Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd
Well I would load up on Fiorina, Trump, and Carson as No's. I would also look into some of those who didn't make the cut for the first debate for a chance to sell later. Maybe Jindal and Santorum? I noticed Romney is on there, did he declare? Seems like another no but I guess with the limits you would make very little money on him.
|
This would be good if not for the fees (which I admittedly said to ignore originally). They charge 5% to withdraw money so you have to make more than 5% on a bet to come out ahead. Because it won't pay out for a year I also didn't want money tied up without doing anything so I ended up investing in the 9 candidates who I could get shares at .89 or less. Still should give me enough spread to minimize risk while also making sure my money isn't wasted or money losing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuikSand
Okay, with your initial question - I think rather than profit-maximizing, what you really want is risk minimization here. Ideally, you'd like to lock up your account to ensure a winning total position. And betting against the whole field in varying amounts seems like the way to do that most readily, with the absurd odds and narrow buy/sell spreads that they currently show.
My first thought is basically to bet enough to profit basically the same total amount from each candidate who loses.
|
That's what I ended up doing. The reason I questioned myself is because my results vary widely based on whether Bush wins or loses since I have the most shares of him since his Buy No was the cheapest. I view the whole thing as entertainment but entertainment in the way poker is - it's for fun but the goal is to win money.