I am very confident however of course there is always a chance a miracle could happen

Right... that's why odds exist.

Hitch assumes that he's got a <25% chance of losing money on his bet, hence he offers 3:1 odds (when internally he thinks Hillary has a >75% chance of winning the election, so the expected value for him is still positive).

Let's assume that you believe the Republican field has, say, a 55% chance of winning. And that you bet $5.

In 55% of cases, Hitch is going to lose and owe you $15 (3 * $5).
In 45% of cases, Hitch is going to win and you owe him $5.

Your expected value is (.55)($15) - (.45)(%5) = $7.85.

But you go even further than that- you think it would take "a miracle" for the Republicans to not pull this election.

Let's be super-conservative here and say that a "miracle" happens 1/4 of the time.

That means- in 75% of cases, Hitch is going to lose and owe you $15; in 25% of cases, Hitch is going to win and you lose your $5. If you run this bet an infinite number of times, you should expect to come out $10 ahead on average for each iteration.

You can expect to come out on top under any model where the Republicans' chance of victory is >25%.

The risk is exactly how bets work. You can't argue that the mere existence of risk makes a bet not worth taking, because it's already handled by the lopsided ratio of wagers.

Edited 2/1/2016 01:01:12

exactly, if you think republicans have more than 25% chances to win the election, then taking the bet is +EV

Edited 2/1/2016 01:07:29

I believe its foolish and a waste of cash

If you believe this bet would be a waste of cash for you, then you don't really believe that a republican is going to get elected

Hmmm True Kynte but still as a general rule I do not bet, never have and hopefully never will. Oh and I did not mean any personally disrespect with my statement hitch

Like I said before I really would not want to wire money overseas and I do not need to prove that I believe the republicans will win by betting on it. There are plenty of people who believe in there party that don't want to bet not because they are afraid of losing but because they, like me, just don't to go through all the hassal. So if your point is since I don't bet that I am afraid my party will lose, lol you are completely off base

Edited 2/1/2016 01:16:48

i'm not saying that you don't wanna bet because you think you'll lose, i'm just saying that some of your justfications for not betting are wrong, if you actually believe that a republican will get elected. I'm not "forcing" you to bet or even implying that you are "afraid" to bet, there are other reasons why people wouldn't bet as a principle, that are not related to the odds, and i'm completely fine with it^^

edit: just so you know, if the only reason you don't wanna bet is because you don't want to wire money overseas, we can still use WL coins if you are interested

Edited 2/1/2016 01:24:06

lol I do not play WL coin games.


Tell you what, if Hillary wins then I will play ten lottery games with you and each one is rigged in your favor

you will have to remember this bet lol

" If you were American you would understand the extreme dissatisfaction with Obama, both democrats and republicans hate him."

This is nonsense.

Polls show that 10% of Republicans approve of Obama currently.

Okay, that does indeed show extreme dissatisfaction.

47% of Independents polled claim to be satisfied.

80% of Democrats polled claim to be satisfied.

Lets say 45% of the people polled are democrats, 45% republican, 10% independent. That gives a weighted approval rating of (.8*.45)+(.1*.47)+(.1*.45)=45.2%

That's not extreme disapproval.

It's also not weighted properly as actual polls show an approval rating of 48% most recently.

To put into context: At this stage of Bush's second term he had a 33% approval rating. Clinton had a 62% approval rating at this point in his second term.

So, yes, e is far less liked than Clinton was, however he is still far more liked than his predecessor was.

Historically presidents nearing the end of their term have had 47% approval ratings.

Apparently in your eyes a president who is considered to have done a slightly better than average job though is the target of "extreme" disapproval.

Edited 2/1/2016 01:40:00

What polls did you use? what were your sources?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/Barack-Obama-Presidential-Job-Approval.aspx

Obama job approvals - all polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Even if every one of your polls were accurate ( those numbers look odd ) 80% only support from your own party is bad. Extreme was the wrong term, granted, let me phrase it differently. An increasing majority from all sides not seen since Bush disapproves of him

Still, His ratings are down badly

Edited 2/1/2016 01:47:57

In an election year for democrats yeah that's not good

He had a strong approval rating for the first 2 years...and then he's been skirting at the edges of 50% ever since. Not surprised that his last 2 years have all been majority disapproval. This is a natural voter tendency for a 2 term president. Overall though this graph is a perfect example of the polarizing nature of our political system. The last 2 presidents have been the most hated men in American politics.

Although a lot more people hated Bush as he left because he lost a lot of support from his own party. Obama is still liked among his own Party. The crazy thing is that the criticism of obama from the left is that he hasn't been progressive enough!! That's ridiculous.

Edited 2/1/2016 01:55:35

"Not seen since Bush".

Lolwat?

You mean a president hasn't been this disapproved of...since the one directly before the current one?

I could similarly say a president hasn't been this liked since Clinton.

Alas, Clinton was a Democrat, Bush not so much.

Currently the reason Trump looks to many to be a leading candidate is not because he stands a chance at winning.

Often when a poll results in the following scenario:

Trump 36%
Cruz: 20%
Rubio: 10%
Carson: 8%
Bush: 5%
Christie: 3%
Paul: 2%
Huckabee: 2%
Fiorina: 2%

It doesn't mean that Trump is the favorite.

You can draw two very different interpretations from such data:

36% of people approve of Trump, as opposed to 20% for Cruz. So if they ran against each other Trump would get 64% of the votes (36/56).

There's also the scenario where 36% will vote for Trump, the other 64% are split on who they'd rather have instead of Trump, but will actually vote for anyone but Trump, and once there's only two main people to choose from the alternative option winds up receiving over 60% of the vote.

Edited 2/1/2016 01:56:13

another bet:
Bernie Sanders will be the next president of the USA
odds: 1 to 4

If only I were 18...I could make serious bank off you, Hitchslap.