State senator to propose bets on federal elections
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal
He said the bill could be expanded to allow betting on the Academy Awards and other non-sporting events.
Other counties are doing this, said Segerblom, D-Las Vegas.
Segerblom said he has the support of most committee members and believes expanding betting to include these events could bring Nevada additional revenue since it would be popular with the general public.
Read more: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics/state-senator-propose-bets-federal-elections
The one risk I see is that the bet would not be based on either sheer chance, or skill applied to an understood set of game rules.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)multi-gazillionaires like the Kochs or casino magnate Adelson actually fixing elections instead of just trying to rig them.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)What would have been Obama's moneyline in the middle of last summer? -500?
Lucky Luciano
(11,257 posts)I do think Intrade was a great concept. Just as good as, if not better, than any poll.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)they had InTrade shut down.
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)...while the University of Iowa Electronic Market, which uses this as a futures teaching tool, has their page still up?
http://tippie.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/pres12.html
Seriously, does everything have to be a conspiracy theory?
BobbyBoring
(1,965 posts)What could go wrong there? I mean, betting on who's going to be the pope is one thing but betting on POTUS? The fix is in~
CincyDem
(6,363 posts)Let's see...I support Mitt to the tune of $40million and I put my money on Obama to win.
Mitt wins and it costs me $80 million to own a President. Cheap at twice the cost.
Obama wins and I collect my $40 million from the cashier's window down on the Venetian Casio Floor.
And of course there's the house spread - and if I play it right (by owning the casio), I get that too.
Ain't America great.
Sheesh
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)...if I want influence, why wouldn't I give my $40 M directly to Obama? And if I want the cash, why waste money on Mitt if I think he's going to lose?
CincyDem
(6,363 posts)In this example, I might be Sheldon Adelson (for example).
I want Mitt to win so I give him $40million for campaign funds.
At the same time, I place a bet that Obama will win.
If Mitt wins, I lose my $40million that I spent on his campaign AND I lose the $40million that I bet Obama would win.
So what - I got me a President.
If Obama wins, I lose my $40million that I spent on Mitt's campaign BUT I gain the $40million that I bet Obama would win.
So I don't have a President but it cost me nothing.
I guess the only reason this works is because I'm actually willing to spend twice as much on Mitt winning but the gambling side of it lets me hedge my bets. In this case I really want Mitt to win (and I think he will) but as least I cover my a$$ if I'm wrong.
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)IF I'm Sheldon Adelson, then either 1) $40 M is pocket change (his estimated net worth is $21 B) so why bother, or 2) money is so important that I wouldn't waste it on a loser if I thought the odds were against him. Besides assuming any book would take a bet that big, it would be fully taxable.
CincyDem
(6,363 posts)You're probably right.
Although, if I'm Sheldon, I didn't get to $21B by losing $40m here or there.
Whatever, the tax point makes a big different too so you're right - makes no sense.