Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Political Betting

Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I've also got it 2:5 against Sanders getting the Democratic nomination, and 3:2 that a Democrat will win the White House.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 8:22:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I'll take that bet if you're serious. I'll honour it.

My email is gabrieldeen1(at)gmail.com since I may not be here.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 8:24:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I've also got it 2:5 against Sanders getting the Democratic nomination, and 3:2 that a Democrat will win the White House.

Not sure how serious you are about political betting, but you could get a far better deal on predictit.org if you really want to. They currently favor him by 2:1 odds, so you could triple your money if he doesn't get the nomination.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 8:25:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 8:24:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I've also got it 2:5 against Sanders getting the Democratic nomination, and 3:2 that a Democrat will win the White House.

Not sure how serious you are about political betting, but you could get a far better deal on predictit.org if you really want to. They currently favor him by 2:1 odds, so you could triple your money if he doesn't get the nomination.

I have an account with them, no need to worry.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 8:42:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I've also got it 2:5 against Sanders getting the Democratic nomination, and 3:2 that a Democrat will win the White House.

I bet on politics, but on this site I have made any wadger "friendly". It is not wise for actual monetary bets to be placed using this site.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 11:11:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 8:42:12 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I've also got it 2:5 against Sanders getting the Democratic nomination, and 3:2 that a Democrat will win the White House.

I bet on politics, but on this site I have made any wadger "friendly". It is not wise for actual monetary bets to be placed using this site.

I disagree. I have been endorsing more and more a policy which I initially lovingly titled "Truth or Consequences".

I follow Bryan Caplan in believing that one reason democracies routinely produce poor policy outcomes is that political beliefs are cheap. You can--and most people do--commit to emotionally gratifying beliefs which cost them nothing to be wrong. Contrary to hypotheses accusing people of rational ignorance, where the optimal choice is not to give a poop about politics owing to the high cost of gathering and parsing information, Caplan endorses the rational irrationality hypothesis, which is that people actually optimize by believing things that make them feel really good and which have no tangible costs (you can't frivolously risk being wrong if you're building a bridge or engineering a space shuttle, but you can profess to believe that immigrants are takin' er jerbs and that Muslims need to be barred from entering the United States).

Similarly, armchair election analysis lets you sound credible by saying plausible things, but, as with sports forecasting, you don't lose any face if you're wrong about it. If there are no penalties for failure, but plenty of benefits from participation, you infer that there's not much incentive to try and get it right.

Thus, I suggest, in the interest of drumming up some consequences, the wager. And friendly bets are all well and fine, but I think my system has two primary advantages:

1. Wagering more than pride lends substantive risk of loss for missing the mark. If you want to incentivize someone to be careful in how they come up with their beliefs, you must make it hurt to get it wrong (and make it feel great in the opposite case).

2. My method is probabilistic. If you're already convinced of X, then you don't get much value out of any particular piece of confirmatory evidence E, since you already expect observations to confirm X. You assign it high probability. On the contrary, though, what this also means is that, while you assign counterevidence ~E a much, much lower probability, it's damning to X if you actually observe ~E.

More simply: the more sure you are of a thing, the greater the penalty to the probability you assign it if you observe counterevidence.

In terms of the wager, that means that you should be compensated in accordance with where you stand on the probabilities. In the case of the 5:2 "Bernie Loses" bet, I assign a very high probability to Bernie not getting the nomination. If he does lose, I'm not extraordinarily rewarded because it was far and away what I expected--confirmation does me little credit.

If he wins, however, it's totally damning in the face of my relatively high confidence, and I should be penalized in proportion. Your "friendly bets" don't do the same--they're essentially 1:1 odds, which is like saying the whole thing is a glorified coin-toss.

I genuinely think a site-wide custom of making wagers would be fantastic. Imagine--if members were actually accountable for the things they claimed to believe, you wouldn't have really dumb stuff like the Quad Helix guy, or Akhenaten going around claiming that gravitational waves and antimatter are just big hoaxes, or, being honest, most of the Religion and Politics forums.

You can't tell me that doesn't sound good.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 11:21:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 11:11:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:42:12 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I've also got it 2:5 against Sanders getting the Democratic nomination, and 3:2 that a Democrat will win the White House.

I bet on politics, but on this site I have made any wadger "friendly". It is not wise for actual monetary bets to be placed using this site.

I disagree. I have been endorsing more and more a policy which I initially lovingly titled "Truth or Consequences".

I follow Bryan Caplan in believing that one reason democracies routinely produce poor policy outcomes is that political beliefs are cheap. You can--and most people do--commit to emotionally gratifying beliefs which cost them nothing to be wrong. Contrary to hypotheses accusing people of rational ignorance, where the optimal choice is not to give a poop about politics owing to the high cost of gathering and parsing information, Caplan endorses the rational irrationality hypothesis, which is that people actually optimize by believing things that make them feel really good and which have no tangible costs (you can't frivolously risk being wrong if you're building a bridge or engineering a space shuttle, but you can profess to believe that immigrants are takin' er jerbs and that Muslims need to be barred from entering the United States).

Similarly, armchair election analysis lets you sound credible by saying plausible things, but, as with sports forecasting, you don't lose any face if you're wrong about it. If there are no penalties for failure, but plenty of benefits from participation, you infer that there's not much incentive to try and get it right.

Thus, I suggest, in the interest of drumming up some consequences, the wager. And friendly bets are all well and fine, but I think my system has two primary advantages:

1. Wagering more than pride lends substantive risk of loss for missing the mark. If you want to incentivize someone to be careful in how they come up with their beliefs, you must make it hurt to get it wrong (and make it feel great in the opposite case).

2. My method is probabilistic. If you're already convinced of X, then you don't get much value out of any particular piece of confirmatory evidence E, since you already expect observations to confirm X. You assign it high probability. On the contrary, though, what this also means is that, while you assign counterevidence ~E a much, much lower probability, it's damning to X if you actually observe ~E.

More simply: the more sure you are of a thing, the greater the penalty to the probability you assign it if you observe counterevidence.

In terms of the wager, that means that you should be compensated in accordance with where you stand on the probabilities. In the case of the 5:2 "Bernie Loses" bet, I assign a very high probability to Bernie not getting the nomination. If he does lose, I'm not extraordinarily rewarded because it was far and away what I expected--confirmation does me little credit.

If he wins, however, it's totally damning in the face of my relatively high confidence, and I should be penalized in proportion. Your "friendly bets" don't do the same--they're essentially 1:1 odds, which is like saying the whole thing is a glorified coin-toss.

I genuinely think a site-wide custom of making wagers would be fantastic. Imagine--if members were actually accountable for the things they claimed to believe, you wouldn't have really dumb stuff like the Quad Helix guy, or Akhenaten going around claiming that gravitational waves and antimatter are just big hoaxes, or, being honest, most of the Religion and Politics forums.

You can't tell me that doesn't sound good.

I think you are completely missing the point. This SITE is facilitating betting when you offer a bet on this forum. You have looped them into a legal gray area. Further, if said bet was reneged on, would you ask for help from the moderator? That is... well... a problem to say the least.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 11:22:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I've also got it 2:5 against Sanders getting the Democratic nomination, and 3:2 that a Democrat will win the White House.

You shouldn't really bet money on anything. "Gambling" is an unhealthy activity.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 11:41:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
If gambling was the same as political support, gambling odds would determine the winner, not actual policies or ideas.

Not that anyone cares about policies or ideas lately.....
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 11:55:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 11:21:44 PM, TBR wrote:

I think you are completely missing the point. This SITE is facilitating betting when you offer a bet on this forum. You have looped them into a legal gray area. Further, if said bet was reneged on, would you ask for help from the moderator? That is... well... a problem to say the least.

I really don't care about Juggle's liability, to be straight with you. The Opinions and Polls sections are worse crimes. And I'm not asking them to include a Wager Module--I'm asserting that tacking meaningful consequences onto our beliefs is epistemically responsible, irrespective of how it is accomplished. Do it on the forums, in private messages, through Skype or Gmail, by postal service--I don't care what or how, only that people are penalized for error, and in proportion to its severity.

I also don't care about people who fail to follow through. My recommendation is that both parties give their money to a trusted third party and pay that person a fee for their service; in any case, their cowardice is a signal that you never need to take that person seriously again, and you get to make loud and derisive fart noises any time they try to get a word in. Again, it's not about the money--it's about operationalizing your confidence.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 11:59:31 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 11:22:40 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
You shouldn't really bet money on anything. "Gambling" is an unhealthy activity.

+1
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 12:01:05 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 11:22:40 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I've also got it 2:5 against Sanders getting the Democratic nomination, and 3:2 that a Democrat will win the White House.

You shouldn't really bet money on anything. "Gambling" is an unhealthy activity.

No, it isn't. Compulsively betting on games of chance to the point of deep debt and personal ruin is unhealthy. What I'm suggesting is that, if you really, seriously believe you're right about something, you should be willing to risk meaningful loss over it, and in proportion to how sure you feel. If you're building a bridge, the "gamble" is that it collapses and people die if you're wrong. By default, you don't get penalized for having weak beliefs about politics, philosophy, etc.--but you get to reap all the benefits of feeling good about yourself. I think there should be direct penalties for failure.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 12:26:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 12:01:05 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/7/2016 11:22:40 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I've also got it 2:5 against Sanders getting the Democratic nomination, and 3:2 that a Democrat will win the White House.

You shouldn't really bet money on anything. "Gambling" is an unhealthy activity.

No, it isn't. Compulsively betting on games of chance to the point of deep debt and personal ruin is unhealthy. What I'm suggesting is that, if you really, seriously believe you're right about something, you should be willing to risk meaningful loss over it, and in proportion to how sure you feel. If you're building a bridge, the "gamble" is that it collapses and people die if you're wrong. By default, you don't get penalized for having weak beliefs about politics, philosophy, etc.--but you get to reap all the benefits of feeling good about yourself. I think there should be direct penalties for failure.

but but but...i'm moving to Canada if my guy loses?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 12:29:15 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 8:25:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:24:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I've also got it 2:5 against Sanders getting the Democratic nomination, and 3:2 that a Democrat will win the White House.

Not sure how serious you are about political betting, but you could get a far better deal on predictit.org if you really want to. They currently favor him by 2:1 odds, so you could triple your money if he doesn't get the nomination.

I have an account with them, no need to worry.

Out of curiosity, who do you predict will win the Republican nomination if not Trump?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 12:41:10 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 12:29:15 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:25:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:24:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I've also got it 2:5 against Sanders getting the Democratic nomination, and 3:2 that a Democrat will win the White House.

Not sure how serious you are about political betting, but you could get a far better deal on predictit.org if you really want to. They currently favor him by 2:1 odds, so you could triple your money if he doesn't get the nomination.

I have an account with them, no need to worry.

Out of curiosity, who do you predict will win the Republican nomination if not Trump?

Probably Cruz.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 12:46:09 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 12:41:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/8/2016 12:29:15 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:25:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:24:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I've also got it 2:5 against Sanders getting the Democratic nomination, and 3:2 that a Democrat will win the White House.

Not sure how serious you are about political betting, but you could get a far better deal on predictit.org if you really want to. They currently favor him by 2:1 odds, so you could triple your money if he doesn't get the nomination.

I have an account with them, no need to worry.

Out of curiosity, who do you predict will win the Republican nomination if not Trump?

Probably Cruz.

Does that scare you?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 12:48:40 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 11:22:40 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I've also got it 2:5 against Sanders getting the Democratic nomination, and 3:2 that a Democrat will win the White House.

You shouldn't really bet money on anything. "Gambling" is an unhealthy activity.
Determining whether a market overvalues or undervalues the probability of a given outcome takes research and skill, and being good at it will make someone a profit over the long term. You can call that gambling if you want to, but it's really only gambling if you have no idea what you're doing or if you only make one or two bets.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 1:16:42 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 12:46:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2016 12:41:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/8/2016 12:29:15 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:25:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:24:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:04:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I've got it at 5:6 against Trump scoring the Republican nomination (note that I'm not wagering on any candidate in particular winning--just on Trump losing). I'd be willing to put up my $120 against someone's $100.

I've also got it 2:5 against Sanders getting the Democratic nomination, and 3:2 that a Democrat will win the White House.

Not sure how serious you are about political betting, but you could get a far better deal on predictit.org if you really want to. They currently favor him by 2:1 odds, so you could triple your money if he doesn't get the nomination.

I have an account with them, no need to worry.

Out of curiosity, who do you predict will win the Republican nomination if not Trump?

Probably Cruz.

Does that scare you?

Not really. I have no serious exposure to risk if he wins. Irrespective of my opinions about his stated policy preferences, it scarcely affects me if he bombs other countries, builds a border war, fights gay marriage, etc. My daily life is unlikely to change significantly, from what I can tell. A great privilege, to be sure, but such are the facts.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 2:16:22 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 11:11:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/7/2016 8:42:12 PM, TBR wrote:

I genuinely think a site-wide custom of making wagers would be fantastic. Imagine--if members were actually accountable for the things they claimed to believe, you wouldn't have really dumb stuff like the Quad Helix guy, or Akhenaten going around claiming that gravitational waves and antimatter are just big hoaxes, or, being honest, most of the Religion and Politics forums.

I think this would only work for a pretty narrow range of issues, as people couldn't be allowed any wiggle room. It would need to be possible for the question to be put to rest in such a way that leaves both sides feeling that the ruling is totally fair. For a lot issues that's just not going to happen no matter what the evidence suggests. For instance, the cause of the Great Depression remains a hotly debated topic to this day. Most of the important issues are like that. I think a more realistic solution is to draw attention to people's bullsh1t more often, including their past bullsh1t. People often get away with making foolish predictions because by the time those claims are falsified by the facts everyone's moved on and that person pays no price. If we scrutinized people's bull1ht more rigorously, then they might try harder to catch their errors, evasions, and tricks before others have to do it for them, at least if the respect of their peers is something they value at all.

By the way, I'm going to check out that book by Bryan Caplan. It sounds really interesting.