2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

[lawtig02]

I don't think they said a single NFL game is more heavily bet than the presidential market just that overall the NFL is much larger. From my googling about $1.3b was bet on the 2020 election. For comparison $16b was bet on the Superbowl last year. Its reasonable to think the full NFL betting market is probably $50b or more.

The most popular prez betting market that keeps getting quoted is Polymarket which is a platform for crypto gamblers. As of a week ago they had $592m in bets on the election. But that includes ALL possible candidates. Only about $130m has been bet on either Trump or Kamala.

Yeah, it’s impossible to know how much is bet on presidential elections because domestic books can’t do it and overseas books generally don’t share their numbers. This is a pretty good analysis, though, albeit from a site with a strong interest in promoting betting.

Do Betting Odds or Polls Accurately Predict the Presidential Election Often? - Oddstrader

Examining the reliability of betting odds and polls in predicting U.S. presidential elections. Which is more accurate?

www.oddstrader.com

There are several pros and cons for relying on the betting markets to predict the winner of a U.S. presidential election.

PROS:​

• Betting markets can adjust very quickly to real-time news updates of significance, such as a candidate’s health, investigations like the FBI looking into Hillary Clinton’s emails in 2016 right before the election, or if something were to happen with Trump’s sentencing in July this year.
• Bettors put their money where their mouth is and vote the way they bet, and there are millions wagered on elections, so these voters have a vested interest in helping their candidate win their bet for them.
• The odds have good predictive power and a track record of success with favorites usually winning the election outside of 1916, 1948, and 2016.

CONS:​

• Market manipulation is possible if some sharks make huge bets that sway the odds in a certain direction, such as when someone bet at least $4 million on Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. It is also possible that the population of bettors are not evenly distributed among Democrats, Republicans, and independents, giving one side an advantage.
• While updating for current news can be good, sometimes that is an overreaction, such as Trump’s guilty verdict this year. After 2 weeks, his odds are right back to where they were before the verdict was read.
• Live betting odds in 2020 grossly overestimated Trump’s chances of winning on election night as the mail-in votes, which were largely done by Joe Biden voters, were not counted until later, which led to Biden’s victory.
• Since the odds are just for the winner, it may not be reflecting the state-wide odds properly in the swing states that should ultimately decide the election winner.

 

[altmin]

Trump tried to steal Beyonce's "Freedom" from Kamala. Didn't go so well.

Beyoncé is the latest artist to hit Trump with a cease and desist

Beyoncé is the latest artist to hit Trump with a cease and desist

www.avclub.com

According to Rolling Stone, the now-deleted clip was posted to Twitter/X by Steven Cheung on Tuesday, and showed the persistent song-swindler disembarking from a plane in Michigan.

Despite some profoundly stupid choices like using The Village People’s YMCA at his campaign rallies or trying to go up against George Harrison’s estate, the use of “Freedom” is perhaps Team Trump’s most uninspired swipe yet. That’s because someone already claimed it: Kamala Harris. The difference (well, one of many) is that the Democratic nominee actually secured Beyoncé’s blessing—and more importantly, Beyoncé’s mother Tina Knowles’—before launching the track as her official campaign song.

I would note still haven't heard anything from Taylor Swift about Trump falsely claiming her endorsement.

 

[Centerpiece]

Hey! I resemble that remark!

I would note still haven't heard anything from Taylor Swift about Trump falsely claiming her endorsement.

Taylor Swift’s silence right now is deafening. Is her boyfriend KC Kelce a Trumper? Maybe a closet Trumper? Is her relationship with him swaying her… one way or another? Just curious. I don’t follow Swift, and I’m not a fan of her music (even tho I give her HUGE props for being authentic, and writing and performing her own, original material). I just find it curious she’s not mentioned anything publicly about trump using her image and material and the fact she has not come out in support of Harris/Walz campaign. Others have: JT, Neil Young, Stevie, John Legend, Beyoncé, Mellencamp, etc. etc.

Come on Taylor. Shit or get off the pot. Perhaps she’s waiting for tonight and Kamala’s acceptance speech?

 

[Calheel]

I don't think they said a single NFL game is more heavily bet than the presidential market just that overall the NFL is much larger. From my googling about $1.3b was bet on the 2020 election. For comparison $16b was bet on the Superbowl last year. Its reasonable to think the full NFL betting market is probably $50b or more.

The most popular prez betting market that keeps getting quoted is Polymarket which is a platform for crypto gamblers. As of a week ago they had $592m in bets on the election. But that includes ALL possible candidates. Only about $130m has been bet on either Trump or Kamala.

Yeah, those numbers square with what I had seen. Which is why I was fairly confident that lawtig was wrong when he said more money was bet on a single NFL game (unless he meant exclusively the Super Bowl, which is obviously in a very unique category).

I had this discussion with Super last year. Obviously, the presidential betting markets aren't as good at price discovery as the stock market, there is still enough volume to have some relevance to the analysis.

Lawtig's suggestion was that presidential betting markets are so lightly traded that a few Trumpers could sway the numbers just based on an overcorrection. While that is possible, I think the more likely scenario is that the Kennedy news has moved the betting markets a skootch this week. At this stage in the race, it doesn't take very much to sway a couple of points. That said, the key thing to watch with betting markets is trends. Those only change a few times over the course of an election. The fact that Kamala peaked at 55% or so and has now reverted back to 50% is more interesting to me than the actual numbers. It is the betting markets essentially putting a governor on her upward swing.

In any event, one thing I do agree with lawtig is that polls and sites like 538 are much more reliable indicators of what is going to happen (and what is presently happening) than betting markets.

 

[Rock]

Taylor Swift’s silence right now is deafening. Is her boyfriend KC Kelce a Trumper? Maybe a closet Trumper? Is her relationship with him swaying her… one way or another? Just curious. I don’t follow Swift, and I’m not a fan of her music (even tho I give her HUGE props for being authentic, and writing and performing her own, original material). I just find it curious she’s not mentioned anything publicly about trump using her image and material and the fact she has not come out in support of Harris/Walz campaign. Others have: JT, Neil Young, Stevie, John Legend, Beyoncé, Mellencamp, etc. etc.

Come on Taylor. Shit or get off the pot. Perhaps she’s waiting for tonight and Kamala’s acceptance speech?

Kelce is a first ballot HOF liberal. He's not the hold up.

 

[lawtig02]

Yeah, those numbers square with what I had seen. Which is why I was fairly confident that lawtig was wrong when he said more money was bet on a single NFL game (unless he meant exclusively the Super Bowl, which is obviously in a very unique category).

I had this discussion with Super last year. Obviously, the presidential betting markets aren't as good at price discovery as the stock market, there is still enough volume to have some relevance to the analysis.

Lawtig's suggestion was that presidential betting markets are so lightly traded that a few Trumpers could sway the numbers just based on an overcorrection. While that is possible, I think the more likely scenario is that the Kennedy news has moved the betting markets a skootch this week. At this stage in the race, it doesn't take very much to sway a couple of points. That said, the key thing to watch with betting markets is trends. Those only change a few times over the course of an election. The fact that Kamala peaked at 55% or so and has now reverted back to 50% is more interesting to me than the actual numbers. It is the betting markets essentially putting a governor on her upward swing.

In any event, one thing I do agree with lawtig is that polls and sites like 538 are much more reliable indicators of what is going to happen (and what is presently happening) than betting markets.

The NFL game comparison was incidental to my initial post so I’m not going to spend much time defending it, but the best estimate for total betting in an NFL season seems to be about $100 billion. There are 272 total games, so the average is in the range of $370 million per game. Many are much higher than that, of course, and many are lower. But I haven’t seen anything that shows the total amount bet on the Harris-Trump race (none of which can be legally bet in the US) will approach $370 million. So I do stand by my point that on the whole, the lines for NFL games are more rational for a number of reasons, including the volume of the betting.

 

[altmin]

Taylor Swift’s silence right now is deafening. Is her boyfriend KC Kelce a Trumper? Maybe a closet Trumper? Is her relationship with him swaying her… one way or another? Just curious. I don’t follow Swift, and I’m not a fan of her music (even tho I give her HUGE props for being authentic, and writing and performing her own, original material). I just find it curious she’s not mentioned anything publicly about trump using her image and material and the fact she has not come out in support of Harris/Walz campaign. Others have: JT, Neil Young, Stevie, John Legend, Beyoncé, Mellencamp, etc. etc.

Come on Taylor. Shit or get off the pot. Perhaps she’s waiting for tonight and Kamala’s acceptance speech?

The lack of endorsement of Kamala doesn't bother me, but allowing Trump to assign her an endorsement without challenge really is harmful in my opinion. It comes off as tacit agreement.

 

[Calheel]

The NFL game comparison was incidental to my initial post so I’m not going to spend much time defending it, but the best estimate for total betting in an NFL season seems to be about $100 billion. There are 272 total games, so the average is in the range of $370 million per game. Many are much higher than that, of course, and many are lower. But I haven’t seen anything that shows the total amount bet on the Harris-Trump race (none of which can be legally bet in the US) will approach $370 million. So I do stand by my point that on the whole, the lines for NFL games are more rational for a number of reasons, including the volume of the betting.

Polymarket | The World's Largest Prediction Market

Bet on your beliefs

polymarket.com

Already showing over $694 million bet. I suspect the total wagered on the US presidential election will be over $2 billion worldwide. The fact that it is not legal in the US is essentially irrelevant as offshore books are plentiful and non-US bettors make up a significant share of the market.

In general, a single well-publicized event with months of futures betting will collect more revenue than a single sporting event, which just has a few days to collect revenue before the next game (and is competing with many other NFL games for dollars).

 

[Calheel]

Polymarket | The World's Largest Prediction Market

Bet on your beliefs

polymarket.com

Already showing over $694 million bet. I suspect the total wagered on the US presidential election will be over $2 billion worldwide. The fact that it is not legal in the US is essentially irrelevant as offshore books are plentiful and non-US bettors make up a significant share of the market.

In general, a single well-publicized event with months of futures betting will collect more revenue than a single sporting event, which just has a few days to collect revenue before the next game (and is competing with many other NFL games for dollars).

Also, I couldn't find support for your NFL numbers.

The AGA pegged total sports wagering at $119 billion for 2023: American Gaming Association: Legal sports betting hits record revenue in 2023.

If you assumed half of that for the NFL, you'd only be at $60 billion. Plus, there are roughly 550 NFL games a year. So that would come out to roughly $100 million per NFL game (and that is obviously an overstatement by using the mean, rather than the median. The $16 billion on the Superbowl really skews the numbers for the average game).

 

[lawtig02]

Polymarket | The World's Largest Prediction Market

Bet on your beliefs

polymarket.com

Already showing over $694 million bet. I suspect the total wagered on the US presidential election will be over $2 billion worldwide. The fact that it is not legal in the US is essentially irrelevant as offshore books are plentiful and non-US bettors make up a significant share of the market.

In general, a single well-publicized event with months of futures betting will collect more revenue than a single sporting event, which just has a few days to collect revenue before the next game (and is competing with many other NFL games for dollars).

As M&C posted above, that number includes all bets, not those on Trump or Kamala. Which just further indicates how irrational the odds are for this race. Nobody’s betting for the Jags to win a game between the Chiefs and the Bills.

In any event, I’m out at this point. We agree the polls are better indicators of what’s happening. I happen to think betting odds in a race like this are for suckers and don’t really indicate anything meaningful, but no problem if others feel differently about it.

 

[lawtig02]

Also, I couldn't find support for your NFL numbers.

The AGA pegged total sports wagering at $119 billion for 2023: American Gaming Association: Legal sports betting hits record revenue in 2023.

If you assumed half of that for the NFL, you'd only be at $60 billion. Plus, there are roughly 550 NFL games a year. So that would come out to roughly $100 million per NFL game (and that is obviously an overstatement by using the mean, rather than the median. The $16 billion on the Superbowl really skews the numbers for the average game).

How Much Do Americans Bet On Sports | US Total Bet On Sports

A look at how much money Americans bet on sports each year through online and in person sportsbooks. Breaking down the US total bet on sports by each state

www.legalsportsbetting.com

An estimated $100 billion is wagered at legal sportsbooks during the NFL season, with billions wagered on the Super Bowl alone in the US.

 

[4thgenheel]

Taylor Swift’s silence right now is deafening. Is her boyfriend KC Kelce a Trumper? Maybe a closet Trumper? Is her relationship with him swaying her… one way or another? Just curious. I don’t follow Swift, and I’m not a fan of her music (even tho I give her HUGE props for being authentic, and writing and performing her own, original material). I just find it curious she’s not mentioned anything publicly about trump using her image and material and the fact she has not come out in support of Harris/Walz campaign. Others have: JT, Neil Young, Stevie, John Legend, Beyoncé, Mellencamp, etc. etc.

Come on Taylor. Shit or get off the pot. Perhaps she’s waiting for tonight and Kamala’s acceptance speech?

Travis Kelce is most definitely not a trumper.

 

[Calheel]

How Much Do Americans Bet On Sports | US Total Bet On Sports

A look at how much money Americans bet on sports each year through online and in person sportsbooks. Breaking down the US total bet on sports by each state

www.legalsportsbetting.com

An estimated $100 billion is wagered at legal sportsbooks during the NFL season, with billions wagered on the Super Bowl alone in the US.

That conflicts with the AGA numbers, which had just $40 billion bet in the 4th quarter of 2023 (which includes some baseball, basketball and college football). Bovada might be including illegal betting in that number as well, as the AGA just calculated the number for "legal" sportsbooks

 

[4thgenheel]

my mom told me earlier that she heard or read somewhere that beyonce and taylor swift are going to do some sort of joint performance/endorsement.

she's a big t-swift fan (my mom, lol).

 

[Calheel]

As M&C posted above, that number includes all bets, not those on Trump or Kamala. Which just further indicates how irrational the odds are for this race. Nobody’s betting for the Jags to win a game between the Chiefs and the Bills.

In any event, I’m out at this point. We agree the polls are better indicators of what’s happening. I happen to think betting odds in a race like this are for suckers and don’t really indicate anything meaningful, but no problem if others feel differently about it.

If the betting odds are for suckers, you could do as Heelyeah suggested and make a bet. Obviously, there are real financial incentives for the markets not to get too far from the real odds -- as there are many professional gamblers out there who will pound any market inefficiency they see. And regardless of whether the number is $500 million, or $2 billion, there are more than enough sites for sharps to take advantage of any wildly mispriced line.

 

[circlesky88]

my mom told me earlier that she heard or read somewhere that beyonce and taylor swift are going to do some sort of joint performance/endorsement.

she's a big t-swift fan (my mom, lol).

That’s been a rumor for awhile, not much validity to it IMO.

 

[CallMeTyler]

 

[CallMeTyler]

If the betting odds are for suckers, you could do as Heelyeah suggested and make a bet. Obviously, there are real financial incentives for the markets not to get too far from the real odds -- as there are many professional gamblers out there who will pound any market inefficiency they see. And regardless of whether the number is $500 million, or $2 billion, there are more than enough sites for sharps to take advantage of any wildly mispriced line.

If betting is for suckers, make a bet?

Walk me through that.

 

[Calheel]

If betting is for suckers, make a bet?

Walk me through that.

Well, unless the house is collecting a huge rake (like at the horse track), there should be a sucker and a sharp with each bet.

The whole idea of advantage gambling is to get odds at a better percentage than the true odds. When you count cards in blackjack, you can switch a .5% house edge to a 1%-2% player edge, depending upon how aggressive your bet spread.

In sports betting, you are essentially looking for mispriced lines that (in a straight bet) would let you win over 52.5% of the time.

So, if the political betting markets become mispriced because suckers are laying money on Trump, that means there is a sharp-side bet for Kamala. There really shouldn't be suckers on both sides of the line -- particularly in a trading market like polymarket. One side is the sucker side and one side is the sharp side.

If betting markets are completely irrational, then there is a significant financial advantage to be obtained. I am just not as convinced as lawtig that betting markets are completely irrational. So, I essentially proposed putting your money where your mouth is. If someone thinks the markets are way out of whack, they should pound them.

Now, when heelyeah raised this point earlier this year, I suggested that there are lots of reasons not to tie up your excess cash in futures bets that won't payoff for 9 months. That argument is a lot less compelling now that we are less than 100 days from a payoff.

 

[superrific]

Well, unless the house is collecting a huge rake (like at the horse track), there should be a sucker and a sharp with each bet.

The whole idea of advantage gambling is to get odds at a better percentage than the true odds. When you count cards in blackjack, you can switch a .5% house edge to a 1%-2% player edge, depending upon how aggressive your bet spread.

In sports betting, you are essentially looking for mispriced lines that (in a straight bet) would let you win over 52.5% of the time.

So, if the political betting markets become mispriced because suckers are laying money on Trump, that means there is a sharp-side bet for Kamala. There really shouldn't be suckers on both sides of the line -- particularly in a trading market like polymarket. One side is the sucker side and one side is the sharp side.

If betting markets are completely irrational, then there is a significant financial advantage to be obtained. I am just not as convinced as lawtig that betting markets are completely irrational. So, I essentially proposed putting your money where your mouth is. If someone thinks the markets are way out of whack, they should pound them.

Now, when heelyeah raised this point earlier this year, I suggested that there are lots of reasons not to tie up your excess cash in futures bets that won't payoff for 9 months. That argument is a lot less compelling now that we are less than 100 days from a payoff.

1. The liquidity in the market is not sufficient for true price discovery. If suckers are laying money on Trump . . . their influence will only be countered by a rush of liquidity for Kamala. It's not like a stock market where there is a very deep pool of capital waiting to jump in at the right price, or at least there are no indications of that from the betting volume.

It absolutely is doable for people to manipulate the betting odds with wagers. If they can bid up Truth Social stock to a market cap of $8B, it is child's play to tilt the betting market odds.

2. There are always suckers on both sides of the line. I think you mean to say that, at any odds, the smart money would see one attractive bet. And maybe so, but that's true of all sorts of mispriced stocks and plenty of smart money has lost big cash shorting a bubble.

3. Betting markets are information, of greater than zero value I just don't know of any evidence that today's betting markets are particularly accurate in predicting US elections. They used to be, a decade and a half ago when the markets were obscure, most participants were political junkies, and there wasn't a class of Trumpers willing to throw their money away in service of the cause and/or a deluded belief that Trump is somehow chosen by God.