-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
PJD on Turning Points PJD on Turning Points Clinton McMurray on Turning Points ChrisPer on Turning Points Daniel Waldenström on Turning Points Archives
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
Categories
- Australian issues
- Australian Politics
- Behavioural Economics
- Blogging
- Book launch stuff
- Books
- Coming Events
- Current Affairs
- Development Economics
- Eclectic Observations
- Econometrics
- Economics & Public Policy Course
- Economics for Government Course
- Economics Generally
- Economics of Education
- Economics of Elections
- Economics of National Security
- Economics of the Family
- Election
- Environmental Economics
- Film
- Finance
- Food and Drink
- From the Frontiers
- Games
- Global issues
- Health economics
- Indigenous Policy
- Inequality
- Interesting stuff
- Iraq
- Jobs
- Labour Economics
- Law
- Low Wage Work
- Macroeconomics
- Media
- Prediction Markets
- Randomisation
- Religion
- Social Capital
- Sport
- Sports
- Tax
- Television
- Thinktanks
- Trade & Development
- Travel
- Uncategorized
- Universities
- Urban Economics
- US Politics
- Web/Tech
- Weblogs
- What I'm Reading
Meta
Andrew – FYI, the coalition is ahead in 76 seats, labor in 73 seats and other in 2.
To me it appears that either the betting for the overall election is wrong or the betting for the individual seats is wrong.
They both could be “right”. e.g. if say 100 seats for the coalition were 51 49 and 50 for labor were 100 to 0 then labor would be expected to win.
True, Kevin, but if you do a weighted average of the probabilities (deleting the “Other” column) you still get the coalition winning 50.7%, so there’s still a gap between the pattern of the individual odds and the overall betting market for Lib/Lab.
MP/DD/KC, one view is that the arbitrage opportunity is Bennelong. According to the Mackerras pendulum, it’s the seat Labor must win to take government; yet Portlandbet (and Sportingbet) have Howard as favourite to retain his own seat.
Strictly speaking, to derive an election winning probability from individual seat probabilities, don’t you need to do it as a multinomial – that is, look at all the possible combinations that would yield, say, a Labor win and then calculate the probability of those combinations occurring? For example one outcome would be Labor winning all the seats and the probability of that is .72X.08X…X.91; another is where they win the first 77 seats alphabetically (that is up to and including Huner): probabilility of that is .72X.08X.73X…X.08X.90X.90X.35X…X.06 (subject to fiddling with the probabilities when we want to rule out an “other”win). There should be some way of approximating it to make it easier to do but I can’t remember it!
PS: The thing that seems a bit odd is that the ALP is not making a huge comeback in Queensland (on the basis of simple comparison of probabilities, ALP could be 8 or 9 seats, Coalition 19 or 20): this seems to be the basis for the divergence between the seat count here and the impression from betting and polls.
The Canadian National Post reported (very briefly) today that recent polls show Howard well behind Maxine McKew (the Post has been a monster Howard supporter, running full page articles explaining how he’s the most brilliant conservative leader ever). I found that intriguing, and as I’d sort of expected, the betting numbers show the reverse, and I see Andrew’s highlighting it as an arbitrage opportunity. Any thoughts on what’s going on there?
All I know is that I’m glad I got my money on when Maxine was $4.75! I have to decide now whether I want to lay off…
I tend to agree with McKerras and Antony Green, that if Labor win the election they will win Bennelong. Not only because it’s the so-called ’16th seat’ on the pendulum, but if Labor’s going to win, there’s no point voting to have the ex-PM in your seat, (which would surely be worth a few points if they think the coalition are going to win). The coalition are more likely to hold Wentworth than Bennolong IMO.
Other excellent betting opportunities IMO:
– Boothby and Sturt. Despite needing ~5.4% and ~6.8% swings, aggregated polling for SA suggests the Labor swing is >10% at the moment.
– Paterson and Robertson – though I think the ‘overs’ is smaller here.
Odds for individual electorates are just silly because the amount of money bet on any of them is likely to be tiny, except in elecorates of special interest like Bennelong. The markets are just too thin for the prices to be meaningful.
Odds for the election as a whole have more meaning because insiders with access to the parties’ private polling are known to place bets based on that inside information. But not even they have information about every single electorate.
Spiros, there’s some good evidence that isn’t true, and indeed some have suggested that prices can be accurate with as few as one trader. Intuitively, it must be true that these prices are at least approximately right, or plenty of people would be jumping in for a bargain.
Seneca, you could just write a little program to calculate those numbers.