I do know a number of professional bettors (poker and sports/horse, not political), who are only lightly betting on the political sites—the terms and vig are very unattractive to them.
I stand corrected if there’s $113M on that specific bet, though—that’s enough (presuming it’s fairly active, not all placed months ago and just forced to resolve rather than hedging/adjusting) to indicate pretty broad belief. That does change it from “small-stakes very likely exploitable” to “reasonable stakes, but one should answer WHY there’s a discrepancy before committing very much”.
Thanks for the data!
I do know a number of professional bettors (poker and sports/horse, not political), who are only lightly betting on the political sites—the terms and vig are very unattractive to them.
I stand corrected if there’s $113M on that specific bet, though—that’s enough (presuming it’s fairly active, not all placed months ago and just forced to resolve rather than hedging/adjusting) to indicate pretty broad belief. That does change it from “small-stakes very likely exploitable” to “reasonable stakes, but one should answer WHY there’s a discrepancy before committing very much”.