So here are the actual betting odds for the next president.

So while looking in the sports section to see what football teams were favored I noticed a politics section in sports on a website called bovada. Bovada is based in Canada and offers online bets geared towards Americans. Please keep morality of gambling out of this thread as that is not the scope.

But the top three are
Hillary - 125
Rubio +400
Trump +600
Bovada


I find it curious Hilary is still favored to win. Most attention for her has been negative and most Democrats oppinions that I've seen lean towards Bernie, who deliberately gets less attention.

Again please refrain from morality conversation and start a thread if you want to argue about that, I think it's obvious why Hillary is favored, the candidate with the most money wins.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I find it curious Hilary is still favored to win. Most attention for her has been negative and most Democrats oppinions that I've seen lean towards Bernie, who deliberately gets less attention.

Not all negative attention is bad. You should feel sorry for Hillary. All those mean people attacking her, and telling lies about her. Now be a good boy, and go vote for Hillary.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Here are the odd from England...

www.oddschecker.com...

I still see Jeb as a come from behind dark horse. If odds are calculated on opinion polls; that means they don't mean much.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
I'm not used to that way of expressing betting odds.
I've got no way of telling which of those candidates is most "favoured"?
Is there any way of translating them into terms of "Twenty to one against", "Five to one against", etc, which might be more familiar in some societies?

P.S. Ah, post above mine makes more sense.

a reply to: Klassified

Haha I agree negative can be good. She gets talked of as if she's already won the Democratic ticket (and because of that she has)

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Here are the odd from England...

www.oddschecker.com...

I still see Jeb as a come from behind dark horse. If odds are calculated on opinion polls; that means they don't mean much.

I have seen you post this several times and I just don't see this happening. For the most part, voters are rejecting the dynasty on the Republican side. The Democrats simply don't have enough candidates to choose from and Hilary is kind of just winning by default. I think Jeb is done though.

I don't understand these numbers, particularly the double ones on the British site. Can someone explain what is being said here? TIA

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Here are the odd from England...

www.oddschecker.com...

I still see Jeb as a come from behind dark horse. If odds are calculated on opinion polls; that means they don't mean much.

I have seen you post this several times and I just don't see this happening. For the most part, voters are rejecting the dynasty on the Republican side. The Democrats simply don't have enough candidates to choose from and Hilary is kind of just winning by default. I think Jeb is done though.

Perhaps, I base my opinions on past performance and not speculation or ideological emotionalism. I look for patterns. This circus has just begun with the clowns!

I spend a fair amount of time at the holdem tables at the NA casinos in my area. It doesn't take long to learn that the hunch players are usually losers; Unless they are a female Oriental lady; my least favorite type of opponent. Anyone else...bring it!

a reply to: schuyler

If you bet 125 on Hillary you would only win one hundred, she is favored. If you bet one on Rubio you would get four, one on trump and you would get six

a reply to: schuyler
I'll give you an example from the British ones.
Ladbrokes is listing Clinton as 4/5; verbally, this would be expressed as "five to four on". That is, the betting thinks her chances of winning are good, five chances out of nine. Evidently she is the "odds-on favourite". 5/4 ("five to four against") would mean that her chances were only four out of nine.

Similarly with the other fractions. Rubio is quoted as 9/2- 2 chances out of 11.
Jeb Bush is "18" in one bookmaker. I would take that as "eighteen to one", that is, one chance out of 19.
Then the "outsiders", like Baldwin, have figues like "one hundred to one"- one chance out of much larger numbers. Very high odds.

My last bet was as part of a family bet on the Grand National in 1971, but I believe that if the horse you backed at "one humdred to one " odds comes in as the winner, you have won 100 times what you bet (less tax).
Similarly smaller amounts with the lower odds.

P.S. The late great Tommy Cooper had a standard joke based on this way of expressing odds;
"I backed a horse yesterday at twenty-to-one.
It came in at half past four."

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
So while looking in the sports section to see what football teams were favored I noticed a politics section in sports on a website called bovada. Bovada is based in Canada and offers online bets geared towards Americans. Please keep morality of gambling out of this thread as that is not the scope.

But the top three are
Hillary - 125
Rubio +400
Trump +600
Bovada

I find it curious Hilary is still favored to win. Most attention for her has been negative and most Democrats oppinions that I've seen lean towards Bernie, who deliberately gets less attention.

Again please refrain from morality conversation and start a thread if you want to argue about that, I think it's obvious why Hillary is favored, the candidate with the most money wins.

I bet 10 to 1 hillary will be the next presi

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I find it curious Hilary is still favored to win. Most attention for her has been negative and most Democrats oppinions that I've seen lean towards Bernie, who deliberately gets less attention.

You may want to expand your scope beyond ATS and your friends and family.