Once again, the betting sites had it right. The public opinion polls had it wrong.
The polls predicted a dead heat: too close to call. But it was easy to call, and the betting sites called it. The “no” votes smashed the “yes” votes, 56% to 44%. It was not even close. The betting sites had been 80-20 in favor of “no.” They had it right.
I figured the betting sites were right, and the polls were wrong. That’s why I went public and said Scotland would stay in the UK. I always stick with the betting sites. I ignore the polls if the betting sites are covering an event.
I knew Obama would win in 2012, and I said so repeatedly. I also said the House would stay Republican, and the Senate would remain Democrat. So accurate was InTrade on the Electoral College that it got 49 of the 50 states right.
Romney thought he would win. He did not trust InTrade and all the other betting sites. They all predicted Obama’s victory.
It’s a shame that InTrade went out of business. We were never told why.
The law of large numbers works. Money on the line works. People will tell pollsters anything they choose, but when they put their money where their mouths are, the outcomes will be more accurate than the polls, most of the time.
It is illegal in the United States to gamble. This includes betting sites.
Gambling on the outcome of a game is a waste of money. Such gambling is created for its own sake, not to provide better information for real-world events of importance Putting up money on which way a price will move is not gambling on a game. It is speculating on events imposed by reality. Organized capital markets that allow people to go “long” or “short” provide better information for the rest of us can use to make decisions. This is what the commodity futures markets provide: better information at no cost to us “free riders.” We don’t put our money on the line in an organized market, but we find out what will probably happen. We benefit at no cost to ourselves. What a deal!
The federal government does not want Americans to have access to betting sites. Once again, it has interfered with liberty. In the case of betting sites, Americans may not participate legally. Some betting sites see that you, as an American, have landed on the site. You are told that you may not participate.
We get poorer information as a nation because federal law forbids us from gambling online.
Politicians do not want the donors to know who will win in November. Donors might conclude — accurately — “I am not going to sink my money into a losing campaign.” The politicians want this money. Betting sites have a potential for cutting the money wasted on politics. Politicians in America do not like betting sites. That is to say, they don’t like liberty. We don’t need a betting site to figure this out.