Americans are so far inside this year's presidential elections, it probably wouldn't hurt to take a step back.
So let's cross the Atlantic for a minute, and see what the English bookmakers are thinking:
Here are today's odds for ultimately winning the November election from Ladbrokes:
Barack Obama 11-8
Mitt Romney 2-1
Ron Paul 16-1
Newt Gingrich 16-1
Rick Santorum 33-1
Hillary Clinton 40-1
Rick Perry 40-1
Jon Huntsman 40-1
Michele Bachmann 100-1
Gary Johnson 200-1
And at William Hill:
Barack Obama 5-4
Mitt Romney 6-4
Ron Paul 16-1
Newt Gingrich 16-1
Jon Huntsman 40-1
Rick Santorum 50-1
Rick Perry 66-1
Michele Bachmann 80-1
Spot on? Or sixpence short of a shilling? The comments are bloody yours, innit?
Leave a Comment:
I assume that Bachmann having any odds at all is taking into the account the possibility of everyone but her and her husband dying from a plague or something.
she has odds because she is odd!
How is Hillary Clinton a part of this? Wouldn't she already have needed to begin a primary challenge to Obama by now? Or are they thinking about her as a 3rd (or 4th) party challenger?
Didn't you read post #1, everyone is "dying of the plague or something."
No, they are simply reflecting the money wagered on each candidate. Which means that more people are willing to put their money on a speculative wager on the phenomenally unlikely set of circumstances that would be required in order to result in a Hillary presidency, than are in Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, or Michele Bachmann.
We're not dumb us Brits.
Those Brits just don't get how our system works. Never will!
According to those odds Obama has a slight edge over every single Republican. The payoff for Obama or Romney would not amount to much after the parimutuel fee. The bets would be better structured with the parties and President, Senate and House. That is a trifecta that could have decent payoffs if you don't box them.
No parimutuel fee in fixed odds betting ;)
Thank you for the laugh, Notorious. I totally agree with that assessment. I find it a bit frightening to see the William Hill prediction that puts the odds as almost even (if I'm reading that right) between Obama and Romney. I always feel like there is a great big cosmic Candid Camera spoof going on with any of these republicans (although--I think Mr. Hill gives the odds for Huntsman as too favorable just because of that fact--even at 40 to 1--Huntsman's too sane for the R 2012 electorate.) Hopefully, at some point in the next few hours, someone will say this was all a joke--and bring out some real candidates for the opposing team. People from this universe not the alternate universe the current crop seems to come from. I just can't believe any one would seriously vote for the most plastic politician of all time--Mitt Romney--even if he appears to be the more acceptable because of those he is being compared to on the R side.
Yes, Jon Huntsman is actually very intelligent and he is an extremely good diplomat - which is why the GOP doesn't like him. He wouldn't just run rough-shod over the Middle East just for the sake of doing so...........how very un-Republican!!
One of the best things about politics is watching some bloated goon take an ego-trimming. And I believe I have witnessed, this cycle, the grand prize winner for my lifetime of observing politics.
I've been watching this Rick Perry closely from the time he announced to his interviews today and C-SPAN coverage of his Iowa townhalls. At times, recently, he has had a glazed look in his eyes.
I really believe that when this guy finally jumped in (late because he heard all the punditry about the base not being able to find anyone they like), he thought he was just going to strut in with boots, a walk like he literally just got off the saddle, with red meat like executions and Jesus, and the party was just going to go--YOU ARE IT RICK. PICK YOUR VP.
Now there he is, staring up at the ass of the goofy Santorum.
If the primaries in Iowa took place in ten days instead of tomorrow, John Huntsman would be the "surging candidate." Candidate by candidate, Iowans are realizing what the rest of the country has known for the last decade: Republicans are just plain crazy. There is nothing new or different about Gingrich, or Paul or Santorum or Bachmann or Perry. These people have been in politics forever and they've all been more than half crazy from the get go.
Oops, in true Rick Perry form they forgot one. What are the odds on the soft coated wheaten terrier?
it's the Petit Basset Griffon Vendéen or nobody for the GOP
Odds are Barack will win no one else has a chance that we have heard from...
I would only put my money on Obama
I bet Obama 11-8 and a decision on proposition 8 by Wednesday.
If I read the Ladbrokes page correctly it's not 11-8 for Obama it's 8-11,so they think he's a favorite to win.
Hmmm, learned something. I've always seen betting odds with the larger number first so I was unsure of the difference between 11/8 odds versus 8/11. Looked it up and here's what I found (Thanks MathProf for the motivation):
Odds on (e.g 1/2, 4/7, 3/10 etc)
If your horse's perceived chance of winning the race is more than 50/50 it is described as odds on. In this case if your horse wins you will receive your stake back plus your stake multiplied by the odds on it.
For example: Your horse wins at 1/2 (pronounced one-to-two on).
If your stake was £10 you will receive:
I don't ever gamble, so I'm not an expert by anymeans.
However, I've always interpreted it thus.
Odds are displays as return (x) for wager (y)
So, in the given example, I'd read it as for every 8 pounds/dollars/yen/chickens than you bet on Obama winning in November. If he does, you'd get back 11 pounds/dollars/yen/chickens.
(plus your stake)
so if you bet 8 dollars, you'd win 11+your initial 8. In essence the odds are just a little under 1.5 to 1. That isn't odds on.
Its only odds on if you are getting a return of less than 1:1.
So if Obama was 8:11. i.e, for every 11 your bet, you'd get back 8, (plus your stake) THEN he'd be Odds On.
But as I said, I never, ever, gamble. Not even on the Grand National. So I may be wrong. That is just how I've always understood it.
UKLD is correct. That is how the odds are stated in Vegas and at racetracks. If the odds are 2 to 1, you get two for every 1 on the bet. So a 1 dollar bet nets you 2 less the parimutuel fee which is the house/track's take. The win is a little under 2 dollars. I know because I spend a lot of time in Vegas and the tracks.
Mike, you and UKLD need to read the post I responded to from MathProf...
And check the Ladbrokes link. They list Obama as 8/11 not 11/8, that was his point. They seem to show him as "odds on"
The reason why the odds are 8 to 11 is because they are under 2 to 1 which means the pay for $1 is $1.375. So you are correct in your math and that Obama is odds on. If the numbers were reversed then you would be losing money. Odds are never stated in fractional terms.
Bachmann, Santorum have no delegates on Tennessee primary ballot
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/30/bachmann-santorum-have-no-delegates-on-tennessee-primary-ballot/
Game over?
I really don't think the British are all that good at betting...but with the GOP slate we are faced will I'd say Obama is a shoo in!
What's the odds on the Donald??? Ha bloody ha.
oh please
aren't these the same people that chose a panda for woman of december?
No, that was one guy writing an article for the BBC online review of the year. (Presumably based on the amount of [probalby worldwide] traffic that the panda's had attracted.) This is a computer calculating the company's financial exposure to risk based on the money actually placed in wagers so far.
Neither of those are representative of the British people. Any more than the fact that you're being a bit of a jerk here is representative of Americans.
Ever heard of a thing called joking around?Maybe take the piss?
Sure I have. .... Which is why I assumed you were being a jerk. Thanks for the confirmation.
Your reactions are very telling about you as well
<this is a big beaming smiley> .... ;D ... <that was a big beaming smiley>
OK
This is racism against my people.
Per the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ after resurrecting appeared to Native Americans.
Some Mormons believe, "The story of the life of the Mexican divinity, Quetzalcoatl, closely resembles that of the Savior; so closely, indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being." (Mormon President John Taylor)
So, does Mitt Romney, a Mormon, believe that Jesus appeared as Quetzalcoatl, the Aztec feathered serpent god? And if so, what do Iowan evangelical Republicans think about Romney worshiping Quetzalcoatl, with Mormons believing this was Jesus on this side of the Atlantic? Forget speaking French, does Mitt Romney speak Aztec? And if elected president, would Mitt Romney erect an altar to Quetzalcoatl in the White House?
Iowa causus. Not even an election with the protection of privacy that affords. Where only the 20% of the state that are registered Republicans can participate. And only 20% of those do.
The winning candidate will have a little over 20% of the vote.
So we're worrying about 20%.... of 20%.... of 20%...... of Iowa.
Roughly 0.8 - 1.0% of Iowa's 3M residents. About 25-30,000 people.
Personally, as I Brit, I think the average American is probably smarter than 0.8% of Iowan's. But I am watching with interest.
Nicely done, UKLD...Respects from Phoenix, AZ....
As an American, I am watching with interest, too. I wish I had your confidence in the average american!
Odds that a presidential veto on NDAA would have changed the passing congressional votes (283 -136 House and 86-13 Senate) enough to prevent the 2/3 majority veto override? I'd have given 41 to 4 odds.
Odds an amendment to section 1021 comes up for vote again before the next defense budget? Careful Kent. I could end up owning you... indefinitely.
Ummm...who is Gary Johnson?
uh... hope this helps. =|
thefoldblog(dot)com/2011/11/gary-johnson-considering-libertarian.html
These odds are not incompatible with Nate Silver's odds, so I'd call them "probably spot-on."
Alright Rachel, out with the stereotypes! Love yu, love the show though. Anyway those of a betting nature will bet on anything from the winner at the 3.30 at Kempton, to weather it will snow on Christmas Day. The odds look about right to me, although I live in the US not the UK now. I hope Obama wins, but wouldn't bet on it...lol! But a good combination bet may be inorder; Obama to win, snow on Christmas Day 2012, Kauto Star to win the Gold Cup and Wolves to win the FA Cup and someone other than the X Factor winner to be CHristmas #1. If that all happened I thing I might just be rolling in it come this time next year.
Wolves to win the FA Cup.....????? Are you high???? ;D
You may like my video about Newt's three marriages at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQSsMRe6BJE
There are chickens in it. Everybody loves chickens!
Speaking of Newt... I'm surprised the song by Austin Lounge Lizards has not seen a big revival.
If Hillary Clinton was to run she would stand a better chance than what the Republicans have to offer.
Is Hillary in this odds prediction because if Obama wins she and Bill will be the ones pulling the strings?
Hilary is in here because people are willing to bet on her. Oddsmakers would include Woopsie the Wonder Snail if there were punters forking over money.