested the ruling, lost, and more than 600 cases were thrown out.
As AG, she appealed a judges order that the death penalty was unconstitutional by making 'the bizarre argument that "the decision undermines important protections that our courts provide to defendants" (The approximately 740 men and woman waiting execution in CA might disagree)' - NYT 1/7/19.
She flip flopped on recreational marijuana. She opposed a bill requiring her office to investigate officer related shootings. She refused statewide standards for police body cams. She has a downright abysmal record in wrongful conviction cases (just google Kevin Cooper) and has repeatedly fought tooth and nail to do anything and everything in her power to keep very clearly innocent people locked up.
And then there was her disaster of a presidential campaign. That it was an abject failure seems to be one of the only things that everyone, left or right, agrees with. For starters, she had her sister run the campaign which you know is just never a good idea. Juan Rodriguez was the official campaign manager, but the scoop seems to be that he was badly handcuffed by the sister who had to approve everything. Here's an excerpt from a Politco article. Does this sound like someone who would make a good VP?
“It’s a campaign of id,” said one senior Harris official, laying much of the blame on Rodriguez, but also pointing to a leaderless structure at the top that’s been allowed to flail without accountability. “What feels right, what impulse you have right now, what emotion, what frustration,” the official added. The person described the current state of the campaign in blunt terms: “No discipline. No plan. No strategy.”
She received over 600k in "donations" to her DA campaign, 'violating campaign finance law and incurring the largest fine for such an offense in the city's history.' -Medium, 2/26/19.
From the same article: Kamala accepted two appointments from Willie Brown to high-paying, part-time state boards — including one she had no training for — while being paid $100,000-year as a full-time county employee.
Brown was known to reward friends and allies. He gave Harris a brand-new BMW and also appointed her to two commissions in state government where, according to SF Weekly, she was paid $400,000 over five years. One of the positions, an appointment to the California Medical Assistance Commission, paid a $99,000 annual salary for attending two meetings a month.
She let high-profile criminals get away with murder, literally.
She covered for Catholic pedophiles and rapist cops.
She was one of the country's most aggressive proponents of civil asset forfeiture and successfully opposed a bill to reform civil asset forfeiture in 2011 and even sponsored a bill to expand it in 2015.
According to the LA Times: “A 2010 report by the Northern California Innocence Project cited 707 cases in which state courts found prosecutorial misconduct over 11 years. Only six of the prosecutors were disciplined, and the courts upheld 80% of the convictions in spite of the improprieties, the study found.”
Read that again. 707 cases had prosecutorial misconduct. 6 prosecutors were disciplined and 80% of the convictions were upheld.
Honestly I could go on and on and on (and on). This was literally 20 minutes of whats publicly out there on google from media who despise her political rivals, and it's only a snippet of that. Just this stuff alone I think is damaging enough, but imagine what the Trump campaign can find with months of intense digging (and then spin).
So I feel confident that it won't be Kamala Harris as VP. I think Biden will make a show out of considering and vetting her and maybe Stacey Abrams to pander to black voters, but ultimately won't pick her. That leaves Klobuchar as the favorite and Liz Warren close behind. Either of them and I win a bunch so I'm basically standing pat here. Not that I have much of a choice being maxed out mostly, but some of my accounts still have this market up and I have a little bit of room left on some so I may take nibbles here and there. I don't consider anyone else to be a serious threat and I'm covered with Whitmer anyway so I'm pretty much all set here.
For me day to day gambling has been light but steady. I'm getting lots of juicy video game arbs but with tiny limits. Same with horse racing matchups which have been surprisingly tasty, and of course the stock market stuff. My volume is obviously way down but my ROI has been over twice as good as it normally is. All in all I'm clicking right along, doing whatever I can to find that EV. I have some more political bets with the House and Senate I'll get into on my next post.
As always, thanks for reading and check back again soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)