Alice, Bob, and Carol are betting on who will be the Republican Nominee in 2016.
- Alice bets on Jeb Bush. Alice's reasoning is that in the past the Republicans always end up with a moderate who they think can win. NOTE: From Alice's prediction you can tell NOTHING about her politics.
- Bob bets on Paul Ryan. Bob's reasons that in the past the Republicans always end up with someone who they are familiar with, quite often someone who has run before. Normally this might be someone who ran in the primaries four years earlier; however, none of Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, seem likely. Rick Perry is possible but seems unlikely. That leaves Paul Ryan (Curiosity- people who lose, even if its close, do not run again. Not sure why. So it won't be Romney.) NOTE: From Bob's prediction you can tell NOTHING about his politics.
- Carol bets on Rand Paul. Carol's reasoning is that the American Public is tired of Big Government and is ready for the Rand Paul Revolution! NOTE: From Carol's prediction you can tell EVERYTHING about her politics.
One full dollar!
I think I read that you are better off betting AGAINST a triple crown if a horse won the first two legs for the same reason- there will be emotion driving the bet FOR, and that increases the payoff for those betting AGAINST. But of course nothing is guaranteed. And there are some cases where its just ridiculous to vote against (Secretariat in 1973); however, to use my system you can't just skip one since you ``just know'' that there will be a triple crown. Its a long term strategy. And one could be wrong. That's why its called gambling!
Are there other cases where long term betting with facts and against sentiment can give you an edge?