Politics and stuff

[GeorgesGoons]

You don’t listen to science either

haha, like I said. Who are we to believe? Chinese Government or the WHO?

The WHO says what the Chinese government tells them to say, so they are one in the same.

Are they? The WHO website is reporting something different than the Chinese Government. That's why I ask, who are we to believe?

I couldn't find anything on the CDC website as to when they say it started though.

[shel311]

Are they?

When China tells you not to acknowledge Taiwan, the WHO doesn't acknowledge Taiwan.

https://twitter.com/wilfredchan/status/ ... 6569590784

[GeorgesGoons]

Are they?

When China tells you not to acknowledge Taiwan, the WHO doesn't acknowledge Taiwan.

https://twitter.com/wilfredchan/status/ ... 6569590784

I know this. Not sure why the question is hard to understand......

1. I don't see anything on the CDC website as to when they say this started.

2. WHO website, on the left side under Summary it says its first report was December 31st.

3. China is saying it traces back to November from a 55 year old man.

So, who are we to believe?

[nick]

Probably China where it originated?

[shel311]

So, who are we to believe?

Between China and the WHO?

Neither

[Cnasty]

[nick]

Who would u believe?

- US intelligence
- Anywhere else?

[GeorgesGoons]

Who would u believe?

- US intelligence
- Anywhere else?

Well, I did SIGINT for 12 years in the Army. So it's a crapshoot...haha

[shel311]

[Cnasty]

Wrestling isnt fake!!!

[ReignOnU]

Shel... saw that tweet this morning and almost came here to post it as a follow up to what I posted yesterday.

[dakshdar]

Too much Covid talk in this thread. Stay on topic!

[dakshdar]

Bodog has Trump -120 to Biden +135. What I found interesting is before the lines were taken down Andrew Cuomo had a better chance if repping the Dems over Bernie Sanders. Albeit still both insane odds at +1400 and +1600

Betting lines have nothing to do with the likely outcome, they are only based on balancing money on each side. But we all know that.

[nick]

ya that applies in spreads...

if a line is say -245 v +180.. you think the book wants 50/50 action? or say 70/30 on the -245 side in hopes it loses and if it even does win its 245 to win 100?

also: since i posted that the line has moved. Biden is now +120. My buddy got him last year at I think +800. Im trying to find the image.

[dakshdar]

ya that applies in spreads...

if a line is say -245 v +180.. you think the book wants 50/50 action? or say 70/30 on the -245 side in hopes it loses and if it even does win its 245 to win 100?

also: since i posted that the line has moved. Biden is now +120. My buddy got him last year at I think +800. Im trying to find the image.

Of course they don't want 50/50 money. They want the right amount on either side so they can pay off whichever side wins with the losses from the losing side. So their math told them they needed Biden at +135 in order to cover the bets they were getting on Trump. When bets came in on Biden that had to lower his in order to hedge against that.

Yes, they had to pick a favorite, but even that, in this case, likely isn't done with who they think will win, it's likely based on how they want to entice betting. Sports, all you have to do is look at the spread to determine which team will be favored in the moneyline. If they did that here, what tells them Trump is the favorite? Certainly not any poll, so where would they get their information from?

[nick]

so when they get this magical number that gives even money on both sides.. where do they profit since there will be no vig?

anyways forget i brought it up. its not this interesting.

[dakshdar]

How do you not find this interesting and why do you think there is no vig on a moneyline?

In your example, if they set a line at -245 vs +180, the combined probability for the two outcomes is ~107%, which doesn't work mathematically (obviously). That 7% is the vig (it's really 6.7% in your example).

They determined the odds of each outcome and then reduced each sides chance individually by 7% (really 6.7%).

Which means they set the real odds of the match at 67% to the favored side and 33% for the underdog and expect betting to follow that based on the lines they set (not quite those numbers since I'm rounding).

Let's take $10k in total bets placed:

They don't want the money to come in 67/33 split between the favorite/underdog - they need that to happen or they don't make their vig.

If the favorite wins, 67% of the money that came in on the favorite ($6700 to win $2734) they pay out $9434.
If the underdog wins, 33% of the money that came in on the underdog ($3300 to win $5940) they pay out $9240.

Their profit is a little off from 7% because I'm rounding.

They win either way.

Once they set the line, if the money doesn't come in on the two sides at the ratio they expect, they have to adjust the line.

[dakshdar]

The vig on the screenshot you posted for the Presidential odds is ~8.9%. For every $10k distributed based on those odds, they're only going to pay back ~$9186.

[GeorgesGoons]

what tells them Trump is the favorite? Certainly not any poll, so where would they get their information from?

Do polls really matter here? Clinton had a large lead just days going into the election, according to polls. I think Trump is an outlier with polls. People are hesitant to say they support him due to the backlash they receive. Just a theory of mine is all.

[GeorgesGoons]

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... -spreading

Imagine knowing about it since November and doing nothing. Trump and his fan base are a bunch of hacks.

This is why those "hacks" only believe about 10% of any news that has anonymous sources

As a matter of practice the National Center for Medical Intelligence does not comment publicly on specific intelligence matters," he said. "However, in the interest of transparency during this current public health crisis, we can confirm that media reporting about the existence/release of a National Center for Medical Intelligence Coronavirus-related product/assessment in November of 2019 is not correct. No such NCMI product exists."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/defens ... orts-false