Political Wrap-Up, Year In Review And CRYPTO CURRENCY DEEP DIVE

Long-time no see, huh. I didn't mean to take such a long break, there just wasn't a whole lot to talk about really. Politics was bananas obviously but by the time I wrote my last post I was well passed tapped out credit-wise and was just waiting for all my bets to settle. The last political bet FINALLY settled a few weeks ago so I can say that the 2020 political betting season is officially in the rear-view.

So what can we take away from it? I've been thinking about this for a little while and to be totally honest...I don't think we can take away all that much. It was as simple as using PredictIt as the 'true line' and betting things that were far enough off to be +EV. The only real skill in this, I suppose, is having access to these accounts that have these ridiculous price discrepancies. As well as actually getting paid and staying at them/finding more. I could write forever about trying to time the market and mining comment sections and analyzing (the right) polls (the second they come out), and there are absolutely guys out there doing that and making a living, but honestly for the most part, I just looked for price differences and clicked the buttons (except for the VP race. I feel like I was pretty spot on there and made plenty of market price bets that were +EV imo).

Nuts and bolts wise, I made just under 26 units in about 10 months of political betting. I made most of my profits early by betting on states and nominations. From February to March I had only one losing week. Some of the early numbers I was getting were eye-popping, some of the biggest discrepancies I've seen in my entire life, and Ive been bashing PPH's for almost 15 years now. The wins weren't huge with the small limits and small amount of places to play, but they were consistent, easy and added up. I had another nice 10 unit jolt in August around the time of the VP announcement, and pretty much broke even after that in the overall presidential race. Even with having some bets deleted and losing a couple accounts, it was definitely worth it. My only regrets are being a little gun shy at the start (I literally couldn't believe what I was seeing at certain points) and probably over-hedging/spraying. Especially in the VP race. I would have liked to get way more volume down, too. My ROI was absurd but the unit count should be higher. Next time I'll be better prepared before it all starts.

Overall 2020 was a strange year betting-wise. I had the highest ROI year of my life but the volume was way down. Other than NHL shots on goal and the 2020 super bowl, I didn't do much in the way of props this year. Politics and stock market bets covered some of the missed volume, but not all of it. I ended up down money on straight bets which is extremely confusing since all I do is bet off market stuff (and hedge teasers which I made money on so that kind of evens out). Every week during the NFL it seemed I was finding unreal numbers and setting up huge middles which just basically never hit (I remember hitting exactly one clean). I had an UNREAL position on the Superbowl. One of my books put up KC -1.5 even and ML -145 when the market was all 3 and 3.5. So I maxed out KC (for almost 5 figures - it wasn't a rinky dink little book) and bought most of it back on TB +3 and some 3.5 (and even a little bit of +4). So if KC won by exactly 2 or 3, which should happen between 10 and 15 percent of the time, I'd win both. Obviously that didn't happen but those are the exact kind of spots I was generating all year. I ended up having a great 2021 super bowl by absolutely crushing props, especially my all time favorite props to bet; cross sport props. Actually, making the cross sport bets got me to dust off my NBA player prop model which I re-discovered was actually quite good. I kinda forgot how good that model is. I've since updated it a little bit and have been using it with great success the past couple weeks on NBA. I'll probably have a post later on going into more detail about that specifically, but I really want to talk about something else.... Crypto currency.

'Yea yea' you might be saying...'bitcoin...we get it. You're about 6 years too late.' Yes, obviously it would have been better to get in when it was under 10k, but I think it still has a looooong way to go.

 I'm going to explain what I know about crypto, ask some questions that maybe people in the comments can answer, and lay out my theory on what it is and where it's going.

So first off let me just say that obviously I am no computer/crytpo expert. Far from it. But I have researched it quite extensively and can safely say now that I officially 'get it'. I get the problem that bitcoin/the blockchain solved and why it's such a big deal. The 'hows' are still a little murky to me but I think A) I will understand it all eventually and B) you don't really need to know all the tiny technicals to know why bitcoin is so special.

Bitcoin (aka BTC) was 'invented' by a person or more likely a group called Satoshi Nakamoto. He (I'm just gonna call them 'he' from now on) simply uploaded a 9 page pdf to a hacking forum and then disappeared forever. You can read the 'white paper' pdf here.

In short, 'a bitcoin' is really just a long string of unique characters on a public ledger, aka the blockchain. "Miners" (regular people with fancy computers) compete and are incentivized to verify transactions and add to the blockchain. They get paid in tiny amounts of BTC for this service and the amount they get per block is halved every 4 years (I think it's 4 years) so the supply trickles out (you may have heard of 'the halving' before - thats what that means.) As the blockchain grows and grows, it gets stronger and harder to hack. HOW the miners compete exactly and HOW the chain is impossible to hack is a little above my pay-grade. All I know is that really smart people/coders all agree that the code behind blockchain is basically perfect and it is essentially un-hackable. (Fun little bit of info I got from the white-paper, and this is up against the limits of my understanding and may not be completely accurate; but the blockchain is created in a way that it doesn't make sense to hack. If a bad actor tried to reverse engineer the chain and "catch up to it", he could in theory 'take back' any bitcoin he previously spent. However, he would actually make more money just keeping the legit chain going. Why/how, exactly, I don't really know. But I do know that hacking the blockchain is basically impossible/wouldn't make sense to do, which is really all you need to know about it. ...I'm pretty sure.)

That's some of the technical stuff. The economics behind it though are what really gets my attention and none of this stuff is over my head. If you accept that the technology behind BTC/blockchain is sound, as I do, then the rest is eye-popping stuff, honestly. Besides the code, the best and most interesting thing about bitcoin is that the supply is fixed. Permanently and forever. Let me repeat that. The supply is forever fixed. There will only ever be 21 million bitcoin in circulation (right now there's about 18 million and we'll get to 21 million in the year 2140ish). The importance of that simply cannot be overstated. Imagine how much one dollar would be worth today if the Fed stopped printing more money once there was 21 million in circulation. So bitcoin isn't only a hedge against inflation, it is literally inflation proof. (Oh and let's not forget about how many bitcoin are simply lost. So there will actually be less than 21 million in total supply.)

Bitcoin was initially invented as a currency to replace cash. And while I think that will eventually happen, it doesn't have to to have enormous upside. Have you ever seen a gold bar? I haven't. Have you ever paid for anything in gold? Besides buying it to store, have you ever even heard of a single transaction taking place that involved gold? I haven't. Gold isn't used as medium of exchange, it's used as a store of value. And yet we all agree that gold is worth a certain amount of money. So an asset can be valuable without becoming an actual, everyday tradable currency. If ALL bitcoin does is replace gold as a store of value, which I think it will, then the price per coin will be roughly 500k. (You can read a really in-depth piece by Tyler Winkelvoss here.) But the money shot is this: gold has a market cap right now of about 9 trillion. That means the total known supply of gold in the world right now is valued at 9 trillion USD. If you assume BTC is at least as good as gold, then the market will value BTC at 9 trillion. Right now the market cap of BTC is roughly 1 trillion with a 55k price per coin. If you assume the market cap gets to 9 trillion, then that means you 9x the current price per coin. That would put a roughly 500k price tag on one bitcoin. And again, I think that is the absolute floor.

'But poogs' you might be saying, 'how are strings of numbers on something called a blockchain possibly worth more than gold? Shiny gold, with its forever-track-record and that people use in electronics and that I can hold?' Well good question. First off, the supply of gold is unknown. People are always finding more gold, there's a ton of gold in the ocean and on the ocean floor, and oh by the way, theres a TON of gold in space. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that Elon Musk or someone else will be mining asteroids for gold in our lifetime. Possibly huge amounts of it, too. That would cause a huge upward shock to the supply of gold which would plummet its value (instantly). Secondly, gold costs money to store and moving it is extremely costly, AND depends on several rent-seeking middlemen. Conversely, bitcoin isn't physical so it only costs server space to hold on to. It's extremely easy to move around and is peer to peer. If I want to send you btc, I click a button and it goes directly from me to you. Not from my bank (who we just have to trust), to a 3rd party (who we just have to trust), to your bank (you get it now). It isn't tied to a country or an economy, it can't be stopped and can't be hacked. 

Completely on its own, I think BTC is an absolute game changer and most likely the currency of the future. But when you add on the other stuff going on right now, it makes it even better. Do you know how much dollar printing the United States is doing right now? It's absurd. Because of the pandemic, TRILLIONS of dollars are being printed out of thin air and pumped into the economy. This might help in the short run, but it's a very dangerous game. Every time a new dollar gets introduced to the system, the value of every dollar goes down (you have less a percent of the total amount in circulation). It's why a million dollars was a lot more money 10 years ago than it is now (and a million today will be worth less than that in 10 years). So normally this would be a good time to buy gold, but it just happens that the New Gold is out there now, only it's selling at about a 90% discount.

Also, there's a nice little generational gap right now that I think affords even more value. For the most part, older people just simply do not get this. Like, at all. The range of attitudes seems to be on one end you have Olds who are threatened by it, call it a scam or a bubble, say it won't work, etc. Basically what Bill Gates and Warren Buffet were all saying up to about a month ago. Then on the other end of the range you have Olds who know that they don't get it but see how other people talk about it and say 'well I don't get it but the smart people that do seem to love it so I'm not against it.' You don't really see any huge acceptance of BTC by the big, old school institutions and fund managers just yet, and I think that as time goes on and some Olds in power die off and get replaced by younger guys who grew up online, you'll see institutions start to come on slowly at first, then super fast because no one wants to be left behind. (I think that's actually a little bit of what's going on right now with these huge spikes in price. I think lots of firms are finally realizing that this is a race and they can't get left behind, so they're buying up in bulk before announcing anything. Once they all start to announce the price could go up even faster).

You can learn all you need to know about BTC and crypto online for free. This has been far from everything I understand about it, and everything I understand about it is far from everything there is to understand. I learn more about it every day and I find youtube to be a great source. There are a bunch of academic papers on it too, which are fun to read. The econ and computer guys absolutely love it and you can learn a lot from their papers. I've read one or two academic papers by people who just clearly don't get it though, and you can still learn from them. It's useful to know HOW people are misunderstanding something. My favorite guy right now for this stuff is "bitboy crytpo" who you can find on youtube. Don't worry if you think you don't quite understand it yet...I've found that most people don't and they're still making plenty of money. Even (especially) the stock people who fell into crypto. I'm only really scratching the surface of the whole thing so far but I at least know what I don't know which is important.

The downside: Now one of my all time favorite truisms has always been that you don't fully understand something until you can intelligently argue against it. So let's play devils advocate and look at potential risks of BTC and investing in it:

1) The government eventually won't like competition against its currency and will 'ban' it. I am not worried about this whatsoever anymore. Just this week, Nigeria 'banned' bitcoin and guess which country leads the way in BTC use percentage wise right now? Nigeria. BTC is basically immune to restrictions. Short of turning off the internet, you can't turn off crypto currency. Which brings me to my next point...

2) You're reliant on the internet. This is (I think) actually a legit risk and something I haven't seen mentioned a lot. The internet is reliant on satellites, which rely on governments and companies. (I know there are actual hard wires backing a lot of stuff up, but if all satellites went down we would be in deep trouble). I am far from an expert in this field so maybe I'm wrong, but it does seem like a dangerous problem that you could knock the whole thing down by disabling satellites, or our ability to communicate with them. I'll look into this more for next time.

3) Crypto currency takes off but bitcoin gets left behind. This is probably my biggest concern and the thing I've been trying to learn most about recently. The only technical problem that people seem to agree that bitcoin has is that it's actually a little bit dated. The computations per second aren't as impressive anymore as they were in 2009. My fear is that crypto currency takes off, bitcoin does all the leg work of introducing itself to the public, and then some other random, newer coin takes off and becomes the new accepted currency. Honestly, I'm not even sure if this is possible? Bitcoin refers to actual bitcoin currency, but it also refers to the blockchain behind it. So is even possible for BTC to get left in the dust? Could crypto take off and bitcoin be worth nothing? I don't know for sure but I promise I will have that answer next post.

4) Its a bubble/ponzi scheme. If you hear anyone call bitcoin a 'ponzi scheme', just know that you're talking to someone who not only doesn't understand bitcoin (or ponzi schemes) at all, but doesn't understand that they don't understand, which is doubly worse. A ponzi scheme has levels of sellers all kicking the empty can down the road. Bitcoin is basically technology that allows users to create trustworthy 'smart contracts', as well as trade actual currency. They're not even close to the same thing, and anyone saying that is just repeating cool, smart sounding words to try to poo poo something they don't understand. Now, is it a 'bubble'? Is the housing market a bubble? Is the US dollar a bubble? There are bull and bear phases in any market and wild swings in price are not unusual for an emerging asset during price discovery. Is the whole thing a bubble that will pop and see the price go to zero? Sure, it's possible. But I don't think it'll happen. Elon Musk is betting 1.5 billion dollars against that, as is Blackrock (the biggest asset holding firm in the world who, by the way, just released that they're 'dabbling' in it. And you can see the interview with their boss who does this weird little coy smile twice when he says 'dabbling' which I took to mean they're doing a lot more than dabbling).

5) It isn't an income producing asset/you can't hold it in your hand. This was Warren Buffet's line, and again, just shows how early we still are. Is an internet domain name worth anything? Can you do anything with a dollar bill besides spend it? (spending it on an investment is still spending). Things are worth what we all decide they're worth. This is probably the flimsiest argument against btc that Ive seen and I've seen it a lot which, like I said, is a good thing.

6) You're too late. This is the big one. People see its price skyrocketing price and think 'damn I missed it, if I got in at 20k it would be great but the price is too high now.' Well, I (read: Tyler Winklevoss) laid out the clear path to 500k per coin, and that's if bitcoin ONLY becomes a store of value. If BTC becomes the currency of the internet or the world, you're looking at each coin being worth well over 10 million each.

For me personally, I got in at 39k a couple weeks ago for a small amount and have been adding on pretty much as much as possible every week. I was selling some at the 'tops' but I don't think I'll ever sell it again, honestly. Not for a long time at least.  I was a little gun shy to jump in as the trader in me absolutely hates buying into anything at the literal highest its been ever. But it was at an all-time high at 20k, then 30k, then 40k, etc. All I really do now is look for dips and buy as much as I can afford. I'm breaking my own rules by not being SUPER price sensitive because I just keep thinking, if this thing does reach 500k or more, is it really going to matter if I got in at 54k or 55k? Not really. And I'm not fomo-ing in at the top because everyone is and it's fun, I legitimately think BTC is going to 500k eventually at the very VERY least and probably a lot higher. I also think BTC will prove to be the most valuable asset in the history of mankind. Yea I know that's hyperbolic but that's truly how I feel about it. The future is de-centralization, and what better asset to de-centralize than money?

I'm also buying some Ethereum (ETH) which is a whole other thing. I'll probably get into ETH next post. 

Till next time!

State of the Union

Well it sure has been a long time, hasn't it? After the hot dog eating contest there was a good month or so of basically no action for me, almost at all. It was probably the smallest volume month I've had in like a decade. All the free money Covid stuff, the stock market bets and the horse matchups and video games and the hot dog eating contest and the NFL Draft even, all that stuff either came and went or I lost access to betting on them. Things have picked up ever since the NHL playoffs started, and now especially with football in full swing. But before we get into what I'm up to now, let's do a little house keeping on the hot dogs and a little politics.

Joey Chestnut won the contest, of course. It wasn't even remotely close. I got that at -850 which was somehow still a steal. That won me .75 units. Miki Sudo DID win the womens group, however, and that cost me .5u. Both of them went over their totals (but not in my middle range) which netted me 1.93. So a final win of 2.18 units. Really not bad considering the amount of time and "research" this took. I wish I kept better records early on, I would love to know how much I'm up lifetime in the July 4th hot dog eating contest. Every year I just bet on Chestnut and usually the over, and usually have arbs too. One-off events that draw a ton of attention like that and the Draft and the Super Bowl always offer all kinds of opportunities.

The other development is the VP was picked! Kamala Harris! If you've been reading along, you know I've been following this market especially close. And even though my initial prediction was wrong, I feel like I was pretty on top of what happened. The Dems threw out a lot of names and nothing really stuck, so they kind of backed up into Kamala. No one can argue that Kamala was the clear choice all along, it was obvious they were looking at and floating the names of a lot of women. After Klobuchar became radioactive, it felt like a long, meandering walk to begrudgingly pick Kamala. 

So how did we do? Well, pretty good it turns out. On paper at least. My final position on Kamala was 12u to win 20, which won. I had 12.8 units on everyone else, so I ended up plus 7.2 units in the VP market. I say 'on paper' because I didn't end up collecting all of that. A couple of my later Kamala bets got "deleted" before they settled, which is just awesome. It's the cost of business though I suppose. When you're a AAA ball player hitting off a tee, you can't cry when the other team goes home. Or something.

They also finally officially nominated Biden for the Democratic nominee, so those bets all settled. That was a win of 12.5 units. So I've scooped up a nice 19.7 (paper) units on politics and 2.18 on hot dogs since we last spoke. Since I decided to include stiffs and "deletions" in the official record (my reasoning being that the risk of not getting paid on winnings must be factored into any official record I have due to the nature of the markets I bet on), the official politics win was only 13 units. 15.18 additional units total since the last count.

So what now? I've added some political bets in the past couple months. A few states and I've added to the House and Senate positions as well as some more on Trump vs Biden. I need to update my own records though, once I do that I'll make a post with everything I have pending. 

What I've really been focusing on though is NHL player shots on goal bets. I have been on fire with them this post-season, too. It sucks I can barely get anything down on them, and they take FOREVER to do, but it's been worth it. Up almost 40 units since early August. It's due to a combination of A) these props always being generally very soft B) one of my books that takes them has no idea what theyre doing C) my model is legit and D) maybe running a little good? Although to be honest I don't think that's true. I can't even get down a full unit on these plays most of the time. It's grinding out pieces of units every bet...that's an honest 40 units if you ask me. 

This model started as an off-shoot to one of my very first models. It was for NHL player vs player total points. Compared to what I have now, it was very simple but it had a certain clever elegance to it. To this day, NHL player vs player props is one of my very best prop sub sets and it was profitable right out of the gate.

The basic logic behind it was to use a players Corsi per game for the current season as a starting point. I'd take this number as his 'true talent' level and assume any change in this number was due to an increase in actual skill, not random variance. Then I'd use some some combination of his career numbers and his last 3 years of "corsi into goals". There was never really an official name for this stat, but basically a players shooting percentage but using shots AT the net instead of shots ON the net (corsi instead of shots). Like shooting percentage, but even more so, that number fluctuates wildly and has a big impact on a players performance. It can be very fluky, even for an entire season. A player's 'corsi per game', or his shot attempts per game, however, is not so fluky. A sudden increase in a players corsi per game is much, much more likely to be the result of an increase of actual skill rather than a fluke, as opposed to how often his converts those chances into goals. (Or he's playing with better line mates which is fine too.) So I'd use current season numbers for Corsi per game, career/L3 years numbers for 'corsi into goals', adjust for the opponent, factor scoring effects in a little bit, and I'd get a pretty good number for the players expected goals. 

Then for assists, I would assume each team would get the average number assists that their expected goal total would suggest, give a bump to primary assists and a ding for secondary assists, and bang. Add em up and you get expected points. Then use poisson to convert them into percentages against each other, which you then convert back into betting odds and you got yourself a model.

That was the original one that got this new one started. I eventually got kicked off of every account that offered head to head matchups, so I had to adjust. First thing I tried was just using the model to bet at a new account that offered over-unders on players goals and assists. This did not work for assists, and in the old format, didn't work for goals either. I figured out that the model was really only good at matching up players and finding ones who were running good or bad. The actual numbers they were spitting out weren't all that accurate (this new book is very sharp, too. Its a real-deal one, not a PPH mickey mouse club member.) 

I then started looking at shots on goal. This new account offered them and I thought if I took the same logic as before but improved on it and applied it to shots instead of goals, I might have something. I scrapped the old model completely and started from scratch. I made so many improvements: I started using 'per minute' instead of per game and came up with a really good way to predict power play time for each team and player. I think that was probably the biggest improvement, as well as more accurately adjusting for the opponent. Lots of other things too that all add up and have come together to make a model I am most proud of. Of course it's in a market that almost no one offers and when they do it's for a couple months a year and you can only bet like 1 or 200 hundred on, and if you have a good week or two you'll get noticed like a sore thumb but hey, a profitable model is a profitable model, damnit!

I would love to post my plays on here for a few games but it probably won't happen. They take forever to do and I'm always firing right up until the game starts. I will try though. If I do you best get down on em. It's not even so much that the edges are huge, it's just deadly accurate. I'm fine with betting stuff only 5 cents off of my expected number which is a pretty low margin of error. I feel like I need to push every edge I have in this market though since it'll be gone soon.

That's it for now, expect another update relatively soon with some football stuff.

New Post Coming Soon

 Hello everyone! Ill have a new post up soon, within a couple days at least. Just wanted to let everyone know this blog aint dead! Lots to discuss so check back soon!

Hot Dog Eating Contest!

Quick little update today - want to post my final bets for tomorrows hot dog eating contest. The odds for total hot dogs eaten are all over the place so you may be able to find these prices and/or at least get some arbs in.

Here's what we have.

Joey Chestnut to win overall: risk 6.4u to win .75 (-850)

Sudo NOT to win women's group: risk .5u to win 4u (+800) {this is the ending position of a half-scalp/arb. I got Yes at -500 and No at +600}

Total dogs for women: over 37.5 risk 1u to win 1.1 (+110). Also under 40.5 risk .67u to win 1.05 (+155)

Total dogs for men: over 72.5 risk 1u to win 1.25 (+125). Also under 72.5 risk 1u to win 1.45 (+145) and over 73.5 risk 1.1u to win 1.25 (+110).

Good in really good on everything, especially the mens total. I find that with big, one off stuff with lots of public interest, the best way to play it is to look for overs and yes's as soon as the bets come out. The public almost always bets on overs and yes's so generally everything moves that way. Then the day before (or even better, the day of) you can buy back some or all of you position on unders and no's. When I bet this 3 months ago I got over 72.5 at +125 and now that price is as high as -160. And I could take free money on Jaws to win overall with No at +900.

So my final position is Chestnut to win, nibble on Sudo not to win, over 73.5 dogs for men with a nice clean arb thrown in and a sweet little 38 through 40 middle for the women but winning at least a little bit no matter what. The only big exposure here is Jaws not winning but I think that has just about zero chance of happening. I was thinking of piling even more on at -1300 but decided against it. I'll try to check tomorrow right before it starts, I bet the odds will be even higher for yes's and overs, but I do not plan on being inside too much.

Have a good 4th everyone, talk soon!

A Sunday Conversation

Been a little while since we last spoke. There just hasn't been much going on betting-wise, unfortunately. When sports finally do start back up I anticipate I'll be updating much more frequently. But until then, let's focus back on politics where there has been A LOT of changes and a lot to discuss.

But first I want to correct something I wrote about in my last post about the lottery. Turns out I did the math wrong. Ever since I made that post it's been bugging me a little bit - it seemed a little too good to be true and I really wasn't 100% on the math. I did some digging and more research and it was way more complicated than I initially thought. Luckily my overall hunch was right - I am making +EV bets on these. But the edge is small; something like 52%. So it's still worth betting at even odds but not anything worse than that. To that dude that commented that he could get them at -130, sorry but it's a bad bet. Hope I didn't cost you or anyone else any money betting on those. Although if I did, look at the bright side; your bookie probably thinks you're a fish so at the very least you should have more runway time at your account.

Which actually reminds me of a really good piece of advice that not many people know. I forget if I've mentioned this on here or not but either way it's worth repeating. This only applies to PPH users (though I suppose you could work this out at a regular book too). If you have a PPH account, a good reputation and either a really good or really bad agent, you can sometimes negotiate a percentage off of your weekly losses. It's very simple - if you get, say, 10% off of weekly losses and you lose 1k in a week, you just owe 900. But then if you win 1k the next week, you get the whole 1k. So you can see how profitable this is. Even if you're just a breakeven bettor you'll be in +EV land. The best is when you have two or more accounts that have this kind of deal. Then you can do massive 0EV arbs (aka bet Team A money line at -120 and their opponent money line at +120) and still make money. The goal is to simply "move" money from one account to the other. If you had 10% off of weekly losses, did all 0EV arbs and got one account to +5k and the other account to -5k in a week, you win 500 bucks. All without actually having to actually win any money.

The best time to ask for this is during a downswing. Say you have three bad weeks in a row. When you meet your agent the third week and pay him no problem, he's going to be close to ecstatic. Remember, these guys get stiffed all the time and that's usually how it happens. Someone losses a few weeks in a row, they pay up every week, then they just disappear without paying after the last week. The bookie rarely goes after him since he just got crushed 2 or 3 or more weeks in a row anyway. It's so common that it's almost expected with new players, especially ones my age at the time. So when you show up with a full envelope and no problems, he's going to be very happy thinking he has an actual whale on the hook. That's the time to ask.

I had a dream of an account back when I was just starting out to get really into this. The agent was a solid but clueless older guy and we never had any issues. I had a 4 or 5 week BRUTAL downswing one time and every week I went to him and paid him no problem. My other bookie friend at the time told me about how he gives a couple of his better customers a percentage off of their weekly losses. I had never heard about this before but it was like kindling in my little sports betting brain. So I came up with a plan; the next time I had a big weekly loss I went in and as I handed him the envelope I said I had another account with a different agent who offered me 10% off of weekly losses. I said I really didn't like the other guy and his site though and would much rather put my action in with him and his account if he can match the offer. (Whether you have the other account or not doesn't matter, obviously). He ended up giving me a ridiculous 20% off (he must have thought I'd be bleeding money to him for years) and for the next couple months I beat him up so bad that he got so buried in makeup that he literally quit being an agent altogether (and stiffed me the last week and disappeared from his job).

[Fun aside; I was always confused as to why they didn't cut me off sooner from this account. I'm not kidding when I say I absolutely crushed him at the end, and it lasted for months. He just kept paying me, week after week. It would have been a bloodbath even without the 20% off the losing weeks, but you can imagine. I found out later that his 'boss' was out of the country the whole time and cut me off as soon as he got home and found out. He actually called me on the phone and we had one of the most bizarre phone conversations I've ever had. Apparently he lived with and ran the book with his mother which he kept mentioning for some reason. And he was mad at me for never tipping the agent. LOL I still remember him saying 'back in the day when a guy won $xxxxx in a week he'd tip his agent a hundred bucks!' And I shot back 'I never got a tip in the 2 months before that when I was getting killed'. And he goes (I'll never forget his exact words) 'ok ok you're right. Let us forget that and NEVER SPEAK OF IT AGAIN.' And he had the most effeminate voice. He sounded exactly like Mark Harris when he used to go on Howard Stern. I know you don't know who Mark Harris is so google it, it'll be worth it. Oh and then he called me back and started talking to me ABOUT me, thinking he called the agent. One of my biggest regrets is cutting him off and not letting him go on and on. It really was fucking weird.]

Anyway, the shorter the time period of the percentage off of losses the better. Weekly is standard, which is the best way to do it. I did have one account though that gave me a piece off of monthly losses which isn't great but better than nothing. 5-10% is standard, 15% is great and anything above that is highway robbery. So if you have been betting and losing on the lottery because of me, now would be a perfect time to request it. Even at 5% a week, you'll more than make up for anything you might have lost.

Now let's switch to the only thing really going on right now. Politics. Ugh, I know. Isn't it the worst. As usual when there's a big Team One Side vs Team Other Side national debate I find myself disagreeing vehemently with both sides. 'Defunding the police' is such a comically bad idea (and terrible slogan), and the stats on police brutality just simply do not add up to what the left is saying, at all. But at the same time, policing in this country does need reform. I mean, as a libertarian and an American and just a human being, the thought of an agent of the state, with over 10 complaints of excessive force on his record, kneeling on a mans neck until he dies, in broad daylight knowing he's being filmed, is awful.

I think it comes down to two big things; police unions and the fact that we ask cops to do too much. Police unions are the reason why a cop with dozens complaints of excessive force is not only still on the street, but feels empowered to behave that way. I think that part is key. If cops didn't know that they had a union behind them that will protect them, and very effectively at that, no matter what, I think you might see overall attitudes change.

I also think that we simply ask cops to do too much. Think about the spectrum of events a police officer is expected to handle. Imagine what it takes to respond to an active shooter situation, or to stop an armed robbery, or be in a high speed chase with a guy shooting out the window at you, or handle violent, belligerent people day after day. It takes a certain kind of person for which a society absolutely does need. Now do we need this person to respond to calls on the very end of the other side of the spectrum? Minor traffic infractions, public intoxication, maybe some non-violent domestic disputes or whatever else is considered easy by police. Get their feedback. Anything where there's like less than 2% chance of having to pull a gun. We ask cops to do the work of social workers, but would never ask a social worker to do the job of a cop. Imagine a guidance counselor in a shootout. It's preposterous. Maybe we should be thinking of that the other way around too. Oh and pay them more! Then you'll get better applicants. Less armored SWAT tanks for suburban towns, and more money towards payroll. You could even use incentives; pay cops a little bonus every month they don't have a complaint or something like that.

Anyway, those are my thoughts whatever it's worth. As for the markets, there have been some big moves. In general, everything is moving in the Democrats favor. The overall presidency market, all the state markets and those for the house and senate have moved in favor of the left. I jumped on quite a few state markets early and got in at some really good prices. I'll post them here because they're part of my overall position on this election obviously, but I put them in so long ago and the prices are so far gone that it won't be much use to anyone. Right now I'm really heavy on Democrats. I have bets on them to win the House and Senate and now a bunch of states. I'd like to start buying back on Republicans because I don't think their price is going to get much worse, but as usual I'm up against limits and places to bet. I might have some new accounts on the horizon actually which would be awesome, but we'll see.

The most interesting market though, of course, is the VP market. BIG changes here. Klobuchar went from the favorite to taking herself out of the nomination process altogether after the George Floyd incident. It now seems like there is literally zero chance that the winner will be anything other than a black woman. Kamala Harris has seen her price shoot all the way up to a current high of 54% and is now very much the clear favorite. Val Demings is in second at 16% (topped out at 23% a few weeks ago) and in third is Susan Rice at 13% (topped out at 18% mid June). Liz Warren is in a distant 4th at 6% and there's a bunch at 3-5%.

I may have lost my mind quite a bit in this market and now have way more invested in it than I would have liked. Almost 25 units total. All my Klobuchar and Whittmer bets are toast, and the nibbles on Baldwin, Buttigegigig, Abrams, Grisham and Duckworth have added up. Here's what I have, in total in this market:

Harris: risk 12u to win 20u (+165)
Klobuchar: risk 3u to win 19.1u (+635)
Warren: risk 2.3u to win 30.2u (+1400)
Demings: risk 2.25u to win 20.1u (+930)
Whitmer: risk 2.8u to win 18u (+640)
Duckworth: risk .6u
Mayor Pete: risk .4u
Baldwin: risk .3u
Abrams: risk .75u
Grisham: risk .4u

I think I probably made too many bets here but other than the Mayor Pete one and maybe Grisham, none of them were really outright disasters. I got in good and early on Harris at +285 and +275 but as things changed over the past couple weeks I had to go kind of heavy on +175, and then +125, and even a little at even odds, which brought my overall position down quite a bit. So as you can see, if it's Harris or Warren I show a good profit. If it's Klobuchar, Demings, Whitmer or Duckworth I about break even. If it's Abrams or Grisham or Baldwin it's not too bad, and anyone else and it's a bloodbath.

The obvious exposure here is Susan Rice. Right now she's at 13%, so I have a 13% chance of getting scooped totally. That is not ideal. I can't find anything resembling a good price for her, and even if I could, I can't keep chasing every woman who shows up in this market. I mean, did Gretchen Whitmer ever really have a chance? Or Stacey Abrams? To be Vice President Of The United States? I don't know. If I had kept it to Klobuchar, Warren and Harris the whole way I'd be really looking pretty. Then I could buy some Rice insurance.

Certainly learned some good lessons for these longer term, dynamic markets. The world changes fast and they're volatile as hell. How to capitalize on that is another story, but for now it's good to just start with the foundation that I should expect the VP market in March to almost certainly look different than it will in July.

I personally think that it will be Harris and that she'll hurt Biden's chances of winning. But man, Pence vs Harris in the VP debates will be fucking feisty and fun as hell to watch.

I still have Biden To Win The Nomination pending. I got in for an average price of -135 to win 12.5 units. That'll be nice when it settles. I also have an awful position for which side will win the popular vote. I basically locked in a small loss since I got in early on Republicans and their price has cratered. If they happen to pull it off I win about 5 units, but if/when the Dems win I'll lose about 1.5u.


Here's everything I have for state bets. Again, these were pretty juicy when I made them weeks ago and they've only gotten better so I don't think anyone will be able to get these prices or anything close to it. I will try to post a lot closer to when I make the bets from now on.

These are all for Democrats to win:

Florida: +130 risk 1.5u
Georgia: +200 risk 1.1u
Iowa: +210 risk 1.1u
Michigan: -175 to win .75u
N. Carolina: +140 risk 1u
Arizona: -105 to win 1.25u
Nevada: -330 to win .85u
Ohio: +160 risk 1u
Texas: +240 risk .75u

Every single one is better than the current PredictIt price which is great. One of my books has Trump to win at +120 which I would love to hit for about 10 units right now and really just round my position out and take the big arb, risk-free money on election night. I really should just make a PI account and bet on Trump to win at 43%, actually. Because as it stands now, if it's a Trump win and he wins a lot of these states, I would take a pretty big hit. Especially if Dems lose the House and the Senate.

Which, for completeness sake, my position is...

Dem to win the house: -300 to win 1u
Dem to win the Senate: +135 risk 1u
Dem to win House and Repub to win Senate: +120 risk .5u
Dem to win House and Senate: +140 risk 1u

And my current total position on to win the overall presidency:

Trump: risk 16.3u to win 12.7u (-130)
Biden: risk 7.7u to win 22u (+285)
Others: loss of 3u


So that is EVERYTHING politics wise. Whew! Plus the 20 something units already in the bank from the primaries. I think I will be looking to get down on some Trump to win in the next couple days or weeks. Feels like the perfect time.

That is it for me. This was a long one, thanks for reading. Oh and I'll have that thing to sign up for email alerts when I have a new post soon, I promise.

Big VP Moves And Betting On The Lottery?

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.

*EDIT 5/20/24*

The following math is INCORRECT. I corrected it in the post after this but it occurred to me that not everyone reads this blog in order or reads every post. I'm leaving it up because deleting it feels wrong but, again, this isn't right. I don't even trust myself to post the correct answer, I think it's break even at something like -107 someone said in the comments? But this kind of math ain't my strong suit which is putting it lightly.

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. 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. 

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!

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!