2018 Midterm Election Betting Odds

[SteveS]

For a Majority:
US Senate: Rep -170 Dems +500
US House: Dems -300 Reps +200

[Jim Eshelman]

For a Majority:
US Senate: Rep -170 Dems +500
US House: Dems -300 Reps +200

Thanks. Yes, I saw that 538 is giving 7 chances in 8 that Dems will win the House and 1 chance in 3 that they'll win the Senate, which is roughly the same.

[SteveS]

Latest political betting odds:

https://www.bovada.lv/sports/politics

[SteveS]

Latest Midterm betting odds:

https://www.bovada.lv/sports/politics

I follow these odds on a daily basis. Very interesting, since yesterday, the winning odds for the Dems to win majority in the House has dropped from a -280 to -200. I really don’t understand WHY this is happening. Time will soon tell! I will try to remember to post the final betting odds on these Midterms to see what happens between now and election night.

[SteveS]

The Dems are now the highest odds (betting) on favorite to win majority of House since the odds have been posted. Dems -300 Reps +200. Just click on the above link in previous post to be able to follow these odds. These odds are somewhat a contradiction to the Sidereal Astrology astrology indicating the Reps have winning symbolism for these Midterms.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Steve, the Democrats are probably not going to win the Senate, even if they win the House. It's possible the Republicans pick up seats in the Senate. This isn't a 1:1 race like Mrs. Clinton vs Mr. Trump. There are way more Democratic seats up for election than Republican, so the Democrats have more chances to lose.

[SteveS]

JSAD wrote:

Steve, the Democrats are probably not going to win the Senate, even if they win the House. It's possible the Republicans pick up seats in the Senate. This isn't a 1:1 race like Mrs. Clinton vs Mr. Trump. There are way more Democratic seats up for election than Republican, so the Democrats have more chances to lose.

I understand JSAD. The following reasoning has me somewhat seriously questioning Silver's Dem's House majority numbers:

Nate Silver made Hillary a huge 7-1 favorite to win Prez in 2016 and was dead wrong! Silver is now making the Dems a 6-1 favorite to win House majority. With this in my mind, I can’t really understand why Silver and his public opinion methodology polls can’t be dead wrong again for Dem winning House majority in 2018, making the gambling odds makers wrong again with House race. IMO, since the Prez election in 2016, public opinion polls may have possibly become seriously flawed. I my mind, a House majority with dozens of individual contests, some close races, would be more difficult to predict/project with Silver’s public opinion methodology polls than the 1 on 1 Prez contest in 2018? One thing for sure. TIME will soon tell.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

understand JSAD. The following reasoning has me somewhat seriously questioning Silver's Dem's House majority numbers:

Nate Silver made Hillary a huge 7-1 favorite to win Prez in 2016 and was dead wrong!

No, he wasn't wrong! He said there was a chance Trump could win. And he did. If he'd said 7-0 odds, he would have been wrong, but that's not what he said. He actually gave Clinton a 71% chance of winning, and he also gave Trump a 29% chance of winning. That's 7-3, not 7-1.
Yes, he based it off the polls and the polls in a few key states were weeks old at the time. And he said that at the time.
He doesn't make odds like Vegas does. He weights the accuracy of polls.

And Mrs. Clinton DID win the election. She got 2.8 million more votes than Trump did. But we don't vote for president when we vote. We vote for Electors in the Electoral College, and Trump won 57 more Electors than Mrs. Clinton did.
There isn't one big election for president. There are 538 of them. Polls only measure the popular vote.

You can't go by national odds when you're looking at the presidential race. And you can't go by national polls when you're looking at the presidential race. Because there's a mechanism in there that specifically was inserted (by Alexander Hamilton) to keep the rabble from being able to elect the president by popular vote.

And Nate Silver isn't giving gambling odds. And he'd be the first to tell you to pay attention when he says (and he is currently saying) the Republicans have a 1 in 8 chance of keeping a majority of seats in the House, and a 5 in 6 chance of keeping a majority of seats in the Senate.

Please stop saying Nate Silver was wrong, because he wasn't. He gave Trump a nearly 30% chance of winning the presidency, he kept saying It's not a sure thing! and he discussed the problems with the polls in exactly the areas that made the difference well before the election. If you (if we) chose to just look at the 7-3 odds, that's not his fault.

[SteveS]

JSAD wrote:

Please stop saying Nate Silver was wrong, because he wasn't.

OK, if you say so. Since you are an expert on what Silver says, can you quote Silver's latest numbers on these Midterms for Dem winning House majority? I sure would appreciate before I place my bet.

[Jim Eshelman]

538 currently gives 7 chances in 8 (87.3%) that Democrats will get a majority in the House, vs. 1 chance in 8 (12.7%) that Republicans will retain a majority.

Here is the full presentation: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... id=rrpromo

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

They're here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... mo#history They change rapidly.

Especially scroll down to the charts for How the popular vote for the House translates into seats. If you insist on using these statistics for betting odds, you at least need to understand what you are trying to bet on. 435 separate elections in 50 different states.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

538 currently gives 7 chances in 8 (87.3%) that Democrats will get a majority in the House, vs. 1 chance in 8 (12.7%) that Republicans will retain a majority.

Thanks Jim, Using odds lingo as a gambler, I interpret 538 calculate with their methodology the Dems are 8-1 odds on favorite to win the House Majority with their 87.3% 'chances.' I am a numbers guy and these numbers help me in determining the size bet I wager. Correct me if I am wrong Jim, but if I remember correctly at 6:00 PM on Prez election night 2016, which you and I were following closely, 538 had Hillary a 92% 'chances' for winning Prez. But I understand Silver and other pooling Gurus hedges their % 'chances' with other words by saying: but... No pollster really knows what is going to happen with this Midterm.

[Jim Eshelman]

I don't remember it being that high, but I actually don't remember. It was high enough to seem shoo-in, but there were weaknesses. Partly (it is now believed) that people lied outright to pollsters, and primarily, as JSAD pointed out, that there were vulnerabilities predicted exactly where they actually occurred.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

I don't remember it being that high, but I actually don't remember. It was high enough to seem shoo-in, but there were weaknesses. Partly (it is now believed) that people lied outright to pollsters, and primarily, as JSAD pointed out, that there were vulnerabilities predicted exactly where they actually occurred.

I understand Jim. From your 538 link post last week, Silver states:

All of this sets up what could be a feast-or-famine evening for Democrats next Tuesday. They have a huge number of opportunities to win Republican seats — around 100 of them! And yet, it would be hard to circle more than about 12 or 15 of these districts that can safely be predicted to wind up in Democrats’ hands. If things go roughly to form nationwide, Democrats almost certainly will get there. But even a modest pro-GOP polling error — if Republicans were to beat their polls by 2 or 3 points across the board — would revert the overall race to being a toss-up. Conversely, even a modest, pro-Democratic polling error could send their number of pickups careening into the 50s, or higher. The wide ranges in our forecast reflect the uncertain conditions on the ground.

[Jim Eshelman]

I have no expectation of Democrats taking the Senate. However, as an exercise, I see Politico reporting that new polls in Florida and Missouri have started last minute favoring of the Democrats. I decided to go to 270towin.com's interactive map and see what it starts looking like. (The Florida poll is more solid, though hardly a sure thing, and 270tiwin already shows Florida leaning blue. Missouri is another story, where there has been extensive polling, and this new one has several somewhat-recent ones that contradict it.)

538 shows a bare, thin lead of the Democrat in Nevada, and Politico says Democrats are expressing strong optimism of flipping Nevada their way. They could be wrong of course but, in our game-playing, lets flip Nevada blue.

It doesn't look like Beto O'Rourke stands a chance in Texas. Let's assume (harrumph) that Cruz wins. Ditto in Tennessee North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Utah.

Let's flip Missouri blue, in our game-playing, just in case that recent poll is right.

This brings us to 51-49 Republican. There are, however, two more states that, while way too close to call, actually have a slight polling advantage in the Democrat (even though the odds-makers are still calling them as Republican wins). In Arizona, the Dem has 3 chances in 5 and the Rep has 2 chances in 5 according to 538, so let's speculate Arizona flips. Mississippi is hard to expect to turn blue but, though 538 gives the Republican 7 chances in 8 of winning, the polls only show a 0.6% difference between the two candidates.

I mention Mississippi at all because it would take all of these somewhat surprising wins - Nevada, Missouri, Arizona, and Mississippi - for the Democrats to hit 51 Senators. (And that's assuming 270towin is right about Indiana going blue, which is questionable - Trump is making his second tri there within a few days, so this could erode the blue lead. 538 does currently give the Dem 5 chances in 7 in Indiana.)

You see why I'm not counting on a Senate win for the blue team?

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Thanks Jim, Using odds lingo as a gambler, I interpret 538 calculate with their methodology the Dems are 8-1 odds on favorite to win the House Majority with their 87.3% 'chances.'

Stop. Fivethiryeight is not offering odds for gamblers. Fivethiryeight is an organization studying and offering statistics on how accurate the political polls are in their predictions. So please DO NOT USE IT to inform your betting unless your intent is to bet on whether or not a bunch of polls are right or wrong.

Fivethiryeight just isn't anything like the odds boards you're used to. The very name - Fivethiryeight - is a reminder of just what people are voting for (electors, not the candidates) and you should take it as a warning not to bet based on it.

[Jim Eshelman]

Here is Nate Silver's final pre-election assessment of the House of Representatives contests. I like the article because it is very rich in nuance, and you know it's going there right from the start.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fi ... favorites/

And here is 538's final pre-election word on the Senate.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/se ... -watching/

[SteveS]

There is a significant line (odds) movement today with the Dem House majority increasing their favored odds from -300 to -350! In the last 30 days beginning Oct 6, I have seen the Dems House majority drop from -280 to -200. Then in the last 2 weeks I have seen the Dem House majority increase their favored odds from -200 to -350. This is a sure sign that most of the betting money in the last 2 weeks is being placed on the Dems winning House majority. I will try to remember to post final betting odds on both House & Senate before first voting polls close at 6:00 PM. If there is going to be big money betting (usually smart money), it is always bet late before betting is cut-off.
Based primarily on certain Sidereal Mundane charts for DC and Trump astro measures for today and a few days after today, I am going to fade these favored Dem House betting & polling odds/chances, and place a recreational bet of 100 $ on the Reps holding House majority at +225. This means if the Dems gain House majority I lose 100 $, if Reps hold House majority I win 225 $.
JSAD wrote:

538 is not offering odds for gamblers.

I clearly know this JSAD. But when it comes to me placing a political bet, I endeavor to understand why/how the gambling odds makers set there opening/closing lines (odds). Whereas, I clearly understand how the gambling odds are determined for a sporting contest, I am still trying to figure-out how the odds makers set their opening odds for a political contest. The only sound reasoning I can see/understand for an opening gambling odds line (made months ago) on a political contest: the gambling odds makers are using data from a collection of polling data. 538 is recognized as primary data collector for political contests, and that is why I closely follow and post about 538’s view with % chances for winning.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Whereas, I clearly understand how the gambling odds are determined for a sporting contest, I am still trying to figure-out how the odds makers set their opening odds for a political contest. The only sound reasoning I can see/understand for an opening gambling odds line (made months ago) on a political contest: the gambling odds makers are using data from a collection of polling data. 538 is recognized as primary data collector for political contests, and that is why I closely follow and post about 538’s view with % chances for winning.

The thing that throws a monkey wrench in polling data is voter districts are gerrymandered, so it doesn't matter how individual voters vote. There are several gerrymandering schemes - for instance, all the democratic voters are shoved into a few districts mostly covering cities and the republicans are shoved into suburban and rural districts, so 50 democratic votes count the same as 20 republican votes. Most polls measure individual votes, but don't take that discrepancy into account. Fivethiryeight (spelled out - 538 is a site on a very different subject...) does several forecasts, some of which try to take the gerrymandering into account, but that's really difficult to do since most states hide their numbers very carefully so they don't get sued and end up having a court redraw it's electoral boundaries.

I don't think any of the polls are reliable enough to base a betting decision on, and I'm sure FiveThirtyEight shouldn't be used that way.

[Jim Eshelman]

If I'm reading Steve correctly, his main interest at the moment is tracking the decision-path of those who set the odds. For that, it doesn't really matter whether he thinks 538 is an accurate path of prediction but, rather, whether that's a primary source that the odds-makers consult.

If so, then by understanding the real meaning of those numbers better than the betters, he can perhaps outsmart them.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

If so, then by understanding the real meaning of those numbers better than the betters, he can perhaps outsmart them.

Exactly. He's misunderstanding the numbers Silver is offering, and not in a way likely to give him an edge against the Vegas bettors odds. Not only did Nate Silver never give Hillary 7-0 odds, he didn't predict the election "wrong" by giving her a 70% chance to win over Trump.

Right now, the House race in my district, Bacon (IR) vs Eastman (D) is Bacon projected 50.1% of the popular vote, and Eastman 49.3%. But the odds are not 5.01-4.93. Bacon has 5-7 odds of winning while Eastman has 4-7 odds. It's 58.1 to 41.9 Then we add the gerrymandering penalty for Democrats on top of that.

If you use the percentages of the popular vote as if they were any kind of odds, much less Vegas odds, you're trying to compare apples and sand dunes. This will not give an edge over the Vegas odds.

I've said it several times though so I'll shut up now.

[Jim Eshelman]

Right. Nebraska 2nd numbers come out (of course) different from the percentages of votes. Bacon is rated at a 58% chance of winning (4 chances in 7), Eastman a 42% chance (3 chances in 7).

It's super close (as the forecasted vote share is close) and nobody would want to take that particular bet.

In contrast, in my district Jimmy Gomez currently is expected to win in 99 out of 100 scenarios with a projected 82% of the vote. For entirely different reasons (no way to make a decent return on a bet!), nobody would take a bet here, either.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

If so, then by understanding the real meaning of those numbers better than the betters, he can perhaps outsmart them.

I am a value betting gambler looking for good value betting with Sidereal Astrology, which has proven to my mind offers me certain advantages with value betting. Many times I see winning teams with astrology but I deem there is no betting value for the point spread (odds). In this political contest, the astrology I analyzed told me to make a recreational bet on the Reps winning House majority because I saw good betting value with Vegas paying me more than I bet, if I win the bet.

I followed the pollsters for Prez election in 2016 and all but one pollster was picking Hillary to win. Hell, before they closed the Prez polls in 2016, Hillary was a -800 favorite, she lost, and with the astrology I analyzed in 2016, it strongly told me Trump would win the Rep candidate and win the Prez. In July 2015 when Trump through his hat into the ring, Vegas was offering me what I considered to be the greatest value bet I have ever seen using Sidereal Astrology as my betting guide. I got +700 on him winning the Rep candidate, and +1500 on him winning the Prez. All the pollsters except one was dead wrong, picking Hillary to win.

With this Midterm, the astrology I analyzed told me Trump had some good benefic symbolism with this Midterm, and imo, this Midterm is all about a vote or not for Trump, SMA clearly shows angular Sun all over some Q Charts and a the Nov 5th Lunar Ingress. The CapQ for DC shows Jupiter partile cnj DC's IC, and I see Vegas offering me a good value bet with their odds on Rep winning House majority. But most importantly, I see the pollsters saying there a good favored chances the Dems take House majority. In other words, I see the pollsters telling me the same thing they were saying in 2016, the Dems have high % chances to to take the House majority, but there is no value in betting the Dems with presently the Dems a -450 favorite to take the House majority. I am seeing very similar contrasts with these moving favored odds for Dem House majority as I saw with Hillary's favored odds movement with the 2016 Prez election. I think the last day leading up to the 2016 Prez election, the Vegas odds on Hillary moved from a -450 favorite to -850. This would have meant: I would have to have risked 850 $ to win 100 $. You see there would have been no value in betting on Hillary because of a possible upset--which happened. Same with these Midterms Vegas and certain pollsters are telling me the Dems a strong favorites to win House majority, but as of now, a bettor betting on a Dem House majority has to risk 450 $ to win 100 $. There is no betting value here! But with a bettor risking a 100 $ bet on the Reps to hold House majority, he only has to risk 100 $ to win 350 $, good betting value when the Sidereal Astrology is offering me sound benefic symbolism Trump enjoys the results of this Midterm election. My Sidereal Astrology analysis with 2016 Prez rewarded me with a great value bet, but damn sure does not mean my Sidereal Astrology analysis is correct with the Reps winning House majority. When I bet--its all about me being patient for what I consider a good value bet. I have made several value bets where Vegas pays me more than I bet, but I have lost value bets. Has anyone seen any written words from Nate Silver today on his % chances for Dem House victory?

[SteveS]

At this moment Senate majority betting odds are Dems +400 underdog, Reps -600 favorites. I see no betting value here! I will watch until Vegas closes out betting. One thing is clear with the betting trend for today: The bettors are betting on the Dems!!!

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Yeah, the pollsters count people and how they're going to vote, and they were mostly right about that in 2016. But the polls don't take gerrymandering into account, which is why the polls, which count the popular vote, can't count the number of districts won or electors.
What I'm really interested in is if the voters vote in expanded medicaid, and if they do, what underhanded crap our governor is going to pull to not implement it.

[SteveS]

I hear you JSAD but don't understand politics like you understand.

Bettors are still pouring $ in on House majority for Dems, now favored by -500, Reps House majority +300 underdogs.

Reps Senate majority -400 favorite, Dems +600 underdog.

In the 2016 Prez Vegas kept the betting open till 10:00 PM. I don't know if Vegas will do same for Midterms but will keep updating every hour.

[Jim Eshelman]

Indiana polls just closed. The Senate race there will be very telling about how the evening probably will go. Hoping for results soon.

[SteveS]

Vegas betting closes out with final odds:
Dem House majority favorite -300
Rep House majority underdog +200

Dem Senate majority + 750 underdog
Rep Senate majority -600 favorite

Some very late heavy betting money came in on the Reps, usually a sign of smart money. Time will soon tell.

[SteveS]

Kudos to Nate Silver, his forecasted winning % chances for the Dems nailed it. JSAD, I also think your analysis was dead-on, made a big difference with his failed 2016 forecasted winning % chances with dozens of races vs. 1 on 1 2016 Prez election. Very interesting contrast.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

In the Nebraska 2nd race between Don Bacon and Kara Eastman, Eastman won the part of the district that includes most of the city of Omaha, but lost in the part of the district that worms it's way down to include the SAC Airforce Base for no good reason other than to pick up the Republican voters there. Don Bacon, formerly General Don Bacon of the Airforce, retained the seat.

This is gerrymandering. There were three anti-gerrymandering propositions on the ballots in three different states, and they all passed. Voters should be picking their elected officials. Elected officials should not be picking their voters.

Medicaid expansion was voted in here, but Ricketts retained the governorship and I expect he'll try something to gut it.

[Jim Eshelman]

BTW I came up with a simple anti-gerrymandering tactic 20 years ago that I thought Congress or a court might implement. The plan would be to require that no districting line cross a zip code boundary. That's all!

Zip code boundaries are organized by a different, independent part of the federal government. They tend to be compact and meaningful divisions, centered around a post office with good roads and other travel routes - ensuring (in a couple of ways) greater ease of getting to the polls.

Eventually, one party or the other could conceivably screw with this by screwing up zip code boundaries, but that would be difficult and slow. First, it would be a visible effort at screwing with districts, plus people (and businesses!) wouldn't tolerate having zip codes screwed with to much.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Have you sent this to Eric Holder? He can pass it along to courts who are mandating new district maps.
I don't think it would work here though. Our district maps already pretty much follow the zip codes. They just follow them in a line instead of a box.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Just to give the end of the story.... Nebraska now has new maps for redistricting because of the census. The governor was overridden, the Republicans were partially thwarted, but my district had a county to the west added to it to dilute the blue. The tail that dragged in the red SAC base was cut off, and Don Bacon is still a senator, but now his district doesn't include Omaha, but does include the area around the SAC base. And his new house, which required a little gerrymandering, but he doesn't have to move.

Lincoln, which is mostly blue had several red rural areas added to it, but since it's in a district that almost always votes red anyway, it doesn't much matter.

And Gov Ricketts did his best to gut the Medicaid expansion, but his efforts were overridden time after time by the legislature, and yesterday, three years after it was voted in, it went into effect.

[Jim Eshelman]

That sounds like more good news than bad. (And yay for health care coverage!)

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

It was a huge fight in the legislature, and nobody is happy with the outcome. That means to me they got it right. But the medicade expansion is very much good news. Families receiving services can now make up to $500 more a year and not lose benefits. That's a huge victory over Richie Rich Ricketts (whose father started Ameritrade.)