Shady Posted December 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2008 Looks like, with 100% of the votes counted, Norm Coleman is still leading. Could this be the end for Stuart Smalley? Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 Looks like, with 100% of the votes counted, Norm Coleman is still leading. Could this be the end for Stuart Smalley?Link Frakens internals have him up by 4 with 133 ballots actually missing. Of those 133 they break so Fraken gains 43 votes so he could be up by as many as 47 votes. That is a good buffer. PS no numbers with out Challenged ballots included mean anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 Looks like, with 100% of the votes counted, Norm Coleman is still leading. Could this be the end for Stuart Smalley? Nope. Looks like Stuart Smalley is making a comeback. After dipping perilously low, the odds are now, once again, in his favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 the odds are now, once again, in his favour. Nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 Nonsense. Here are the odds: www.intrade.com Earlier today, Coleman was at 43. Now he's at 47. This means Franken was at around 57 and is now around 53. Late last month, Coleman was above 80, but as the recount has dragged on, more votes have been included that were previously disqualified. Those votes have favoured Franken. If you think the odds are nonsense, please, please bet the rent. You're sure to make a ton of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 Here are the odds: www.intrade.com LOL, I don't look at the odds from intrade, I look at the fact that Norm Coleman received more votes on election day, and after a full recount still received more votes. Website odds aren't quite as important as actual votes and electoral results. Sorry. My apologies, there is one website that is somewhat significant. Minnesota Secretary Of State Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted December 14, 2008 Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 You guys sure enjoy having a prospective American senator as an electronic buddy...he got 3 million votes--- I would say that is influence - win or lose...enjoy...He likes us...and that is a great bridge between nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted December 14, 2008 Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 LOL, I don't look at the odds from intrade, I look at the fact that Norm Coleman received more votes on election day, and after a full recount still received more votes. Website odds aren't quite as important as actual votes and electoral results. Sorry.My apologies, there is one website that is somewhat significant. Minnesota Secretary Of State What full recount? Colman challenged 3000 ballots and Fraken only 1000 so there is 4000 ballots left at least. I know you hate when all votes are counted but THAT is a full recount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 14, 2008 Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 LOL, I don't look at the odds from intrade, I look at the fact that Norm Coleman received more votes on election day, and after a full recount still received more votes. Website odds aren't quite as important as actual votes and electoral results. Sorry. Money has no political bias, and money takes in all the data from all sources. Again, if you don't think the odds at intrade accurately reflect Coleman's chances, go ahead and double your money. If Coleman wins, $47 will give you $100. Unless, of course, you don't have faith in your own interpretations of the actual votes and electoral results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 14, 2008 Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 Money has no political bias, and money takes in all the data from all sources.... Patently false.....see "Ali vs. Frazier" #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted December 14, 2008 Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 Patently false.....see "Ali vs. Frazier" #1. Boxing fan hugh? Me too. Much better than that stupid rage called ultimate fighting...I really don't see the point in punching a man who is unconscious in the head. It's a sign of growing acceptance of violence with out rules...could bring about a mentality where war has no guidelines...and instead of leaving your enemy a route of escape the way a gentlemen should..You utterly vanquish and destroy the contender. Ali had one rare talent - he could take a punch...and lots of them. But in the end he paid for his fakery. It might have been better if he had fallen down on occassion and let the other guy win. It's not always the man on top that is in control...sometimes it's the little guy - the servant that is righteous - will in time run the house. And the percieved master will serve the servant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 14, 2008 Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 .... It might have been better if he had fallen down on occassion and let the other guy win. It's not always the man on top that is in control...sometimes it's the little guy - the servant that is righteous - will in time run the house. And the percieved master will serve the servant. Right...Ali was the art of boxing....Frazier was the brutality. A lot of money was politically biased for Ali that night, and much money changed hands when Frazier prevailed. So go the bookies of Intrade.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted December 14, 2008 Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 I get the message - rule number one. Never underestimate anyone ever. Promised myself today that I would avoid this machine and do something useful like paint a picture for my daughters friend Energy - transport - finance, land and communications - I will give it a good twist if you know what I mean ...Keep your spirits up my friend...it's a hell of a ride. I adored Ali for floating in the air and faking it - but you can not get around sheer physical force...like a hard wack in the nog from a Frazier. May as well use the traditional thing that used to defuse a bar fight - it was called the "English Sucker Shot" - You blind side the once and the fight is over...maybe if you believe in your self - that you are the best - the rules go out the window - knock him down when he is not looking - that's the wise thing to do. Enjoy your day...and spread some joy..win the trust and betray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 Right...Ali was the art of boxing....Frazier was the brutality. A lot of money was politically biased for Ali that night, and much money changed hands when Frazier prevailed. So go the bookies of Intrade.com. Nope. In terms of predictions, sports is nothing like politics. New England was the heavy favourite to win against the Giants in the Superbowl, but polls before the actual event mean a lot less than they do in an election. And there is no political bias when it comes to betting. People put their money where they believe it will produce a return, and if they think the "art" of boxing will prevail over its brutality, then they'll bet for that. But that's just where they think they'll make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 Nope. In terms of predictions, sports is nothing like politics. New England was the heavy favourite to win against the Giants in the Superbowl, but polls before the actual event mean a lot less than they do in an election. And there is no political bias when it comes to betting... You are likely too young and not American to know any better about that time and that prize fight. ..but that's OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 (edited) You are likely too young and not American to know any better about that time and that prize fight. I remember it well, and I clearly have a better perspective of how odds-making works. The simple matter that you don't realize is that if anyone were lucky enough to have the insight you claim to have---that somehow gambling odds have been altered by political hopes and dreams---they would be a fool to trumpet their findings to their world on the internet. They should keep their insights to themselves and make themselves very rich. But you don't even have enough stock in your insights to invest a red cent (Canadian or American) in them. Edited December 15, 2008 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 I remember it well, and I clearly have a better perspective of how odds-making works. I'm sure you think you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 I'm sure you think you do. Are you planning on doubling your money betting against Franken then? Or did you lose all your money betting against Obama? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 Are you planning on doubling your money betting against Franken then? Or did you lose all your money betting against Obama? Who the hell bets money on political elections? Answer, pretty much only degenerate gamblers. Once again I'll state, actual votes cast for a candidate trumps odds on websites and gamblers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 Who the hell bets money on political elections? Answer, pretty much only degenerate gamblers. Once again I'll state, actual votes cast for a candidate trumps odds on websites and gamblers. Agreed...I guess he thinks everybody else should take Intrade.com as seriously as he does..you know....like World of Warcraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 Who the hell bets money on political elections? Answer, pretty much only degenerate gamblers. Once again I'll state, actual votes cast for a candidate trumps odds on websites and gamblers. What data do you think those odds are based on? It's just that oddsmakers are capable of looking at data objectively, and are willing to consider all the data, including disputed ballots. But when faced with irrefutable, objective data that you don't like, I guess the best conservative strategy is to find someone you can call a degenerate. Sadly, Coleman's dropped another 7 points today down to 40. Franken is now the favourite. Forty bucks will give you a cool hundred--a pretty good return these days. I'm sure you considered the intrade odds to be quite credible two weeks ago when Coleman was above 80. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 What data do you think those odds are based on? It's just that oddsmakers are capable of looking at data objectively, and are willing to consider all the data, including disputed ballots. But when faced with irrefutable, objective data that you don't like, I guess the best conservative strategy is to find someone you can call a degenerate. Sadly, Coleman's dropped another 7 points today down to 40. Franken is now the favourite. Forty bucks will give you a cool hundred--a pretty good return these days. I'm sure you considered the intrade odds to be quite credible two weeks ago when Coleman was above 80. Nope. I've never ever sourced intrade in any of my posts. Nor will I ever reference Las Vegas odds makers either. Coleman can drop to 0, but as long as he leads in votes, it really doesn't matter. He won the election on Nov 4th. And he won the manditory recount. They both have the same number of disputed ballots, so unless Franken has some crazy scheme of counting them, he's done like dinner. On second thought, maybe the intrade odds aren't so much that Coleman will lose, but that Franken will find a way to steal an election, he's lost twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 On second thought, maybe the intrade odds aren't so much that Coleman will lose, but that Franken will find a way to steal an election, he's lost twice. You should consider oddsmakers, because they are a good means of breaking down all the data that are presently at hand. They can't tell the future, but they can tell you the best guess at any given moment based on all the information. That's why Coleman was above 80 two weeks ago, and is at 40 now: they've factored in the disputed absentee ballots that you seem to know nothing about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 Nope. I've never ever sourced intrade in any of my posts. Nor will I ever reference Las Vegas odds makers either. Coleman can drop to 0, but as long as he leads in votes, it really doesn't matter. He won the election on Nov 4th. And he won the manditory recount. They both have the same number of disputed ballots, so unless Franken has some crazy scheme of counting them, he's done like dinner.On second thought, maybe the intrade odds aren't so much that Coleman will lose, but that Franken will find a way to steal an election, he's lost twice. You mean he lost the mandatory recount. The only number that counts is the one which includes challenged Ballots. Fraken up by 8 if we go by what the judges thought before they were challenged. Stop spinning Coleman is losing, he is under investigation from the FBI and he needs that Senate seat to bargain with when they bring down charges. You guys on the right better pry he loses cause right now Illinois is making the Left look bad you don't need this dummy to make you look bad too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 AP says after this recount is done AND ALL THE BALLOTS are counted Fraken will win. http://www.startribune.com/politics/nation...iD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.