Arbitrary odds on the president

I’m worried about Mitt Romney, well I’m not really worried about him that much. He seemsĀ like a regular boring guy. I’m more worried about what his party intends to do with the economics and the environment.

People may ask why I as a Swede care about US politics, and the answer to that is fairly simple. US politics affect us almost as much as swedish politics do, due to the fact that the US is still a superpower – and a fairly democratic one as well (at least compare to China).

But anyway, I was thinking – who knows more about the details about who is going to win than betting companies. So I simply googled the odds of winning the president elections this november. Not suprising the odds are lower on Obama, but not that low actually. 1.64 on Obama and 2.64 on Romney at StanJames. For those who don’t know, 1.64 is not rock solid (Man C, winner of Premier League 2011-12, opening game against Southampton is 1.16) – but it’s not really worth betting on.

Anyways, this post was about arbitrary odds. Arbitrage betting is when you bet on all outcomes of a bet, and still win some money. This is usually possible by betting with different companies that have different odds. I realised that the odds on the US president are arbitrary. If you play 123 dollars on Obama, and 77 on Romney you have a sure win of 2 dollars.

Why is that? Well, it’s because Ron Paul. He’s the offset. There’s still (according to Stan James at least) a slight chance he might win. And therefor, by betting against him you win 1%. Off course, you can go to the bank and get 2% per year, which is roughly 1% until the elections – and there is no risk. But hey, what’s the fun of that?