Latest Breaking News

brooklynite

(94,598 posts) Mon Mar 25, 2013, 04:07 PM Mar 2013

State senator to propose bets on federal elections

Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal

CARSON CITY — Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Tick Segerblom said he will introduce a bill today to allow people to bet on presidential and other federal elections.

He said the bill could be expanded to allow betting on the Academy Awards and other non-sporting events.

“Other counties are doing this,” said Segerblom, D-Las Vegas.

Segerblom said he has the support of most committee members and believes expanding betting to include these events could bring Nevada additional revenue since it would be popular with the general public.

The one risk I see is that the bet would not be based on either sheer chance, or skill applied to an understood set of game rules.

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

State senator to propose bets on federal elections (Original Post) brooklynite Mar 2013 OP

Another risk I see KamaAina Mar 2013 #1

I've known some degenerate gamblers, but who would really bet on an election? Blue_Tires Mar 2013 #2

Ever hear if Intrade?! Too bad the site is gone now. Lucky Luciano Mar 2013 #3

I think this explains why SwankyXomb Mar 2013 #6

Or maybe Intrade took it's Presidential book down because THE RACE IS OVER? brooklynite Mar 2013 #7

WOW! BobbyBoring Mar 2013 #4

Nothing like a good arbitrage opportunity CincyDem Mar 2013 #5

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all... brooklynite Mar 2013 #8

Here's how I think it works CincyDem Mar 2013 #9

Yes but... brooklynite Mar 2013 #10

Yes and... CincyDem Mar 2013 #12

In theory you have a point but that liquidity might be tough to get. nt Lucky Luciano Mar 2013 #11

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)

1. Another risk I see

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 04:16 PM

Mar 2013

multi-gazillionaires like the Kochs or casino magnate Adelson actually fixing elections instead of just trying to rig them.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)

2. I've known some degenerate gamblers, but who would really bet on an election?

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 04:54 PM

Mar 2013

What would have been Obama's moneyline in the middle of last summer? -500?

Lucky Luciano

(11,257 posts)

3. Ever hear if Intrade?! Too bad the site is gone now.

Reply to Blue_Tires (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 04:59 PM

Mar 2013

I do think Intrade was a great concept. Just as good as, if not better, than any poll.

SwankyXomb

(2,030 posts)

6. I think this explains why

Reply to Lucky Luciano (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 08:21 PM

Mar 2013

they had InTrade shut down.

brooklynite

(94,598 posts)

7. Or maybe Intrade took it's Presidential book down because THE RACE IS OVER?

Reply to SwankyXomb (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 09:02 PM

Mar 2013

...while the University of Iowa Electronic Market, which uses this as a futures teaching tool, has their page still up?

http://tippie.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/pres12.html

Seriously, does everything have to be a conspiracy theory?

BobbyBoring

(1,965 posts)

4. WOW!

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 05:00 PM

Mar 2013

What could go wrong there? I mean, betting on who's going to be the pope is one thing but betting on POTUS? The fix is in~

CincyDem

(6,363 posts)

5. Nothing like a good arbitrage opportunity

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 05:07 PM

Mar 2013

Let's see...I support Mitt to the tune of $40million and I put my money on Obama to win.

Mitt wins and it costs me $80 million to own a President. Cheap at twice the cost.
Obama wins and I collect my $40 million from the cashier's window down on the Venetian Casio Floor.
And of course there's the house spread - and if I play it right (by owning the casio), I get that too.

Ain't America great.

Sheesh

brooklynite

(94,598 posts)

8. Sorry, but that makes no sense at all...

Reply to CincyDem (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 09:06 PM

Mar 2013

...if I want influence, why wouldn't I give my $40 M directly to Obama? And if I want the cash, why waste money on Mitt if I think he's going to lose?

CincyDem

(6,363 posts)

9. Here's how I think it works

Reply to brooklynite (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 10:22 PM

Mar 2013

In this example, I might be Sheldon Adelson (for example).

I want Mitt to win so I give him $40million for campaign funds.
At the same time, I place a bet that Obama will win.

If Mitt wins, I lose my $40million that I spent on his campaign AND I lose the $40million that I bet Obama would win.
So what - I got me a President.

If Obama wins, I lose my $40million that I spent on Mitt's campaign BUT I gain the $40million that I bet Obama would win.
So I don't have a President but it cost me nothing.

I guess the only reason this works is because I'm actually willing to spend twice as much on Mitt winning but the gambling side of it lets me hedge my bets. In this case I really want Mitt to win (and I think he will) but as least I cover my a$$ if I'm wrong.

brooklynite

(94,598 posts)

10. Yes but...

Reply to CincyDem (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 10:52 PM

Mar 2013

IF I'm Sheldon Adelson, then either 1) $40 M is pocket change (his estimated net worth is $21 B) so why bother, or 2) money is so important that I wouldn't waste it on a loser if I thought the odds were against him. Besides assuming any book would take a bet that big, it would be fully taxable.

CincyDem

(6,363 posts)

12. Yes and...

Reply to brooklynite (Reply #10)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 11:03 PM

Mar 2013

You're probably right.

Although, if I'm Sheldon, I didn't get to $21B by losing $40m here or there.

Whatever, the tax point makes a big different too so you're right - makes no sense.

Lucky Luciano

(11,257 posts)

11. In theory you have a point but that liquidity might be tough to get. nt

Reply to CincyDem (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 10:58 PM

Mar 2013

Reply to this discussion