Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

Well, the entire point is that the system was not for sale. It took them a while to figure out how Silver was doing it. And, like you said, once they did, many adopted the system or elements of it themselves...

But, I'm not really looking to argue about it with ya. If it makes you feel better to insist that you are correct, and the guy who made millions is a fool, then more power to ya.

Cycloptichorn

He made millions off his system without using or selling it? Some trick, that.

At any rate; that neither erases the FACT that Silverman lied in his example, as I proved beyond a reasonable doubt, nor the FACT that there is no reason an Odds Maker would ever fear a system working (as you say your friend suggested.)

The lack of integrity demonstrated in your continued ad hominem (and flat out ignoring of the thoroughly demonstrated bald-faced LIE) is asinine. How precisely does that make you feel better?

Frankly, I expect that kind of response from Foxfyre, not you Cyclo. If your boy said 2+2=5 and I disproved it; would you then say “If it makes you feel better to insist that you are correct, and the guy who made millions is a fool, then more power to ya.” What makes you think that Ad Hominem carries any weight at all? The equation remains the same no matter who he is. How would that example be any different than his idiotic claim that his strategy contained no risk? I proved that false, beyond a reasonable doubt, and you blatantly ignored this simple truth, just like Foxy would. The only difference is you know better… and you should be ashamed of yourself for employing such a shameless rhetorical device.

Further, I explicitly explained that he need not be a fool... and that he may in fact be the best in the business (Frankly, I think anyone who makes millions off any proprietary idea is probably the furthest thing from a fool.) This doesn't change the FACT that the LIE I disproved was in FACT a LIE. Nor does it affect the fundamental reason that your second hand claim is wholly unsupported by any rational reason. Why attack me if you cannot disprove a single thing I've said? Why not, instead, prove that the lie isn’t a lie, and that there is a rational reason to support your buddy’s claim? The answer is as simple as it is obvious: You can’t.

Bill- you have it exactly right and explained it so even a gump can understand it.

There is one aspect of the matter though that you have overlooked. Human nature. I have mixed with bookies all my adult life and they are human. They have the urge to gamble themselves. They don't like to think of themselves as accountants. It seems unmanly to them once they have become successful. It lacks the buzz. They have to watch a tight three horse finish in perfect calm.

It's a weakness I know but there it is and advantage can sometimes be taken of it.

I think that people who don't (daren't) bet don't know which direction up is.

As I said, great explanation. Cyclo should get out and meet real people now and again. These asserted platitudes and banal cliches bore me to bloody tears.

Get your cash on. And if you know anything worthwhile never tell a soul until you have.

I have 6-1 McCain and I have decided not to hedge because it would take all the fun out of it. Not caring who wins is unthinkable.

It gets more complicated when the bookies get mixed up with the performers who are being wagered on in various social settings.

You need to read the gossip columns for that.

The best bargains are in the events with a large market because the thrills come cheaper there. Take next Sunday's Arc in Paris. There are two schools of thought regarding the 2-1 favourite. And some are going long on it and some are going short on it. If your judgment of horseflesh is good enough- fill your boots.

Banning shorters is the end of civilisation as we know it.

Thanks Spendy. I've known a few bookies myself, if that isn't obvious. The one I knew best preferred the term Bank to Book. Naturally some of them enjoy gambling too, just as a barkeep might enjoy drinking. That's why I employed the qualifier responsible bookies. I think it is more than safe to assume that the larger and more stable a book is; the less likely it is that he treats his daily business as a sporting event to bet on. By the time you get up to the brick and mortar casino level; the accountants would never tolerate it. Of course there are days when the smaller guy knows they should lay off the excess, and don't, but they know very well that they are doing it wrong as they do so. While many Bookies may spend their earnings gambling; the fundamental truth remains that bookies don't earn their living gambling.

Good luck with McCain. I understand very well that there's no excitement in a sure thing... and assume the entertainment value exceeds the amount of the wager.

I can always chicken out on Nov 4th assuming nothing untoward happening.

Today's daily tracking polls all include one full day of polling after the debate, so there's an indication of which way it helped the wind blow there.

But in each, the majority of the interviews were still done before the debate, and thus still reflect the period in between McCain suspending his campaign and him showing up for the debate after all.

Here's the graph:





Gallup has Obama drastically increasing his lead, from +5 to +8. That equals his biggest leads in the graph so far, back at the end of August and on 2 September (during his Convention-bounce).

Rasmussen has Obama stable at a +6 lead; meaning he's again equalling his biggest leads in this graph so far (yesterday's and 2 September's).

Hotline has Obama stable at +5, roughly in line with his results this past week.

Research 2000/Kos has Obama slightly increasing his lead, from +6 to +7, better than he's done in the last six days.

Overall, a rare consensus among the pollsters, which all put Obama in the lead by 5-8 points. On average, his lead is +6.5%, which is his largest lead since 2 September, and his second-largest lead in this graph.

i POSTED

oops

ok try again

I posted last night's polling update on observationalism.com, by the way. Will probably post them there from now on. :-)

What, you can't even drop a link, for your old friends?

Cycloptichorn

Best odds here are 13 gets 8 Obama and 2 gets 5 McCain.

All other polls are suspect.

New CNN polls are absolutely brutal to McCain.

CNN / TIME / ORC
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
(source)

Florida 9/28-30, 770 LV, 3.5%
Obama 51, McCain 47
Obama 51, McCain 43, Nader 3, Barr 1, McKinney 1

Minnesota 9/28-30, 849 LV, 3.5%
Obama 54, McCain 43
Obama 53, McCain 41, Nader 2, Barr 1, McKinney 0

Missouri 9/28-30, 744 LV, 3.5%
Obama 49, McCain 48
Obama 47, McCain 46, Nader 2, Barr 2

Nevada 9/28-30, 684 LV, 4%
Obama 51, McCain 47
Obama 49, McCain 44, Nader 4, Barr 1, McKinney 0

Virginia 9/28-30, 684 LV, 4%
Obama 53, McCain 44
Obama 52, McCain 42, Nader 2, Barr 2, McKinney 0

Cycloptichorn

I would, but isnt there a ban on linking to your own sites? I mean "own" relatively of course.

On this one, I bet you will get a pass

Cycloptichorn

No need to quibble over a bit of relativity.

OK, there you go!

There's a post up as of last night (last night here) about the geography of the House vote on the bailout package.

I posted another polling update on observationalism.

Where?

Here it is (it's already rolled back onto "older posts").