This Election Day, Listen to the Betting Market Instead of Pundit Predictions
Over time, betting has been a better predictor than polls, pundits, statistical models, and everything else.

Some pundits say that Democrats will win the midterms.
MSNBC tells us, "Democrats are seeing momentum headed into midterms." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) claimed, "We will hold the House by winning more seats!"
Really? Want to bet?
This fall, CNN's Douglas Brinkley said, "There is a blue wave going on right now."
Michael Moore agreed, "There is going to be such a landslide" of elected Democrats.
At the time those predictions were made, people who bet on elections believed Republicans had better than a 70 percent chance of winning back the House.
Whom should we trust?
We can listen to:
No. 1: People who bet.
No. 2: The media pundits.
No. 3: Polls.
No. 4: Professional election forecasters.
Among forecasters, Nate Silver has the best track record. As I write, his FiveThirtyEight website gives Democrats a 55 percent chance to hold the Senate. The Economist's forecasters give Democrats even better odds.
But I don't believe them.
I believe the people who bet. That's the topic of my latest video.
At the moment, the bettors think Republicans have a 60 percent chance to win the Senate and an 88 percent chance to win the House.
I take these numbers from ElectionBettingOdds.com, a website I helped start. StosselTV producer Maxim Lott averages predictions from betting sites around the world and converts them to easy-to-understand percentages.
I trust those numbers more than other predictors because in the past, the bettors were right more often than anyone else.
Bettors don't get everything right.
In 2016, they, like most everyone else, thought Hillary Clinton would become president. A week before Election Day, she was a 75 percent favorite.
But on Election Day, I saw how betting markets find the truth more quickly than others. Before the votes were counted, bettors were switching to then-candidate Donald Trump.
On election night, it was fun to watch the silly people on TV. Even after bettors were switching, pundits still said that Hillary would win. "Trump is more likely than not to lose," proclaimed Dana Bash on CNN.
Only hours after the betting shifted did TV anchors finally adjust their predictions.
In 2020, bettors correctly predicted President Joe Biden's win and called nearly every state correctly.
Over time, betting has been a better predictor than polls, pundits, statistical models, and everything else. There's something about "putting your money where your mouth is" that focuses the mind.
ElectionBettingOdds.com tracked hundreds of races. It turns out that when bettors think a candidate has a 63 percent chance, those candidates do win roughly 63 percent of the time.
One reason bettors predict more accurately is because bettors consider things polls and prediction models often miss.
In 2016, Clinton-favoring polls overlooked people without college degrees. Polltakers were also misled by Trump supporters who refused to talk to them.
Most betting markets, like FTX, Betfair, Smarkets, and Polymarket, only allow non-Americans to bet. That's because uptight, narrow-minded American politicians banned gambling on elections.
Fortunately, they made an exception for PredictIt.org. There, Americans are allowed to bet up to $850.
Our foolish bureaucrats promise to shut PredictIt down, but for now, we can take advantage of the "wisdom of the crowd" that PredictIt provides.
Which party will win the Pennsylvania Senate race? Republican Mehmet Oz is favored, 54 cents to 49 cents.
Who will be Arizona's next governor? Kari Lake leads 82 cents to 22 cents.
The first Cabinet member to quit? Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, at 32 cents (out of a dollar). Then Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, at 21 cents.
If you think you know more than the bettors, you can try to make money by betting at PredictIt.org. If you are not American, FTX, Betfair, Smarkets, and Polymarket will take your bets. All this betting gives us valuable information about the likely future.
Since betting markets are clearly superior predictors, I'm surprised that anyone still pays attention to pundits. I no longer watch the blabbermouths on television.
I check the odds at ElectionBettingOdds.com.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What are they saying about Fetterman?
The guy's opening statement started with "Good night".
Don't know if it's enough for Oz to win, but that was a bad debate. The fracking question had him trapped by his own words.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this article… http://www.Profit97.com
Fetterman sounds like Bizarro Superman.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (vr-63) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
…
Just open the link————————–>>> http://Www.TopCityPay.Com
Strange looking at the plot of the Senate betting (http://electionbettingodds.com/Senate2022.html) -- why would anyone think the Dems had a chance in September only? The House plot is much steadier and consistent. I confess I care so little about this that I haven't been paying attention.
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i've had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here.......>>> Topcitypay
"At the moment, the bettors think Republicans have a 60 percent chance to win the Senate and an 88 percent chance to win the House."
It's depressing that many gamblers are so confident Republicans will manage to cheat their way to victory. Because with Biden doing so well the only fair outcome is #BlueWave2022.
#ElectionsAreOnlyLegitimateWhenDemocratsWin
"I believe the people who bet. "
Doesn't that infer that we shouldn't believe people who take bets, ie bookmakers?
Nate Silver's section on the predictions of tv's Capital Gang over the years is worth a look, and funny too.
http://library.lol/main/82E0909ED16620739606C74F56F5DC80
My prediction of the outcome of the presidential race in 2020 was 100% accurate. A month or so before the election Trump and Biden held competing tv appearances and Trump was widely expected to win at the ratings game. When the opposite turned out to be true, and more viewers tuned in to Biden's show, I knew Trump's goose was cooked and the public had grown tired of his shtick.
"Doesn’t that infer that we shouldn’t believe people who take bets, ie bookmakers?"
No. Because people who make bets are betting against each other, not the bookmakers.
The bookmaker is just a middleman. If the bookmaker does his job correctly, he makes money no matter how the individual bets come out.
If two people are betting against each other, which one is the more believable?
You don't understand professional betting much.
Hence the question.
Lol idiot
What does this question even mean?
If one person bets on candidate A and another on candidate B, which person is believable? Who does Stossel believe?
“I believe the people who bet. ”
But odds are not based on one person betting against another. Odds are based on initial data input that is then refined by how aggregate betting occurs on the whole. Thus, your question is nonsensical as it’s an out-of-context, improperly reductionist framing.
Improperly reductionist framing is the way of the democrat.
So Stossel actually believes the odds, rather than 'people who bet.' Thanks for clearing that up.
You should stop STROKING OUT about made up non-details, chicken little. This pedantry doesn’t make you look smart, if that’s what you were hoping, mfalseman.
At leas thes not as excruciating as Groomerjeff.
Damn, more quibbly and evasive than most politicians.
That’s not at all what Stossel believes. Are you really this ignorant, or are you just playing thinking you will someone win a rhetorical battle with it?
Here’s how it works. The bookmaker sets the initial odds using data input. Then, the odds change based on how people bet. The more people bet on one person over the other, the better odds that person gets.
What this means is that Stossel is using a form of “poll” if you will. But this is a poll that requires you to put your money where your mouth is, which , as Stossel points out, makes people have to be more honest with themselves since their money is on the line.
Therefore, Stossel is following “people who bet” in that he is following who the majority of betters think is going to win as those “people who bet” are the ones setting the odds.
I get your point and thanks for the time and trouble you've put into responding. I confess though, I'm not persuaded by the article. Making predictions about the future is a mug's game, but when I do indulge, the last thing I would think of doing would be to check the odds that book makers are offering. I have my own criteria, my own analysis, and my own gut. I thought I made that clear in my first post here:
My prediction of the outcome of the presidential race in 2020 was 100% accurate. A month or so before the election Trump and Biden held competing tv appearances and Trump was widely expected to win at the ratings game. When the opposite turned out to be true, and more viewers tuned in to Biden’s show, I knew Trump’s goose was cooked and the public had grown tired of his shtick.
You're not persuaded by the article because you don't plan to follow odds lines on candidates? That's not the point of the article, though. The point of the article was to explain how odds makers are tending to be better at predicting election outcomes than pundits, polls, and statistical models. Whether you personally want to follow them or not is of no consequence to the article. Heck, Stossel even says if you know better than the odds makers, go place a bet and see how you do.
"You’re not persuaded by the article because you don’t plan to follow odds lines on candidates? "
Because I'd do my own analysis following my own criteria if the issue was at all important to me.
Sorry readers. It's The McLaughlin Group featured in Nate's book, not Capital Gang.
Who cares if you do your own research. This has nothing to do with you. It's like reading an article discussing an increase in shark attacks in a particular area and you respond by explaining how you don't buy it, that you'll do your own research and swim where you decide.
All this article is doing is comparing reliability of prognosticators. Whether you want to use the information a prognosticator gives you is irrelevant.
"All this article is doing is comparing reliability of prognosticators."
Has the article made you click on Stossel's website? That's all that counts in the end.
"It’s like reading an article discussing an increase in shark attacks in a particular area and you respond by explaining how you don’t buy it, that you’ll do your own research and swim where you decide."
No, it's not like that at all. Assuming bettors "do their own research" before placing a bet is unsupported and a big reach, in any case. Bettors are subject to the same biases and motivations that afflict the panelists of the McLaughlin Group, ie not to be trusted with any issue of consequence.
Except betters place money down. That is a huge motivator to understand what you are doing. This compared to an average voter who has no money on the line is quite meaningful.
Maybe you're the kind of person who puts their money down with no research or understanding, but most people who bet or invest actually do look into what they are throwing their money at.
If you really are better at these predictions than the betting market, then you should be joining the betting market and making a killing figuring out where the good odds are.
If you're really actually smart at this, you'll realize that's exactly what the participants in the betting markets are all doing, and exactly why the betting market is better at predictions than experts or polls.
It relies on the "wisdom of the marketplace." As in, free markets tend to incorporate the most information and become the most efficient, and the more people there are (more data points) the more accurate they tend to be. It's a numbers game dude. With people who actually have skin in the game. What are the consequences if some schmuck pundit gets a prediction wrong? Zilch. However, if I'm betting, I'll be out 500 clams. That's motivation.
"Except betters place money down. "
McLaughlin Group panelists are paid money for their predictions which were no better than a coin toss. You think their predictions are any better for receiving money? Pollsters also make their living doing what they do. Yet it's the gamblers addicts judgement you find so reliable? I'm not convinced that gamblers even care about winning or losing. It's all in the adrenalin rush of the moment that's important.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Mtrueman, do you just come here to drive up the comment count?
Did you really expect anything better from him? If he lived in PA he would surely vote for Fetterman.
" If he lived in PA he would surely vote for Fetterman."
Surely not. Last time I thought of voting for any of them it was Leonard Peltier, who ran for president from a federal prison cell. He received over 27000 votes, unfortunately mine wasn't one of them.
Fuck you’re as dumb as a rock. Impressive.
It's pretty clear to me that Team Red is going to take over in the midterms. But this happens most second midterms. This is only Biden's first, so not good for the Democrats.
The question remaining is whether the old school or new school conservatives will be taking over. Will it be authoritarian protectionists with the agenda of owning the libs, or fiscal sanity rein in government conservatives. (Both will have hardons for keep abortion illegal, of course). There will be both, which way the chips will fall is still up in the air.
Abortion regulation is now a function of the states. Period. It can’t be codified one way or the other by the federal government. The Hobbs decision was quite explicit.
Hi. Good Night everybody.
Where's Nancy?
Good night everybody. Where's Jackie?
Although I no longer care who wins the elections, buried towards the end of the Stossel's written summary was that it is illegal for Americans to bet on elections. I don't want to bet on elections or on anything else for that matter; but I don't want to be forbidden to bet by government. This is simply one more example of what's wrong with America - like a grain of sand on top of a mountain on top of a continent.
In two days it will be legal to bet on elections at kalshi.com
A very prog friend of mine who lives in PA watched the debate last night and said she had to turn it off on her fb post. That doesn’t bode well for team blue…
It had to be painful for the wokies to watch. As every delusion has its breaking point.
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i've had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here.......>>> Topcitypay
The bettors didn't get it right in 2016. Hillary was up until 7 pm election night.
The first Trump election, betting markets were very wrong. They tend to have their own bias.
"betting markets were very wrong."
The pre-election polls called it within the margin of error, which is about as accurate as you should expect. I don't believe betting markets have margins of error which seems to mitigate against their accuracy as predictive tools.
And yet, the pre-election polls weren't within the margin of error. Only Nate Silver came close.
I get it now, you have a problem with the odds makers because they lean more Repub than polls. I was wondering why you were playing the ignorant game.
I think it was polling published by Los Angeles Times close to election eve that was predicting the election within the margin of error. And trending toward Trump in the days and weeks before. I can't be bothered to sift through the internet for polls that are years out of date so you'll just have to content yourself with insults and other foolishness.
"you have a problem with the odds makers because they lean more Repub than polls"
Isn't that a problem with you too? If pollsters lean one way, that will influence their behavior, and we should all have a problem with that. Perhaps insist they publish a margin of error, for example. Are oddsmakers somehow immune from this bias?
I'll have to content myself with insults and other foolishness? What the hell does this even mean?
I explained that your assertion was incorrect. You responded that you can't be bothered to support your claim. Then you make a wild statement like that.
And why in the world would I have a problem that odds makers don't provide margins of error? In betting and odds, there is no such thing as a margin of error. Betting and odds are based solely on initial input and bets that have occurred. It would be impossible to develop a margin of error for it.
Here's a thought. If you don't understand a subject, it's best not to opine on it.
"You responded that you can’t be bothered to support your claim. "
I can't be bothered. Really. You're welcome to try yourself if it's important to you.
" In betting and odds, there is no such thing as a margin of error."
That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming. One reason why polling might have an advantage over betting markets.
I'm not sure what you mean about odds makers leaning Republican. Does this somehow make betting markets superior to polling? Are they immune to effects of bias?
I’m not trying anything as I didn’t make an assertion that I can’t support. That’s what you did.
Explain why polling’s margin of error created because polling is a statistical analysis endeavor is more reliable than betting markets that don’t have a margin of error because the betting market is not a statistical analysis endeavor? The apples to oranges comparisons you are doing with these activities you clearly know little about is becoming staggering.
And the Republican thing just shows why you are trying so hard to demonstrate why the betting market is not reliable. They are saying Repubs have much better chances and you don’t like that. If they had Dems at better chances, you would like that.
I don’t care who they pick as this is about who is better at predicting outcomes from an empirical position, not about what those outcomes are.
"I’m not trying anything as I didn’t make an assertion that I can’t support. "
I never said I couldn't. I said I wouldn't. I could and so could you, if you wished to.
"The apples to oranges comparisons you are doing with these activities you clearly know little about is becoming staggering. "
They are both about making predictions of the future. If you prefer betting markets, fine, I am pointing out that polling offers some reality checks that betting doesn't. That seems to have upset you. I'm surprised, but not much.
"If they had Dems at better chances, you would like that. "
You're mistaking me for a partisan. I'm not. I don't pay much attention to the political punch and judy show, don't comment too much about it, don't find it interesting or important. I do however know which way the wind blows. When Trump and Biden held dueling tv appearances back in 2020, and Trump lost to Biden against expectations, I knew the jig was up, and his goose was cooked.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Okay, from your comment above, I see your bias is against gambling. I couldn't understand your weird hatred of the premise of Stossel's piece that simply lays out interesting facts about prognosticators. But now that I see you have something against gambling, it all makes sense.
"I see your bias is against gambling."
There's no bias. I don't believe that understanding the betting marker is a particularly reliable way to predict the future. Bettors are subject to the same motives and shortcomings that everyone else is, their willingness to risk their money doesn't make their predictions more accurate, nor does it indicate they've put any effort into research or analysis.
Yet you clearly don’t understand the betting market, clearly ignored the substance of this article, and continue to claim erroneously that people who are putting their money where their mouth is really don’t pay attention or know what they are doing with their money.
You are so obviously trying to grasp to justify why you don’t want to believe that betting markets may provide reliable insight into future election outcomes. This demonstrates a significant amount of bias as you are searching for facts to fit your already set conclusion. And it has to be coming from somewhere. So, where is the bias coming from if not Repub favorability or dislike of gamblers?
"Yet you clearly don’t understand the betting market"
I never claimed to, in fact I was asking questions about it. Some of which you took the trouble to answer.
"clearly ignored the substance of this article"
I only skimmed it. Same with most of the articles here. I found over time the articles are variations on a theme and don't merit close attention. Stossel in particular is shallow and his ideas are half baked at best.
"people who are putting their money where their mouth is really don’t pay attention or know what they are doing with their money. "
You seem to believe without evidence that gamblers are people of great probity and wisdom. I'm skeptical. If I want to predict the future, I don't think it's wise to rely on gamblers and their compulsions.
"This demonstrates a significant amount of bias as you are searching for facts to fit your already set conclusion."
No bias, I simply haven't the faith in gamblers' sagacity you evidently do. Or the gullibility to accept what Stossel writes as gospel.
You admit you don't understand the betting market. You admit that you didn't really read the article. Yet you already have a solid opinion on the reliability of the betting market.
Yeah, no bias there. Jesus, you're a caricature at this point.
"Yet you already have a solid opinion on the reliability of the betting market. "
I have a solid opinion on anyone who claims to be able to reliably predict the future. You disagree. I'm not surprised.
I.S. stop encouraging him. It's painful.
This Election Day, Listen to
the Betting Market Instead of Pundit PredictionsYour Favorite Music or Comedy on Your Favorite Streaming Service! You'll Do Better for Yourself and the U.S.A. Than Voting Or Betting on Voting!Fixed That For Ya. Stossel!
So Pascal's Wager Applied to politics? Stossel, we hardly knew ye.
Some people desperately want republicans to be punished for Dobbs this year, and if that doesn’t happen, they will be incredibly sad.
"Some people desperately want republicans to be punished for Dobbs this year"
It was Mexicans who murdered Dobbs, and it was a long time ago, almost everyone has forgotten, if not forgiven.
You see less Republican yard signs these days because so many democrats engage in vandalism against anyone who opposes them. Or even direct violence. Like that guy in Florida that was out campaigning and got beaten up by wokie trash.
It’s a pity he wasn’t carrying. He could hav slut them down before they actually murdered someone.
This was supposed to be a response to your yard sign comment.
"You see less Republican yard signs these days because so many democrats engage in vandalism against anyone who opposes them. Or even direct violence. "
They're playing for keeps. You're playing because you got no girlfriend. 🙁
I think the Republicans will do well in 2022 but I will not say for sure. I was in a small Wisconsin town in the Fox Valley last weekend. This would be big Republican country. What surprised me was the number of Democrat yard signs. Democrats will be strong in Madison and Milwaukee and those two areas can dominate the state. So, if Republican are soft in any of their core areas the election could go blue.
You know what is an even better indicator? How the parties are spending money campaigning (and their associated PACs). The Republicans are expanding spending into areas Biden carried by over ten points and just announced a big buy in Connecticut after pulling out two weeks ago. The Dems and the supporters are pulling money from competitive districts and spending it in deep blue areas (they just announced huge buy in in deep blue Washington for Murray). This is usually based on internal polling, which tends to be far more accurate than public polling, also on crowd size, and other indicators like yard signs. When the Ds are spending money on Washington rather than Nevada and Arizona it tells you how they view the state of the race.
Like betting, the campaigns are putting money on the line and how they spend it shows what they're really thinking.
The democrats are terrified Tiffany Smiley will win, and she could. The attacks against her are pathetic and vicious.
But Ted, doesn’t it comfort you to know that Murray is out there fighting against white supremacy?
(Yes, one of her campaign ads actually said that.)
"This is usually based on internal polling, which tends to be far more accurate than public polling"
How is this more accurate? More expensive? Greater use of voluntary manpower? Pointier pointy heads?
A clever way to assess trends by piggybacking on insiders’ assessments—professional insiders.
I'm not sure Five Thirty Eight has a reliable track record at all. The last few cycle it's been the Trafalgar Group.
Also think RCP average is as solid as anything - certainly moreso than 538.
https://www.predictit.org/ now predicts the GOP has a 74% chance of controlling the US Senate (winning 53 seats), and that GOP candidate Dr. Oz now has a 67% chance of winning in PA.
They also now predict the GOP will pick up Senate seats in AZ, NV and GA.
NH is now predicted to be the closest US Senate race (that the Dems will win), but that too may change in the next several days.