# Polls: Trust those with something to lose. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2004, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polls-trust-those-with-something-to-lose/273394 "2004-11-06T21:08:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2004, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polls-trust-those-with-something-to-lose/273394/1 "2004-11-06T21:08:53Z")
I do alot of betting on a futures-style gambling site called Tradesports and have cited it in numerous threads regarding the accuracy of political polls. I think its safe to say that those with something to lose make the most unbiased pollsters.: A month before the election, Tradesport prices: ``` correctly predicted Bush would win; correctly predicted all 50 states except three (N.H., Wis., N.M.); correctly predicted all 34 Senate races except four (Alaska, Fla., N.C., S.D. — in all cases the GOP won); correctly predicted the GOP would keep Senate control; and correctly predicted the GOP would keep House control. ``` **Tradesports prices 4 days before the election** : ``` correctly predicted Bush would win; correctly predicted all 50 states except one (Wis.); correctly predicted all 34 senate races except one (Alaska); correctly predicted the GOP would keep Senate control; correctly predicted the GOP would keep House control. ``` [/quote] Screw Gallup. Ask those people who have money on the line. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polls-trust-those-with-something-to-lose/273394/2 "2004-11-06T21:20:38Z")
I was also using Tradesports and the Iowa Electronic Markets. But no one around here wanted to hear it, because they didn’t like the message coming out of those sources. I also predicted a few days before the election that John Zogby would finally be discovered as a bad pollster. His methodology sucks. He got lucky in 2000, and was treated as an Oracle ever since. He blew it big time in this election. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polls-trust-those-with-something-to-lose/273394/3 "2004-11-06T21:44:54Z")
No, see. Polls are more accurate because they let you frame a question just the way you want. They also enable you to put just as much weight on the opinion of any chucklehead who stays home a lot, answers the phone and avers that “sure, I’ll likely vote” as you do on that of educated people familiar with how politics works. Plus supporting that betting thing sounds a whole lot like saying free markets make the best choices, and we know that’s not true. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polls-trust-those-with-something-to-lose/273394/4 "2004-11-07T03:41:10Z")
Well, I believe that in order to make a comparative prediction, you would need to actually make a comparison. I.e., were the bettors at Tradesports really doing significantly better than the polls were…particularly if you averaged over a few polls. I mean some of the things you are giving them credit for predicting were obvious. Everyone knew that the GOP was going to retain control of the House…It was pretty much a foregone conclusion, barring a complete GOP meltdown, after DeLay engineered that redistricting down in Texas. [Electoral-vote.com](http://Electoral-vote.com) had been predicting the GOP would retain control of the Senate for at least several weeks. And, I believe you could have predicted 47 out of the 50 states in the electoral contest correctly by just saying that Bush would win the same states he won in 2000. (I think just Iowa, New Mexico, and N.H. changed sides.) And, hey, before the election it was generally known that the election would come down to Kerry’s being able to win at least one of Ohio or Florida…which is why I went down to Cleveland for last Monday and Tuesday. I could have gone to Pennsylvania, for example, but my feeling was that if Kerry was going to lose Pennsylvania things were pretty hopeless so I might as well concentrate on a state for which the election hung more in the balance. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polls-trust-those-with-something-to-lose/273394/5 "2004-11-07T05:36:40Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Well, I believe that in order to make a comparative prediction, you would need to actually make a comparison. I.e., were the bettors at Tradesports really doing significantly better than the polls were…particularly if you averaged over a few polls. > > I mean some of the things you are giving them credit for predicting were obvious. Everyone knew that the GOP was going to retain control of the House…It was pretty much a foregone conclusion, barring a complete GOP meltdown, after DeLay engineered that redistricting down in Texas. > > [Electoral-vote.com](http://Electoral-vote.com) had been predicting the GOP would retain control of the Senate for at least several weeks. > > And, I believe you could have predicted 47 out of the 50 states in the electoral contest correctly by just saying that Bush would win the same states he won in 2000. (I think just Iowa, New Mexico, and N.H. changed sides.) > > And, hey, before the election it was generally known that the election would come down to Kerry’s being able to win at least one of Ohio or Florida…which is why I went down to Cleveland for last Monday and Tuesday. I could have gone to Pennsylvania, for example, but my feeling was that if Kerry was going to lose Pennsylvania things were pretty hopeless so I might as well concentrate on a state for which the election hung more in the balance. Good point. Other than getting the Presidential election winner right, none of those other political predictions was all that different than the average of the polls. And, the Presidential election was a squeaker. There really weren’t many surprises in this election. And while some notable pollsters like Zogby got the Presidential election wrong, hardly anyone was “surprised” that Bush pulled it off. Pretty much all political pundits thought he had at least a sporting chance, even if they thought he was the underdog. Now if Nader had won… ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polls-trust-those-with-something-to-lose/273394/6 "2004-11-07T15:49:05Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Well, I believe that in order to make a comparative prediction, you would need to actually make a comparison. I.e., were the bettors at Tradesports really doing significantly better than the polls were…particularly if you averaged over a few polls. > > I mean some of the things you are giving them credit for predicting were obvious. Everyone knew that the GOP was going to retain control of the House…It was pretty much a foregone conclusion, barring a complete GOP meltdown, after DeLay engineered that redistricting down in Texas. > > [Electoral-vote.com](http://Electoral-vote.com) had been predicting the GOP would retain control of the Senate for at least several weeks. > > And, I believe you could have predicted 47 out of the 50 states in the electoral contest correctly by just saying that Bush would win the same states he won in 2000. (I think just Iowa, New Mexico, and N.H. changed sides.) > > And, hey, before the election it was generally known that the election would come down to Kerry’s being able to win at least one of Ohio or Florida…which is why I went down to Cleveland for last Monday and Tuesday. I could have gone to Pennsylvania, for example, but my feeling was that if Kerry was going to lose Pennsylvania things were pretty hopeless so I might as well concentrate on a state for which the election hung more in the balance. All I know is that I saw many threads indicating that Kerry was ahead in the polls at one time or another and Tradesports was always pointing to a Bush win. I don’t claim that these markets are magical, just the best thing going. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polls-trust-those-with-something-to-lose/273394/7 "2004-11-07T15:52:40Z")
Heh. That said, Kerry moved to something like a 70-30 lead when the alleged exit polls made the blog rounds on Tuesday. Nothing like blood in the streets to create a buying opportunity. Tradesports was wrong on a half a dozen states or so at 4:00 that day. Sadly, even those things are “securities” for the purposes of my compliance department and I couldn’t have opened an account in time. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polls-trust-those-with-something-to-lose/273394/8 "2004-11-07T16:05:20Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > Heh. That said, Kerry moved to something like a 70-30 lead when the alleged exit polls made the blog rounds on Tuesday. Nothing like blood in the streets to create a buying opportunity. Tradesports was wrong on a half a dozen states or so at 4:00 that day. Yup. And when that happened, I plopped down an additional $500 on Bush; my earlier investment wasn’t even giving me 1:1. That was a nice chance to pick up some extra cash. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polls-trust-those-with-something-to-lose/273394/9 "2004-11-07T16:27:47Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I also predicted a few days before the election that John Zogby would finally be discovered as a bad pollster. His methodology sucks. He got lucky in 2000, and was treated as an Oracle ever since. He blew it big time in this election. I agree but Zogby is in major denial. [Here’s](http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=216) what Zogby is reporting on his site: _New York Post Says Zogby “Got It Right”(November 4,2004)_ [Here](http://www.nypost.com/seven/11042004/news/nationalnews/33357.htm) is what the NY Post actually wrote: "All of the final polls were within the margin of error. But none of the pollsters, even those who showed Kerry ahead, went as far as Zogby International did in predicting a runaway victory for Kerry. In a last-ditch effort for bragging rights, John Zogby called the election for Kerry at 5 p.m. before polls closed on Election Day, announcing on his Web site that the Demo- cratic nominee would win 311 electoral votes. That call even went against Zogby’s final poll, which showed Bush narrowly winning the popular vote — and left the pollster with his tail between his legs. “I thought we captured a trend, but apparently that result didn’t materialize,” Zogby wrote on his Web site yesterday." This is ‘getting it right’? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polls-trust-those-with-something-to-lose/273394/10 "2004-11-07T17:04:24Z")
Plus, people who have more disposable inme --\> more likely to gamble online --\> more likely to be Pubbies. Selection error. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polls-trust-those-with-something-to-lose/273394/11 "2004-11-08T00:18:32Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > Heh. That said, Kerry moved to something like a 70-30 lead when the alleged exit polls made the blog rounds on Tuesday. Nothing like blood in the streets to create a buying opportunity. Tradesports was wrong on a half a dozen states or so at 4:00 that day. > > Sadly, even those things are “securities” for the purposes of my compliance department and I couldn’t have opened an account in time. There were also huge alleged manipulation attempts: [http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004\_10\_10\_chronArchive.asp](http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004_10_10_chronArchive.asp) > [@](#): > > BUSH FUTURES BEING MANIPULATED There is now no question whatsoever that the Bush re-election futures contract at [Tradesports.com](http://Tradesports.com) is being manipulated. Yesterday the price of the futures were sold down from about 55 (indicating the market’s estimate of a 55% probability of Bush’s re-election) to 10 (indicating on a 10% probability) with a single 10,000-lot order entered by a single trader. An order that size represents twice the normal volume of an entire typical day’s trading. Within moments after the order was completed, the price recovered back to the low-mid-50’s. > > According to sources at Tradesports, yesterday’s order was entered by the same individual who has heavily sold the Bush futures three times over the past month. The first instance was on September 14, when this trader sold the futures down from the mid-60’s to 49.6. The second instance was in the middle of the second presidential debate on October 8, when the futures were sold down from the high 50’s to 51.5. The third instance was right after the third presidential debate on October13. As the debate began the futures were priced at 57, and by the end of the debate they had risen to 60. Then a few moments later they were beaten down to 54 in a matter of minutes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polls-trust-those-with-something-to-lose/273394/12 "2004-11-08T01:46:35Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > There were also huge alleged manipulation attempts: > > [http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004\_10\_10\_chronArchive.asp](http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004_10_10_chronArchive.asp) Sure - but the market recovered from each of those manipulation attempts. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Plus, people who have more disposable inme → more likely to gamble online → more likely to be Pubbies. > > Selection error. Valid point. But even those people have an interest in protecting their assets. And need I belabor the obvious in pointing out that ultimately, these more-likely-to-be-Pubbies were _RIGHT_? Er… “CORRECT,” that is. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polls-trust-those-with-something-to-lose/273394/13 "2004-11-08T15:27:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure - but the market recovered from each of those manipulation attempts. Yes. I consider that a big sign of the robustness of the market and the efficacy as an indicator.