FAQ 
Calendar 


View Poll Results: What minimum odds it would take for you to bet real money that Trump wins reelection?  
For every dollar you bet, you win $1 if Trump is reelected  16  32.00%  
For every dollar you bet, you win $5 if Trump is reelected  16  32.00%  
For every dollar you bet, you win $20 if Trump is reelected  2  4.00%  
For every dollar you bet, you win $50 if Trump is reelected  2  4.00%  
For every dollar you bet, you win $100 if Trump is reelected  3  6.00%  
I would need odds even greater than $100  3  6.00%  
Other answer  8  16.00%  
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll 
Reply 

Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




What odds would it take for you to bet on Trump winning reelection in 2020?
(Supposing that you're betting real, actual money)
I would have a hard time parting with any real money at odds of less than around 20to1, at least as of now. (Poll to come) 
#2




I am not a betting man, mostly because RTFirefly handed me my butt in a bet on Howard Dean getting the nom back in the day.
But I would estimate the odds at a Trump reelection at 75, pick 'em. I don;t think the impeachment inquiry has changed a lot of minds. The Senate is still not gonna remove him from office. And Ford very nearly got elected even after pardoning Nixon. I think the enthusiasm of the Democrats and the press are leading them down the same path as in 2016  the certainty that nobody could possibly support Trump. And he is the incumbent. Just like Nixon was the incumbent. I didn't vote for Trump. I haven't made up my mind who I will vote for in 2020. That could be bad news for Trump, since I usually but not always vote Republican. It could be good news for Trump, because I am open to the idea. I could be wrong about this. Or I could not be. We shall see. Regards, Shodan 
#3




My best guess is that he has about a 1/4 chance of winning the election. I figured he had about a 1/3 chance of winning the 2016 election so I'm still not terribly comforted by those odds.

#4




I'll take the 1:1, but I'm not going to bet more money than I can stand to lose.



#5




At Betfair you can either bet £1 of your own money on Trump to get £1.42 extra back or bet £1.44 of your own money on "everybody else" to get £1 extra back.
Gen that $1 seems mean and $5 seems generous, so I'd take anything from $5 upwards. 
#6




So the options go from even money to 51? Seriously? No option for Trump's odds being better than even? And you really think 1001 is a reasonable choice?
Your odds should be more like: 1:2 Even 2:1 3:1 5:1 10:1 And that last one is pushing it. He's the incumbent president with a 45% approval rating. Unless things change dramatically in tye next year, there's no way his chances are less than that. Personally, before the Syria fiasco I woild have said Teump is 5050 against a moderate candidate, and 2:1 for him against someone like Warren or Sanders. But after the Syria debacle, I think the chance of impeachment has gone up dramatically because a bunch of Senate Republicans will no longer carry water for him. So now I'd say that his chances are 2:1 against if he faces a moderate, and maybe even against someone like Elizabeth Warren. Caveat: No one knows what the odds are now. We won't know until his challenger has been chosen, until the results of the various investigations are in, and most importantly how the economy is doing at election time. All the polls and commentary at this point are essentially noise, and if I had to bet on my predictions I'd be willing to wager about $1 for entertainment value only. Last edited by Sam Stone; 10212019 at 05:40 PM. 
#7




Greater than $100, not because I think the chances of his reelection are that low, but just so I can have a nice dinner out while I lament what the United States has turned into.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men. Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 10212019 at 05:44 PM. 
#8




Well, to be pedantic we do know what the odds are now  they are on Betfair 2.422.44 implying that he has a 41% chance. You may feel that there's too much uncertainty to bet with confidence now, but there are enough people already prepared to put up money that the spread between the back/lay prices is tight already. The backlay implied probabilities are 41.3%41.0% You may prefer to wait until closer to the election until we have more information, but if that information reduces the uncertainty of the outcome, you obviously won't get such an attractive price to bet in the favored direction.

#9




I'm a fan of betting markets, but even if that number is the best estimate today, the error bars around it are so large that it's close to meaningless.
If I had to bet, I would bet that Trump loses. But I have zero confidence that there's much information behind that choice, other than that his approval rating is currently below 50%, and that there doesn't seem to be much upside to his popularity but lots of ways it can get worse. But who really knows? The future is full of unknown unknowns, which is why it's unpredictable. 


#10




FYI, PredictIt is pretty much in line with Betfair at a bit over 40% implied probability.
Who will win the 2020 U.S. presidential election? 
#11




I think 40% is about the right line. I would jump all over a 51 or better bet. The lower odds are pure wishful thinking.

#12




Error bars? This isn't a poll. There are no "real" odds other than what the betting markets give. Even when the official vote tallies come in, does that tell you what the odds really were?

#13




OK, I think I answered wrong.
My guess is Trump has a 30% to 40% chance of winning. Which means I should not take a $1 bet, but definitely take a $5 bet. I agree it's ridiculous for this poll to not have any option between $1 and $5. 
#14




I would not make bets, either way, on elections. Partly, this is because I'm riskaverse, and partly because I want my take on the election to be purely driven by serious matters, not something as trivial as a personal bet.
That said, I can still estimate probabilities. I think that he's at a less than even chance, but I don't think any estimate of his probability any lower than about 25% is justified. Remember, if he does as well as he did last time, then he wins again. 


#15




My gut instinct was I'd take 2:1. The coin flip seems a bit aggressive for a Trump win and if I'm betting I want better odds then the real odds. I voted other since the actual choices are crazy.

#16




Either he'll win or he won't. I've given up expecting sense from the (red state) American people.

#17




I wouldn't bet anything on it, only because I really wouldn't want to profit from that if I "win".
Realistically at this point I think that even with everything that's going on, it's about an even money proposition that he wins reelection. 
#18




You know there was a time that investing in a tobacco stock was a good investment. I still wouldn’t have wanted to do it.
I would see the 5:1 as a very rational bet but I wouldn’t make it. Putting myself in a position to profit from evil prevailing has too much cost to my irrational brain. No potential profit can overcome that irrational but real sense. 
#19




If we treat the information that's unknown at any point in time as effectively contributing random variance, in principle there exists a "true" probability derived from the entire set of known information and a hypothetical perfect model for election outcomes. In practice, if we have a candidate model that we think can give a probability estimate that is closer to the true probability than the consensus implied probability in the betting markets, then we can test how good our model is by placing bets when our model's estimated probability differs from the betting markets. If we're right about our model, we'll make money in the long run. So we can interpret what Sam said as meaning that he thinks any model has very wide error bars in its estimated probability at the moment.
Last edited by Riemann; 10212019 at 11:22 PM. 


#20




I'll take a $1.10 payout, but not a $1.05.

#21




Indeed. Make it 2to1 and I'd have to do some soulsearching. As is, I'd bet nothing at 11, several $1000's at 51, and at 201 I'd bet enough that my kids would be set for life if the bet came in. Of course I might need a medical team to induce me into coma as my conflicting hopes would be too traumatic to cope if conscious!
Quote:
For something as complex as Trump's election, you can fight that ignorance by studying polls or whatever, but whether you study a lot or only a little, you will have, in principle, some probability estimate that reflects your ignorance — ignorance about future events, about even the likelihood of those events, and ignorance of presentday data which is knowable but you don't happen to know. Quote:
... And the huge uncertainties make it very difficult to estimate. What are the chances of recession? Catastrophe in Syria? Et cetera? But these uncertainties don't lead directly to any notion like "error bars." Your probability estimate will reflect your uncertainty. ... And, as I demonstrated in a recent thread, a thought experiment can be devised where a whimsical Bill Gates can effectively force you to come up with a probability estimate! Spoiler: Gates pays you $500,000 to announce a probability estimate; you must fade $100,000 on whichever side Gates takes with the odds you quoted him. To refuse to make an estimate would be pass up the $500,000. 
#22




Let's see, should I bet on a horse race a year away when I don't even know which horses will gallop along?
Sorry, too premature for rationality. But since I have an extra MX$200 bill here (worth about US$10) I'll go for 1:100. Won't retire on my winnings but I can buy bus tickets to Tehuantepec. 
#23




Quote:
If I have perfect knowledge of the probability space, i.e. I know the parameters of the distribution of the random variable, i.e. my model for what is happening is perfect, then my probability estimates will be perfect. You will not be able to beat my by making better probability estimates, you will only be able to beat me with prior insider knowledge of a specific outcome. I will always offer 50% implied odds, and you can't make money by betting against me unless you cheat and look at the outcome of a coin flip before making your bet. But if my knowledge of the probability space is imperfect, you can beat me by making better probability estimates. If I think the coin is fair, but you know it's biased, I will make incorrect 50% estimates and offer you 50% implied odds, and you can bet in the direction of the bias. You will make money in the long run, because your probability estimates are better, not because you have prior knowledge of any specific outcome. Quote:
I'm not going to wade through that thread, but obviously whether it makes sense to offer a bet to Bill will depend on whether you are confident that the error bars on your probability estimates are small, i.e. you are sure that you have accurate knowledge of the probability space. Last edited by Riemann; 10222019 at 03:48 AM. 
#24




I don't like to go out of my way to take bets, so despite the fact that 5:1 would be more than fair odds, it would still not entice me to pony up the dough. If the bet seemed up front I'd take 20:1 though but wouldn't lay down over $100 on it because they could still renege.



#25




If we believe in determinism then an omniscient being would assess the probability as either 0 or 100%. Without determinism we still suppose that the bestinformed player will have a better estimate than us. Is this what is meant by "error bars"? An estimate of the deviation between our guessed probability estimate, and that of a hypothetical bestinformed player? Comparing our estimate with some better estimate is what I wrote about in my post.
Assuming determinism and that our estimate is 40%, we already know that the deviation from an omniscient guess is either 40% or 60% exactly! If we reject determinism, we'll never know what a "best" estimate would have been, but can watch estimates evolve over time, or as one's information grows. Quote:
Your estimate is your best effort based on your own information and ignorance. You're hoping that you're betterinformed than the bookmaker, but in any event you have some probability estimate that dictates how you should bet. (If you guess that the bookmaker, or prediction market, is wellinformed you can use that as additional information to modify your own estimates.) You are depicting the prediction problem with a perfect model coupled with random variables. But the boundary between model and the randomness will always be fuzzy. In the simple coin toss example, suppose I've already flipped the coin but haven't looked. Does your "perfect" model judge the Head to be 50% or to be {0 or 100% but don't know which}? Does it matter? Suppose you think a key variable is whether Trump is addicted to uppers; you assess his reelection chance as 20% and 60% for the two cases; you judge the chance of the addiction to be 50%. Ordinary probability arithmetic means you think he is 40% (.5×20% + .5×60%) to be reelected. In this example saying "40% chance" and saying "half the time 20%, half the time 60%" are two ways to say the same thing! Sure, a betterinformed player (i.e. one who knows whether Trump is addicted) would have a better estimate, but that's my point: A player's probability estimate is determined by his ignorance. Quote:
Quote:
In any event, we seem to be in agreement that "error bars" reflect the deviation between your probability estimate and some pdf. In my post I argue that the specific pdf needs to be defined. But you postulate a "perfect" pdf. If you reject my reductio ad absurdem via determinism (where the perfect estimate is either 0 or 100%), surely you'll agree that even a nearperfect pdf cannot be attained by human. Instead of the arithmetic above based on Trump's present drug addiction (a knowable), suppose you think an earthquake (unknowable) next summer is the key variable. The arithmetic still looks the same. Last edited by septimus; 10222019 at 07:03 AM. 
#26




But at some level, Riemann, you can't separate knowledge of the probability space from knowledge of the outcomes. If all the coins in the world are fair, then 5050 is the correct odds for a coin flip. But if all of the coins in the world are unfair, but distributed evenly in which direction they're unfair, and neither of the bettors knows what coin is being used, then 5050 is still the correct odds.

#27




Other answer.
I consider myself a patriotic American and support the form of government we have. Trump is the exact opposite of the person who should hold the office he is currently tarnishing. Nothing would convince me to vote for that SOB. 
#28




I think Trump has a 50/50 chance of winning. It is going to be another extremely close election.

#29




It's not like you'd be voting for him in this scenario. If you bet enough it may put you forward past the tipping point, where you're actually hoping he'll win but that's different.



#30




Alan Lichtman recently said it's too soon to call, and I'm inclined to agree. If no change occurs to the economy I'd say we're looking at a coin toss.

#31




Quote:
You can bet money on the Houston Astros winning the World Series without liking or supporting the Astros one bit. Last edited by Velocity; 10222019 at 11:03 AM. 
#32




I’d take Trump in the +130 to +140 range.

#33




The range of odds in the poll goes so far away from the true odds that I took it be asking how large a payoff above the true odds would you need to be offered to be willing to take a financial interest in an outcome that most of us find distasteful.
Last edited by Riemann; 10222019 at 02:36 PM. 
#34




Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Riemann; 10222019 at 02:57 PM. 


#35




Again, to be crystal clear, there are two distinct types of uncertainty here.
(1) In principle there exists a perfect model which can give perfect probability estimates. A perfect model does not mean post hoc knowledge of specific outcomes. It means perfect knowledge of the parameters and shape of the probability distribution, perfect knowledge of the probability space. Assuming that all parties have equal knowledge, they will have models to estimate probability. For casino type betting, perfect models are well known and available to everyone. For realworld sports and politics betting, the situation is far too complex to have a Hari Seldon style perfect model. So there are good models and bad models. If (say) we don't understand a sport very well, we should expect that our model is not very good, so we should have low confidence in our model of the probability distribution  hence uncertainty about whether our probability estimate is accurate. This is what Sam was talking about earlier with wide error bars on our current estimates for the election. (2) Uncertainty about future unknown outcomes that is attributable to the true randomness (with something like radioactive decay) or effective randomness (unknown or unknowable complex deterministic factors) that's intrinsic to the concept of probability. Last edited by Riemann; 10222019 at 03:19 PM. 
#36




You jumped from even odds to 5 to 1, that's skipping where the grand majority of votes would fall. I'd take 3 to 1 odds.

#37




Thank you, Riemann for summing that up...

#38




Quote:
Insurance companies are pretty good at not doing this, but if someone offered to sell me $10 million worth of fire insurance on my verymuchnotworth$10 million house for $1, I'd take it, and I wouldn't feel bad about it. There are definitely cases where it can introduce a conflict of interest or moral hazard (it's probably a bad thing if my house is worth more to me as a pile of cinders than a house), but this doesn't seem like one of them. If I knew how to influence a Presidential election, I'd already be doing it! Making a way in the money bet that Trump will be elected is just badPresident insurance sold at a discount. 
#39




I think 51 is about right. He barely squeaked through last time and he's gotten less popular since, so if he was a 21 underdog going into last Election Day, he's probably at least 31 now. Then you have to consider the possibilities of impeachment or death.
For those who, understandably, don't want to bet on Trump winning, you can just reverse it and bet the other way. So, would you be willing to invst $5 (or $10, $100, etc) in order to earn $1 if anyone BUT Trump wins in 2020? 


#40




Quote:

#41




There’s no way to answer this question without knowing who Trump’s opponent would be. If it’s Buttigieg, I’d need the highest possible odds. If it’s Warren, I’d need almost no odds at all.

#42




I consider his odds of winning at around 50/50, maybe a little better than that. I would invest heavily at $5 to every dollar I'd bet.

#43




Well, it's not that there's no answer prior to the nomination, it just more complex. You need to multiply the probability of each Dem getting the nomination by the probability of Trump winning conditioned on that candidate being his opponent, and add them up.

#44




Three distinct polls are needed.
# What are the odds of this POTUS winning the popular and electoral votes? # What are the odds of him winning the electoral but not the popular vote? # What are the odds of him winning the popular but not the electoral vote? As happened before, he could win one but not the other. Any candidate can theoretically claim electoral victory with only 28% of national popular vote. What are the odds such an outcome would be accepted by the populace? Election is over a year away. We don't know who'll be in it. Gambling and polling sure are fun. 


#45




I honestly don't think he's going to win. Hell, I'm not convinced he'll make it to the election at this point. So, I'd want greater that 1 to 100 at this point to bet real money on it, if I'm betting on him winning.
__________________
XT That's what happens when you let rednecks play with antimatter! 
#46




Quote:
I'm not sure why it needs such distinction (although you can start with such a thread if you want.) That would muddy things up unnecessarily. Winning is simple, 270 EVs. It doesn't exactly matter whether Trump gets the popular vote or not, any more than it matters if the Patriots hit 400 yards of offense in a Super Bowl that they win. 
#47




Then why not go to Betfair, and get 40% interest on your investment over the period from now until November 2020?

#48




I give Trump about even odds at winning in 2020, maybe as low 11:9, but not much lower.
Makes me really sad that my fellow citizens are that dumb. I think the guy weakens the US with almost every action he takes. 
#49




For some reason, the $20 level came immediately to mind, so I picked that. But now that I think of if, it was the wrong level. I am convinced that even now, if nothing else "happens", Trump is surely toast in 2020. There is just no way that a guy who has never been that popular anyway, is going to win reelection with his popularity continually dropping, especially that he barely as fuck squeaked by last time. Nah, I'm very well assured: Trump will not, and cannot, be reelected.
Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 10242019 at 05:14 PM. 


#50




Quote:
I don't generally bet real money on anything I don't control, even if I THINK it is a sure thing, as, to me, gambling is kind of stupid. YMMV. Feel free to bet (or not) as you will.
__________________
XT That's what happens when you let rednecks play with antimatter! 
Reply 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

