Betting the US Election

I have been a proponent of betting on TRUMP since late last year, largely because of how “undervalued” such a bet appeared to be in betting Markets.  When one juxtaposed those odds against his obvious marketing and persuasion skills and the passion of his supporters (even in the face of initial social scorn and, recently, the violence directed at them from supporters of his opponent) they just seemed “wrong” and out-of-line from where they should be in, realistically, a two-person race.

My participation as a bettor on the Election only became serious on September 11th after seeing video of his Democrat Party opponent, Hillary Clinton, collapse at the site of 9/11 before being dragged cold, toes-down, into a van, leaving a shoe behind.  Upon seeing those visuals and concluding that in the age of the internet they would be replayed millions of times, I rushed to bet TRUMP to win the Election at odds of +200 (bet $100 to return $300) and to win the State of Ohio at odds of +260 (bet $100 to return $360).  Candidly, better value was found on such “State bets” as they would almost certainly be necessary preconditions to a General Election win.  Had I to do it over, I would have focused my capital in that area over a bet on the General Election.

What is my inside information, you ask? No, not video of Hillary’s collapse; though, I did act very quickly after its release and before betting odds were lowered to reflect the impact of such a visual.  What I am relying on, instead, is something called the “enthusiasm gap” and its absence from traditional polling.  If, for example, polls show Clinton at 52% and TRUMP at 48% (yes, I am discounting third-party candidates for the sake of argument) one would conclude that Hillary is likely to win the General Election when those percentages are translated into actual votes (Chicago-style voter fraud aside) and Electoral College wins.  But what of the “enthusiasm gap?”

If, again for the same sake of argument, TRUMP is able to turn out 100% of his supporters and Hillary only 90% then in the above example TRUMP would win the votes of 48% to 46.8% of possible voters.  Obviously, I have simplified the argument for the sake of math, but the enthusiasm gap — the percentage of people that want to vote for you that actually vote for you — is something that I expect to have a real impact on the Election.  And,  as it can’t  be reflected in the Polls (and, because of that, the odds) it may skew the betting lines sufficiently to allow you to profit from the undervalued nature of a “surprise” TRUMP win much like occurred with the BREXIT vote where polls the day of the vote showed it losing by a substantial margin.

For more on the enthusiasm gap, read


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s