I’ll give 1000 to 1 odds that I’ll know the score of the next Superbowl before the game even starts! Who wants a piece?
A couple of random thoughts/responses to the above:
-
I like the “pay by donation to winner’s charity” idea.
-
I wouldn’t take an even bet–that’s ridiculous.
-
I don’t want to pick my own candidate and push if neither wins. The idea is we’re betting on whether Obama is the next president, not on the identity of the next president.
-
I’ll take the bet described in the OP at 4 to 1 (i.e., your $40 to my $10). Lots of folks in the GD thread are predicting an Obama victory. Those folks should see this as an easy opportunity to cause me to donate $1000 to the charity of their choice.
But you can easily hedge their bet, making it risk free for you. You’re asking them to put their money behind their opinion without being willing to do it yourself.
How do we know you’ll pay?
At 15:1 odds. Yeah, right.
I have an alternate proposal Rand Rover.
I’m willing to put up 10% of my pre-tax annual income betting that Obama is re-elected. You put up 10% of your income at 1:1 odds. Meaning if I win, you pay me 10% of your income. If you win, I pay you 10% of my income. I think that’s a little more fair, don’t you? 
I don’t think it is. I voted for the guy, and with even odds, I’d consider action on either side. I think he has the slight edge, but hardly anything approaching even 2:1 odds. 15-1 odds is just stupid. I mean, the odds that Obama is the Democratic nominee in 2012 is -700. link. The odds for a Republican being elected is +120. So, bet $100 to win $120.
The election markets have 87% chance Obama will be the candidate, and 58.7% that the Democrats will win.
(I’m guessing some of the action against Obama being the nominee is betting on him being unable to run.)
Only 87% chance? As an incumbent, assuming he’s alive and healthy at the time then I doubt the chances of him getting the nomination are anything less than 100%.
Okay. Progress. So you’ve determined that “the fact that he’s a sitting president who was extremely popular at one time” makes it more likely than not that he’ll be re-elected, enough so that you wouldn’t bet against it with even odds, would even consider such a wager as “ridiculous”. How much more likely than 50/50?
Well Intrade currently gives him an 87% chance of getting the nomination and the Democratic nominee a 58.7% of winning the election. Putting those together means that the current odds on Intrade of Obama winning the election is just less than 52%. Do you think his second term is more or less likely than that? I think it is more likely and, if I was someone who bet, would take that bet. Those are the current odds; let us imagine you have to place a bet one way or the other: which side do you place your marker on Rand Rover?
No, 15-1 is ridiculous. Professional bookies are placing the odds at less than 3-2. But you want odds that are ten times better than that.
Like I said, I’m assuming some of the negative action is betting on something happening to him, in other words, the “alive and healthy” part of your post.
In order for it to be “putting their money where their mouth is”, they would have to think there’s a 15/16 chance (93.75%) that Obama will win the next election, and then it would be a break-even bet for them. Just saying “I think he will probably (>50%) win” doesn’t convey 15:1 certainty.
I’d probably take your bet at whatever the mainstream oddsmakers are setting the futures transaction at now. I’d do it with you instead of them simply because when I win I could then pile your money into a pool of nickles and swim in it. MMMMMM RAND ROVER’S MONEY.
Win.
I see what you did there!
Interestingly enough, Palin comes in at about 14-1 on average here
So it seems Obama’s odds of losing are roughly the same as Palin’s odds of winning at 6 or 7%
Seriously though, 1-15 is absolutely ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous.
You’re just telling people either:
a) you think Obama is a certainty to win in 2012
b) you hope to catch one idiot who doesn’t read your post and thinks you are offering 15-1 rather than 1-15
c) you have such a small amount of trust in people that to make what is pretty much an even bet you need 15-1 from one person to compensate for the other 14 people who would rip you off.
Why not just make a bet on how many people would pay up on bets? Because the 15-1 figure is ridiculous and obviously has nothing to do with the chances of Obama getting re-elected
Of course this isn’t a serious proposition. If I were absolutely sure Obama could win the 2012 election (or the Phillies could win the 2010 World Series, or England could win the 2010 World Cup, or whatever), it’s in my best interest to find the best odds in my favor. If Obama is at evens in Vegas, but Rand Rover is only offering 15-1 on, I’m a fool to take it, just as I’d be a fool to take 2-1 against the Phils at the Mirage when the Rio is offering 3-1 against. My $100 bet pays me $300 at the Mirage and $400 at the Rio if the Phils take the Series. Why would I be even thinking about laying a bet at the Mirage? Plus I can see Penn and Teller at the Rio.
The difference here, dear Dopers, is that if I went to the Mirage and decided not to put my $100 down, I don’t have the guy at the window screaming at me that I must think that Ryan Howard sucks. The Mirage bookies merely think that 2-1 odds maximize their potential winnings. They don’t have any vested interest in Victorino, Rollins, and company winning or losing. Business is business.
But not for our friend Rand Rover here. He’s going to offer us crappy odds, then snidely claim that “we don’t believe in Obama” if we don’t take his lousy deal. There’s a word for this, but I can’t use it outside the Pit.
I’m not taking any of this action until I know for sure who the Republicans are putting against him (meaning that whoever it is has won the nomination, so we probably won’t know for another 18 months or so).
I mean, if they put, say, a trained monkey against Obama, then I’ll take you up on it, as my money’s on the human.
(Oh, wait, they can’t put a trained monkey up. Constitutionally forbidden. Term limits and all. And what with his terms being so recent and all … )
Too early to tell, IMHO. I say that as someone who is not in love with Obama as many are here. I say that as someone who lives in a country where even Dubya got reelected.
I’ll make a $300 wager with you, RR. If Obama wins, I collect $200. If he loses, you collect $300. This is a serious offer, and I think it is fairly generous odds compared to what is being offered in the betting shops.
Tell you what Rand?
I’ll take $100 of action from you at 2.5:1 odds. With the following additional conditions.
- Obama’s death as rendered by a non-act of God source or
- Obama’s incapacitation through trauma
Renders this bet null and void.
This still allows you to win if Obama gets an infected hangnail it terminally spreads…or Obama says “eff this. I’m not running” or they find his Kenyan birth certificate and he’s Constitutionally unable to hold office anymore. Or Obama causes the complete collapse of civilization and we’re bought by the Chinese. You know, the usual things.
It just stops anything like terrorists killing him or kidnapping his family.
My $250 against your $100, to be payable sometime between November 7, 2012 and January 19, 2013.
What’s your pre-tax income?
I will take both of these bets, but only if the winning condition for you is that Obama is sworn in as the next president following his current term and the winning condition for me is that that does not occur. I’m trying to avoid arguments over what exactly is a “non-act of God source” and “trauma” etc. Let’s make it simple. And payment occurs through contribution to a charity chosen by the winner.