That would involve having a media environment that isn’t controlled by billionaires who are highly involved in manufacturing consent for regressive policies.
I mean the betting markets are generally aligned with extravagant statistical prediction models.
After all these markets have hundreds of millions poured into them, and people are trying to win not loose. Obviously there are still problems with them, and that headline really should have included “according to bookmakers”.
If I make a $10,000,000 bet in one direction to change the betting odds to make everyone think my viewpoint is more popular, that’s a very cheap marketing campaign.
Even if I lose all that money, it’s good marketing. Especially if I’m manipulating less popular topics with less $$$$ needed to change the odds.
that’ll only change the odds on a single bookmaker. There are thousands on the election.
Also it’s highly illegal to bet on an event you are part of (although that doesn’t seem to stop trump from doing other things).
Additionally, to sway public opinion, influencing pollsters and the media (which we have objective proof of camapigns doing) is more effective. although they were mentioned in this article, they’ll be mentioned a lot less than polls.
Also it’s highly illegal to bet on an event you are part of (although that doesn’t seem to stop trump from doing other things).
Illegal to who?
FBI? Or some poor IT administrator who gives no shits about this issue?
Additionally, to sway public opinion, influencing pollsters
You’re using the fucking betting market as a poll. A system that is innately, and provably, influenced by money. Not even indirectly, but DIRECTLY influenced by money.
Then you paper over this fact by saying “but people want to make money”, ignoring the fact that these campaigns are literally spending $100,000,000+ sums, losing money throughout a whole campaign to try to change public opinion by about 5%.
Oh for fuck’s sake, can we please get one post-debate article that isn’t highly partisan or just moronic?
That would involve having a media environment that isn’t controlled by billionaires who are highly involved in manufacturing consent for regressive policies.
And just pulling in revenues with clickbaity tactics.
I mean the betting markets are generally aligned with extravagant statistical prediction models.
After all these markets have hundreds of millions poured into them, and people are trying to win not loose. Obviously there are still problems with them, and that headline really should have included “according to bookmakers”.
Are you sure about that?
If I make a $10,000,000 bet in one direction to change the betting odds to make everyone think my viewpoint is more popular, that’s a very cheap marketing campaign.
Even if I lose all that money, it’s good marketing. Especially if I’m manipulating less popular topics with less $$$$ needed to change the odds.
that’ll only change the odds on a single bookmaker. There are thousands on the election.
Also it’s highly illegal to bet on an event you are part of (although that doesn’t seem to stop trump from doing other things).
Additionally, to sway public opinion, influencing pollsters and the media (which we have objective proof of camapigns doing) is more effective. although they were mentioned in this article, they’ll be mentioned a lot less than polls.
Illegal to who?
FBI? Or some poor IT administrator who gives no shits about this issue?
You’re using the fucking betting market as a poll. A system that is innately, and provably, influenced by money. Not even indirectly, but DIRECTLY influenced by money.
Then you paper over this fact by saying “but people want to make money”, ignoring the fact that these campaigns are literally spending $100,000,000+ sums, losing money throughout a whole campaign to try to change public opinion by about 5%.
deleted by creator
Newsweek is a rag I wouldn’t wipe my ass with.
Troublingly, the electorate rather resembles the coverage: highly partisan or just moronic.
Why not both?
No. Reactionary horseshit is all you’ve got coming.