Skip to comments.Another Obama InTrade Crash (Now approaching low 50's)
Posted on 10/24/2012 7:43:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Yesterday morning, a few hours after the debate, Obama crashed on InTrade, from around 61 to 57.
Last night? Another one. He briefly crashed to 51, before stabilizing where he is now in the mid-50s.
There is some talk that there was some speculative manipulation attack. Who knows. But for people who keep score on this, Obama is dropping like a stone.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Volume is pretty pathetic on Intrade. Seems worthless as an indicator. Too easy to manipulate.
The investors are looking nervously at the polls.
Back in the summer, O was an 80% favorite to be re-elected.
His stock has lost nearly a quarter of its value and rock bottom is not yet in sight.
>> The investors are looking nervously at the polls.
LOL! *What* investors?
Folks who play Intrade are NOT “investors”.
Intrade “shares” of “stock” are NOT an “investment”.
People still buy and and sell shares - so they invest.
People do what they think profits them. Apparently, if Obama loses, a lot of folks are looking to be losing a lot of money so some have sold the O shares early. Its a good move!
So if I walk into a casino and put my money on red at the roulette wheel, am I investing in red? I would be doing what I think would profit me.
The instant Obama goes under 50% on Intrade is the instant the MFM starts saying that Intrade means nothing and the number is invalid.
Ditto with Gallup, Rasmussen, Pew, etc...
Not the same thing. Stocks are trading in known commodities.
In this case, you have two politicians who are well known.
The bets people put on them reflects what they think will happen in the future.
Usually its solid but now its volatile. A lesson the markets aren’t always right.
Obama is collapsing in the offshore odds as well. There has been dramatic changes over night.
>> Stocks are trading in known commodities.
In this case, you have two politicians who are well known. The bets people put on them reflects what they think will happen in the future.
OK, so if I put $100 on the Cowboys against the Giants Sunday, the I’m *investing* in the Cowboys?
** The two teams are well known
** I’ll throw in something you *didn’t* mention: the outcome of the game is not purely chance, like a roulette wheel spin, but based to some degree upon an assessment of he relative “worth” of the two teams
** The bet (sorry, *investment*) I’m putting on the Cowboys reflects what I think will happen in the future
If betting on (sorry, *investing in*) the Cowboys through my bookie is in any way different than betting on Romney or Obama, then please explain exactly how they are different.
When one place a bet, one is buying a position in a wager that has the potential to make a profit (or loss). This position is considered to be an intangible asset like stocks, bonds, mortgages, and other types of loans, patents and copyrights. One can invest in intangible assets, and their purchase or acquisition value constitutes capital value. But, intangible assets do not constitute capital or wealth. Investment in capital occurs only when business enterprises buy either tangible goods or labor of the kind that is vested in tangible goods.
Intrade is bar bets they wrapped Wall Street language around to make it sound legit.
He’s back up over 60. I have trouble understanding this. The only thing I can think of is if you look at the states, it shows Obama winning. But all the polls, even those showing Obama ahead, show Romney handily winning among Independents. The only way Obama wins is by having way more Democrats show up to vote than Republicans. But is that really likely?