My New Year's resolution is to post on my blog at least once a week.
baby steps
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Monday, December 03, 2007
our next president (according to a sportsbook)
My sportsbook takes action on politics from time to time. For example, I made money betting on the 2005 Papal Conclave, and afterwards, experienced the worst case of "should have bet more" bettors remorse of my life.
A handful of candidates remained when I placed my bet. Just days before the announcement, CNN ran a story confidently predicting that Ratzinger would be named. They cited several unnamed sources close to the conclave. I thought to myself, "CNN is a credible source, and they sound extremely confident about this,,, I might as well take Ratzinger while my book is still offering the action."
Just before betting my entire account balance on Ratzinger, a thought crossed my mind, "What if the sportsbooks are leaking that information to CNN get the action on Ratzinger??? Maybe I'll just make a conservative bet."
STUPID! As if bookies are out there leaking information to CNN about the Papal Conclave!!! And CNN either trusts the information enough to put it on the air, or are themselves on the payroll!
So in my mind, of all the interest in the Papal Conclave, no group wielded as much power with mainstream media as the sportsbook lobby! I must have assumed that the action on the Pope was reaching Super Bowl proportions.
So anyway, you can log onto the website right now and bet on who you think will win the 2008 Presidential election. Here are the current odds:
Hillary Clinton - 1-2
Rudolph Giuliani - 4.5-1
Barack Obama - 5.5-1
Mitt Romney - 8-1
Ron Paul - 12-1
Mike Huckabee - 18-1
Al Gore - 20-1
John Edwards - 22-1
Fred Thompson - 25-1
John McCain - 33-1
Bill Richardson - 100-1
Obviously the first thing that jumps out is the amount by which Hillary Clinton is favored. I don't know much about politics, but I do know that if I go to a racetrack and see 11 healthy horses waiting at the starting gate, and one of them is only paying fifty cents on the dollar, somebody thinks they know something.
Is smart money taking Obama at 5.5-1?
Is serious money taking Huckabee at 18-1? (it was 25-1 last week)
Last week, I took Huckabee to win the Republican nomination at 8-1, since then the odds have moved to 4-1.
And Giuliani is the Republican favorite? Are you kidding me? "America's Mayor"? Giuliani's claim to fame is being the mayor of New York on 9/11. Was he was pulling people out of the wreckage?
This guy is a senior adviser on Giuliani's foreign policy team.
And how about Ron Paul getting some serious respect at 12-1? He's getting better odds than John Edwards.
And as for Romney, I don't know anything about the Mormon faith other that the fact that when I went to Vegas for a national training session in 2002, the guys I met from our Salt Lake City office all had three things in common, 1) They were under the age of 25, 2) They were Mormon, and 3) Not one of them had less than two children, (they were also very nice, and didn't drink, so I guess that makes five)
Someone's gotta represent the Grand Old Party next year... why not Huckabee? That guy is an American's American.
A handful of candidates remained when I placed my bet. Just days before the announcement, CNN ran a story confidently predicting that Ratzinger would be named. They cited several unnamed sources close to the conclave. I thought to myself, "CNN is a credible source, and they sound extremely confident about this,,, I might as well take Ratzinger while my book is still offering the action."
Just before betting my entire account balance on Ratzinger, a thought crossed my mind, "What if the sportsbooks are leaking that information to CNN get the action on Ratzinger??? Maybe I'll just make a conservative bet."
STUPID! As if bookies are out there leaking information to CNN about the Papal Conclave!!! And CNN either trusts the information enough to put it on the air, or are themselves on the payroll!
So in my mind, of all the interest in the Papal Conclave, no group wielded as much power with mainstream media as the sportsbook lobby! I must have assumed that the action on the Pope was reaching Super Bowl proportions.
So anyway, you can log onto the website right now and bet on who you think will win the 2008 Presidential election. Here are the current odds:
Hillary Clinton - 1-2
Rudolph Giuliani - 4.5-1
Barack Obama - 5.5-1
Mitt Romney - 8-1
Ron Paul - 12-1
Mike Huckabee - 18-1
Al Gore - 20-1
John Edwards - 22-1
Fred Thompson - 25-1
John McCain - 33-1
Bill Richardson - 100-1
Obviously the first thing that jumps out is the amount by which Hillary Clinton is favored. I don't know much about politics, but I do know that if I go to a racetrack and see 11 healthy horses waiting at the starting gate, and one of them is only paying fifty cents on the dollar, somebody thinks they know something.
Is smart money taking Obama at 5.5-1?
Is serious money taking Huckabee at 18-1? (it was 25-1 last week)
Last week, I took Huckabee to win the Republican nomination at 8-1, since then the odds have moved to 4-1.
And Giuliani is the Republican favorite? Are you kidding me? "America's Mayor"? Giuliani's claim to fame is being the mayor of New York on 9/11. Was he was pulling people out of the wreckage?
This guy is a senior adviser on Giuliani's foreign policy team.
And how about Ron Paul getting some serious respect at 12-1? He's getting better odds than John Edwards.
And as for Romney, I don't know anything about the Mormon faith other that the fact that when I went to Vegas for a national training session in 2002, the guys I met from our Salt Lake City office all had three things in common, 1) They were under the age of 25, 2) They were Mormon, and 3) Not one of them had less than two children, (they were also very nice, and didn't drink, so I guess that makes five)
Someone's gotta represent the Grand Old Party next year... why not Huckabee? That guy is an American's American.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)