• ccunning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The bookmakers had Shapiro way ahead of Walz regarding who Harris would pick in the lead up to her decision.

    ETA: I guess to put a point on it:
    VOTE!

    It’s fine to be motivated and enthused by information like this so long as it doesn’t make you complacent.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Betting markets are not good at predicting outcomes. They are good at making money. Book makers just balance the bets coming in.

      Imagine an event that has a perfect 50/50 chance of happening, but one side has more people and money betting on it. Book makers just use the odds offered to balance the money so they always make 10%. That means they don’t offer 50/50 odds.

      • Omega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Even if it was good at predicting, it doesn’t mean one person or another is going to win. It just means what is more likely. If something has a 10% chance of happening and it happens, it doesn’t mean the predictions were bad.

        This applies to any predictive method. The predictive methods can be bad, but not necessarily so.

      • ccunning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        Once you questioned it I realized it must have been ambiguously worded. There was a bit of brain lag which is why I had to go back and edit to clarify my “clarification” 😅🤪