Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, January 17, 2019

By Angela Moon

NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s probability of winning the White House gained in online betting markets following the first debate of the campaign on Monday night between her and Republican Donald Trump.

A Clinton contract on the popular PredictIt betting market gained 6 cents from the previous day’s level to 69 cents, while a contract favoring Donald Trump’s prospects for victory tumbled 7 cents to 31 cents. Contracts are priced from 0 cents to 100 cents, with the contract price equating to a probability of whether that candidate will win the Nov. 8 election.

The price swings for both candidates were the largest since early August, and placed Clinton’s lead in that market at the widest in about two weeks.

Clinton’s prospects also improved on the Irish betting site Paddy Power.

About halfway through Monday’s debate, she was shown as a 1-to-2 favorite, and those odds shortened to 4-to-9 in the moments after the debate ended. Trump’s odds lengthened to 23-to-10 from 9-to-4.

The swing following the debate put the brakes on a big Trump price rally on PredictIt that coincided with a tightening in most public opinion polls. The implied probability of him winning had risen to 38 cents on Sunday from just 28 cents at the end of August.

Bets on Trump fell as low as 5 cents on February but went up as high as 44 cents in May. Bets on Clinton, the persistent favorite in most wagering markets, went as low as 37 cents in January and as high as 79 cents in August.

The debate on Monday was the first of three scheduled face-offs between the two candidates before the Nov. 8 election.

(Reporting by Angela Moon; Writing by Dan Burns; Editing by Peter Cooney)

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 34

9 responses to “Clinton Gains, Trump Falls In Online Betting Markets After First Debate”

  1. The lucky one says:

    IMO the betting lines are more accurate than the polls.

    • Box says:

      Ive been thinking about how Las Vegas is sizing up things and I cant remember if in the past they were accurate or not. They bet on the odds which change everyday. Trump may have started with 1000:1, the gained to 2:1, now who knows, maybe 50:1. Years ago I liked watching their boards and then forgot about it.

      • The lucky one says:

        All Vegas wants is an equal amount of betting on each candidate so that they are sure to profit. If post debate the payout was sweetened for choosing Trump that would mean that more are betting on Clinton so they are trying to induce more bettors to take Trump.

    • johninPCFL says:

      The problem with the betting pool is that it may not be a valid representation of the actual voters.
      Brexit failed in the betting pools, and it wasn’t close. The actual voters’ intents wasn’t matched by the betting pool, and Brexit passed.

      • The lucky one says:

        You’re right, a large bet would skew the standings but I also think all the polls are pretty worthless as well.

  2. Box says:

    Meantime in more interesting news,

    Usually I skip the articles and move straight to the comments but this is the reverse. Read this about why Hillary is getting away with it. Its very interesting and the author is credible.

    Two years ago I said she had to run for the WH to escape her misdeeds, either by EO or if that isnt possible, by WH obstruction of justice by refusal to cooperate as Nixon and Clinton did. It turns out that today that notion has firmed up very much among observers. Anyway read the interesting article which spells out whats going on.

    http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-investigation-of-emailgate-was-a-sham/

    • The lucky one says:

      The Observer seems to be a right wing website so that must be kept in mind when considering the article. From the article: “Hillary Clinton either willfully lied to the Bureau, repeatedly, about her email habits as secretary of state, or she is far too dumb to be our commander-in-chief.”

      OK, so where does that leave us given that Trump is a confirmed liar about nearly everything and anything. I don’t believe he is stupid but Hillary appears to be far more intelligent.

      “she had to run for the WH to escape her misdeeds, either by EO or if that isnt possible, by WH obstruction of justice by refusal to cooperate as Nixon and Clinton did.” There may be some truth in that but again, it is equally true of Trump although simple bribes have worked well for him in the past.

    • The lucky one says:

      Well assuming that the good doctor is not lying or exaggerating (how would we know?). There should be an asterisk next to Bush-Gore since Gore actually won but SCOTUS Inc. took it away and gave it to Bush.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.