although InTrade still showing Obama as going to win, 56%.
not sure how that conflict resolves, but maybe there is an arbitrage bet there somehow.
not sure how that conflict resolves, but maybe there is an arbitrage bet there somehow.
Exactly. Long Romney states and short Obama would do it.
Could it be tht foreigners betting my not realize the significance of it being an election of many states, and that in a weird way, for lack of a better description, the results are being rounded up (I knw they aren’t- just that in the next few days, Obama will decline more etc)?
Well, this is the way it was explained to me—and, hopefully, I am remembering the explanation correctly:
The Intrade map is using data gleaned from the number of bets coming from each individual state for Romney, or for Obama. As you can see, Romney is clearly ahead in the number of individual states which are betting on him.
However, Intrade’s bet percentages, which you are citing, are based upon the aggregate number of bets, in total, throughout the ENTIRETY of the United States.
Therefore, hypothetically, if 10 states have +10,000 bets each (net) coming in for Obama, and 40 other states have +2,000 bets (net) each coming in for Romney, the number of bets for Obama lead the number of bets for Romney by +20,000, even though Romney has the majority of states betting on him to win.
The Math:
10 x 10,000 = 100,000
40 x 2,000 = 80,000
100,000 - 80,000 = 20,000
Anyway, as best as I can recall, that’s the way it was described to me years ago by one of my readers who places bets on Intrade.
Cheers