article is too long to swipe the whole thing buts its fascinating how these idiots continued to throw money at bookies AFTER Biden was declared the winner because they just couldn’t accept reality.

I seen a couple of people really confident about Trump winning and I think it was due to betting lines overseas.

I just wish i gambled and threw a few dollars at Biden because he was at +2000 to 1 odds at one point.

said they made so much money from MAGA that the losses from Biden bets weren’t even a flesh wound.

partial swipe below

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/12/trump-betting-markets-sportsbooks-offshore-2020-election-gambling.html


“Everybody knows that the Super Bowl is the biggest bet event of the year by far, and this doubled the last two combined,” Mason says. “It was absolutely insane. Not only the amount of people betting it, but the big bets that were coming in. Five figures and even six-figure bets coming in on both sides. We’d never seen anything like it.”

The odds-shifting bonanza on election night, with all that money on the line, was not a sign that the oddsmakers knew something the mainstream media did not. Instead, the Trump spike was the peak of a phenomenon that had been unfolding all year. Many Trump supporters were certain he could not lose, and they plowed so much money into betting on him that they distorted markets in his (and ultimately, the sportsbooks’) favor.

“It’s the most irrational market I ever saw,” says Collin Sherwin, a Tampa, Florida–based gambling writer who covers the industry for Vox Media’s DraftKings Nation.

Early in 2020, Trump was a steady if not overwhelming favorite at the sportsbooks. It made sense; the campaign had yet to start in earnest, but incumbents usually win and “the economy” was in good shape.

On Feb. 27, Bovada had Trump at -180 to win. That meant a $180 bet would return a $100 profit, implying a 64 percent chance he’d win. Joe Biden, struggling in the Democratic primary, was +2000, meaning a $100 bet would return $2,000 in profit if he won the general election. But then Biden—whom odds tended to portray as a likelier victor than primary rival Bernie Sanders—began to rebound.

Then the pandemic hit the U.S. In election betting terms, COVID-19 meant three things:

1) Most of the world saw Trump’s catastrophic handling of the virus for what it was, and his betting odds got longer as his approval rating sank.

2) People were cooped up inside, with fewer places to spend their money. And just as the gamified investment app Robinhood saw massive user growth during the pandemic’s early months, so did election betting markets.

3) The pandemic left people devoid of bettable events. “One of the few things that still seemed to be happening in the world, while very little was happening, were the primaries were still under way,” Morrow says.

As the pandemic wore on and Trump’s disinterest in managing it became clear, Biden’s odds got better and better. On June 4, Biden became the favorite for the first time at Bovada, moving to -110 while Trump was even money.

All this while, Trump’s odds were miles ahead of what election number crunchers suggested they should be. At the beginning of June, the betting odds said a Biden win was slightly likelier than a coin flip. At the same time, FiveThirtyEight’s polls-based model had Biden around 70 percent to win. (Nate Silver repeatedly noted this discrepancy and said in August that betting markets had become “so dumb as to perhaps be a contrarian indicator at this point.”) The Economist’s model had Biden closer to 80 percent.

Whether you believe in the virtues of polling and election modeling at this point or not, it was a weird split. When oddsmakers set the line for a Big Ten football game, analytical models heavily inform the point spread. If Ohio State is favored to beat Rutgers by 43, it’s because a computer predicted a result in that neighborhood. Then, the spread moves a bit based on injuries, betting patterns, and any useful information oddsmakers receive.

Here, the computers and the betting odds kept a wide gap. Oddsmakers don’t set odds based on what they think will happen. They aim to limit their risk and to create the best chance of “the house”—the bookmaker—making a profit. Too much money bet on one side is a liability. And in this case, there was so much money on one side: Trump’s.

“We needed Biden big,” Mason of BetOnline says. “We needed him huge.”

Throughout the year at Bovada, Morrow says, the money coming in was around 2-to-1 for Trump. At BetOnline, around 60 percent of bettors were on Trump, though the total money was closer to 50-50, meaning Biden backers placed some large bets.


For most of the year, Trump’s short odds to win (requiring bettors to risk more money for smaller winnings) were not a reflection of inside political knowledge, or of the oddsmakers being MAGA guys. Bookmakers were taking on so many Trump bets that they consistently tried to discourage people from betting on him.

“The Trump guys were just out in full force,” Mason says. “According to the true odds, they probably could’ve got a better price, but us and probably every other book kept it lower than it should, just because we were all so exposed on it.”

Time and again, the effort to get Trump bettors to chill out failed.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

I kept seeing those betting lines pop up, even after election night, and wondering why -- but of course, Trump racists. they actually paid sports betting agencies a fee for their stupidity.

--------

They don't even have to try, the cult can't give them money fast enough.

---------------------------
Signature