New Tradesports rankings

[Mr. Morden]

Thompson now drops into a tie with Edwards for 9th place in winning individual:

Clinton 47.1
Giuliani 17.3
Romney 10.6
Obama 6.9
Gore 5.3
Paul 3.5
McCain 3.3
Huckabee 2.4
Edwards 2.1
Thompson 2.1
Bloomberg 0.6

Meanwhile, Richardson is now actually rated as more likely to drop out before Dec. 31st than Dodd (must be Dodd's impressive 5% support in his home state), Edwards is ahead of Obama in the IA caucus market (which seems odd, since Obama has been polling ahead of him there for a while now), and Gore is still at 6.0 to win the SC primary, even though the filing deadline for the primary has already passed.

[© tweed]

Mitt's bid and ask are both above 30 (30.0/30.5) for what I believe is the first time ever.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama, Gore edge up.

Romney is close to (but not quite) his record high. It is increasingly a 2-way race on the Republican side. Thompson is back down to 6th place.

Democrats
Clinton 71.0
Obama 14.0
Gore 6.4
Edwards 5.3
Richardson 0.8
Dodd 0.3
Biden 0.3

Republicans
Giuliani 42.5
Romney 30.5
Paul 7.7
McCain 7.4
Huckabee 6.2
Thompson 5.7
Rice 0.5
Gingrich 0.5

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clinton drops another point. Has she peaked? Obama is the gainer. Gore falls below Edwards.

Thompson recovers some, while Huckabee drops. Now that non-candidate Gore is dropping, non-candidates Rice and Gingrich have massive gains.

Democrats
Clinton 70.0
Obama 15.0
Edwards 5.2
Gore 5.0
Richardson 0.8
Dodd 0.4
Biden 0.3

Republicans
Giuliani 42.4
Romney 30.9
Paul 7.5
McCain 7.1
Thompson 7.0
Huckabee 5.4
Rice 1.3
Gingrich 0.8

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In addition to the idiots bidding on Rice and Gingrich, I wonder why anyone would short them. It's a sure thing, yes, but you're still putting around $9.90 on hold for 9 months in order to make $.10 on that later. Why not just put that money in a savings account or CD? Or better yet, make more money on a sure thing and short Paul.

[Mr. Morden]

As I speculated some time ago, couldn't that just be people closing out their bets?  Do they then get their remaining $ back?  Is that how it works?  For example, I buy Rice when she's at 5.0.  Some time later, I give up on her winning the nomination, so I short her at 1.0.  Do I then get back the $, or do I actually have to put in additional $?  That is, I paid $0.50 in the first place.  Can I then close out my account later when it's at 1.0, and get back $0.10 (the other $0.40 just being a loss at that point), or do I actually have to wait all the way until August 2008?

[jimrtex]

As I speculated some time ago, couldn't that just be people closing out their bets?  Do they then get their remaining $ back?  Is that how it works?  For example, I buy Rice when she's at 5.0.  Some time later, I give up on her winning the nomination, so I short her at 1.0.  Do I then get back the $, or do I actually have to put in additional $?  That is, I paid $0.50 in the first place.  Can I then close out my account later when it's at 1.0, and get back $0.10 (the other $0.40 just being a loss at that point), or do I actually have to wait all the way until August 2008?

If you have opposing positions, they cancel, and you are credited with your gain or loss.  There are also some margin accounts that track the price, so that as the price dropped from 5.0 to 1.0 you would have your account debited.

[Mr. Morden]

OK, yeah, that's what I thought.  That's (I think) why Rice is still trading at 1.0.  She was around 5.0 or so for a very long time, with high volume.  So lots of people bet on her one way or the other at that price.  Now the people who shorted her are closing their accounts by betting on her and the people who bet on her are closing their accounts by shorting her.  Both parties are then credited with the gain or loss.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If Ron Paul gets to 10 on this thing, I may just have to actually get involved.

You might have some difficulty thanks to fascist Bill Frist, although according to Mr. Moderate there haven't been any problems. I've been considering doing the same as well.

The only problem with shorting Paul is that for example you have to have $92 frozen just so you can make $8 next August. Although on the other hand, that's still a better rate of return than a savings account or CD, so if anyone has some spare cash laying around...

My money apparently got deposited back before the Frist bill passed.  I think you can still get money to a Tradesports account, but you have to go through a lot of hoops to do it.  Paying by money order, for example.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

OK, yeah, that's what I thought.  That's (I think) why Rice is still trading at 1.0.  She was around 5.0 or so for a very long time, with high volume.  So lots of people bet on her one way or the other at that price.  Now the people who shorted her are closing their accounts by betting on her and the people who bet on her are closing their accounts by shorting her.  Both parties are then credited with the gain or loss.

That's almost certainly what's going on right now.

[Jake]

Explain shorting please.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Shorting is just selling shares of a contract without owning them, and thus "owning" negative numbers of that contract. In fact InTrade is zerosum, for every share owned someone must own a negative share, because what a share really is is a bet between two people on whether or not that happens.

So for example if I sold Paul shares at 8.0 without owning anything, what  I've really done is made a bet with some Paul fanboy, where I bet $9.20 times X amount of shares traded that Paul will not win, while he's bet $.80 times the amount of shares that he would. We'd both have the amount bed in our accounts frozen. Once the GOP nominee was chosen, I'd then have all my money unfrozen and earn an extra $.80 for every share I was betting against (minus a small handling fee InTrade takes on every transaction) while the Paul fanboy's account would lose all his money bet on it. Meanwhile if hell froze over and Paul somehow won the nomination, I'd lose all the frozen money in my account, while the Paul fanboy would have his money unfrozen plus gain $9.20 for every share he owned.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My money apparently got deposited back before the Frist bill passed.  I think you can still get money to a Tradesports account, but you have to go through a lot of hoops to do it.  Paying by money order, for example.

That's not that difficult or expensive. The international shipping would be a bit of a pain, but you're just sending an envelope, not a huge packge.

[Jake]

Shorting is just selling shares of a contract without owning them, and thus "owning" negative numbers of that contract. In fact InTrade is zerosum, for every share owned someone must own a negative share, because what a share really is is a bet between two people on whether or not that happens.

So for example if I sold Paul shares at 8.0 without owning anything, what  I've really done is made a bet with some Paul fanboy, where I bet $9.20 times X amount of shares traded that Paul will not win, while he's bet $.80 times the amount of shares that he would. We'd both have the amount bed in our accounts frozen. Once the GOP nominee was chosen, I'd then have all my money unfrozen and earn an extra $.80 for every share I was betting against (minus a small handling fee InTrade takes on every transaction) while the Paul fanboy's account would lose all his money bet on it. Meanwhile if hell froze over and Paul somehow won the nomination, I'd lose all the frozen money in my account, while the Paul fanboy would have his money unfrozen plus gain $9.20 for every share he owned.

So, you short if you're certain (or nearly so) that an event won't happen?

[Verily]

Shorting is just selling shares of a contract without owning them, and thus "owning" negative numbers of that contract. In fact InTrade is zerosum, for every share owned someone must own a negative share, because what a share really is is a bet between two people on whether or not that happens.

So for example if I sold Paul shares at 8.0 without owning anything, what  I've really done is made a bet with some Paul fanboy, where I bet $9.20 times X amount of shares traded that Paul will not win, while he's bet $.80 times the amount of shares that he would. We'd both have the amount bed in our accounts frozen. Once the GOP nominee was chosen, I'd then have all my money unfrozen and earn an extra $.80 for every share I was betting against (minus a small handling fee InTrade takes on every transaction) while the Paul fanboy's account would lose all his money bet on it. Meanwhile if hell froze over and Paul somehow won the nomination, I'd lose all the frozen money in my account, while the Paul fanboy would have his money unfrozen plus gain $9.20 for every share he owned.

So, you short if you're certain (or nearly so) that an event won't happen?

You can also short if you expect a price to fall; you short, then you buy at a lower price later to cover your costs (and make money no matter what the result).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Shorting is just selling shares of a contract without owning them, and thus "owning" negative numbers of that contract. In fact InTrade is zerosum, for every share owned someone must own a negative share, because what a share really is is a bet between two people on whether or not that happens.

So for example if I sold Paul shares at 8.0 without owning anything, what  I've really done is made a bet with some Paul fanboy, where I bet $9.20 times X amount of shares traded that Paul will not win, while he's bet $.80 times the amount of shares that he would. We'd both have the amount bed in our accounts frozen. Once the GOP nominee was chosen, I'd then have all my money unfrozen and earn an extra $.80 for every share I was betting against (minus a small handling fee InTrade takes on every transaction) while the Paul fanboy's account would lose all his money bet on it. Meanwhile if hell froze over and Paul somehow won the nomination, I'd lose all the frozen money in my account, while the Paul fanboy would have his money unfrozen plus gain $9.20 for every share he owned.

So, you short if you're certain (or nearly so) that an event won't happen?

Not necessarily. You just necessarily think the odds of it happening are low enough that the risk is worth it, like any other bet. If something is trading at 80.0 and you think the odds of it happening are only about 50/50, one might still bet against it just because of the high possibility of gain.

What Verily said is also correct. The same applies to also buying shares on things you are sure won't happen. Buying Paul 4 months ago would've been a good investment (although I doubt anyone could've predicted how high some crazies could drive up his numbers)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

More people realize that Gore is not running. Obama is the highest in a while, and Edwards also gains.

Paul drops and McCain manages to re-claim 3rd place. Some people realize that Gingrich and Rice aren't running. 

Democrats
Clinton 70.5
Obama 18.0
Edwards 5.9
Gore 4.1
Richardson 0.8
Dodd 0.3
Biden 0.3

Republicans
Giuliani 42.6
Romney 30.6
McCain 7.3
Paul 7.0
Thompson 6.9
Huckabee 5.6
Rice 1.0
Gingrich 0.3

[Mr. Morden]

I think this is the first time McCain has been in 3rd place since May.  Granted, at that time, one needed to be at about 20.0 in order to be in 3rd place.  Now you only need to be little higher than 7.0, because Giuliani and Romney are so far ahead.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Shorting is just selling shares of a contract without owning them, and thus "owning" negative numbers of that contract. In fact InTrade is zerosum, for every share owned someone must own a negative share, because what a share really is is a bet between two people on whether or not that happens.

So for example if I sold Paul shares at 8.0 without owning anything, what  I've really done is made a bet with some Paul fanboy, where I bet $9.20 times X amount of shares traded that Paul will not win, while he's bet $.80 times the amount of shares that he would. We'd both have the amount bed in our accounts frozen. Once the GOP nominee was chosen, I'd then have all my money unfrozen and earn an extra $.80 for every share I was betting against (minus a small handling fee InTrade takes on every transaction) while the Paul fanboy's account would lose all his money bet on it. Meanwhile if hell froze over and Paul somehow won the nomination, I'd lose all the frozen money in my account, while the Paul fanboy would have his money unfrozen plus gain $9.20 for every share he owned.

So, you short if you're certain (or nearly so) that an event won't happen?

I made a good chunk of change shorting GOP to win Nebraska when Hagel had yet to declare his retirement.  I figured he wouldn't be able to win a GOP primary anyway, and at 80 or so, the contract was just way overvalued.  I had no delusions that a Democrat, Kerrey or otherwise, would carry Nebraska.  Just that the odds of it happening were better than 100 - 80 = 20%.

When he dropped out, the contract fell to somewhere around 50, because Kerrey was almost certain to jump in.  That's when I "bought" the contract to cover my short position, because I doubted there'd be much movement on that contract towards the Democrat until November 2008.

Of course, now the contract for GOP to win Nebraska is back up in the stratosphere cause Kerrey chickened out.  Still made my money, though!

I love Intrade.  I should sink more money into it and make that my day job. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The main reason I haven't started an InTrade account is you have to put A LOT of money in for it to be worth it.

Minimum is $100. That buys 10 shares, but really 9 due to the small fee InTrade takes. So I put in a little more than $100, and use it all to short Paul. That wins me...about $7.50. And when you take out the cost of a money order, international shipping, and InTrade fees, I probably don't even break even.

So $200? Then I make about $7 at the end. I'm going to have to wait and get more cash before trying this.

[Mr. Morden]

Huckabee is now in third place for the first time ever, albeit by the narrowest of margins:

Giuliani 42.0
Romney 30.0
Huckabee 7.1
McCain 7.0
Paul 7.0
Thompson 6.1

[Eraserhead]

Huckabee is now in third place for the first time ever, albeit by the narrowest of margins:

Giuliani 42.0
Romney 30.0
Huckabee 7.1
McCain 7.0
Paul 7.0
Thompson 6.1

That is where he belongs.

[Jake]

So, if I was 100% sure Mitt Romney wouldn't be the nominee, I would short him now, therefore "betting" those with his stock that he wouldn't win?

[Jake]

Some explain the legal situation regarding funding the account as well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So, if I was 100% sure Mitt Romney wouldn't be the nominee, I would short him now, therefore "betting" those with his stock that he wouldn't win?

Basically yeah.

Some explain the legal situation regarding funding the account as well.

Frist put some fascist language in the Safe Ports Bill last year banning bank transactions to online gambling sites, so in theory you can't fund an account directly anymore through credit/debit cards (although my brother, an avid online gambler, hasn't had much problems continuing gambling, so it's possible many banks have found a loophole or are just using plausible deniability). You can still fund an account through mailing a check or international money order or having the money wired, but this of course is more inconvenient and expensive.