The only issue I have been trying to drill into is that Hunter’s contract on Intrade at 10 cents is not selling because there are no buyers for it at this price, and no sellers at the next tick down, which is ZERO - a free good. If a signficantly smaller tick value could be introduced, the contracts WOULD trade, although, contrary to your fevered expectations, they would trade DOWN.
***Then how can you accuse me of lying? My theory was that a person could put $100 down on Hunter today and if his Intrade #’s started tracking the polling data (Ron Paul and Huckabee the 2 most recent examples), the guy would get 40X return on investment, and in order to get 40X return on Fred you’d have to go for the whole kit & kaboodle. All you are saying is that his contracts are valued low, and my response to that was “COOL”. I still say it looks like a bargain. There is no lie there.
This has nothing whatever to do with the silly crap on the Intrade Froum or your silly crap here. I tried to explain to you why there aren’t any buyers for Hunter’s contract(essentially it’s overpriced), but you only response was that I don’t know what I’m talking about and I should look at the Intrade forum to see how the experts there would savage my position.
***And I found evidence that they agree with what I say. That means what I’m writing is not a lie.
So I looked and while the general level of comment there is a notch or so above yours, NO POSTER on Intrade is trying to sell the nonsense that the reason Hunter’s Contract is not selling is because it is undervalued. Such a comment on a trader’s forum would instantly become the butt of some serious humor.
***The point you’re driving her is some kind of semantics issue, isn’t it? I think that’s what happens when someone posts an analysis like mine and the data seems to correlate but it doesn’t look good for a certain candidate. That’s why the last freeper called me a liar over semantics and I think you’re doing the same. It is evidence that the Thompson campaign is falling apart.
So, again, you lied. And you continue to lie.
***And I have PROVED that I did not lie, quoting directly from that forum that you said not a single post supported my theory.
Au Contraire, mon amie.
I am saying that his (Hunter's) contracts are valued (i.e. priced) too HIGH.
You are really in need of some basic education in economics, markets and so on. Maybe you're good at figuring poker odds, and that may be a skill you can use. But, you have got a view of market operation that is so ass backwards that it is amusing in one sense and tragic in another.
My theory was that a person could put $100 down on Hunter today and if his Intrade #’s started tracking the polling data (Ron Paul and Huckabee the 2 most recent examples), the guy would get 40X return on investment..
Well, that isn't really a theory, it's more of an observation that if somebody owns an asset at a $1 buy in price and the asset goes to $40, the holder has made a 40X return on investment. Sort of trivial, in fact.
The issue in fact isn't that at all, it is whether the price of a proposition on Intrade such as "Duncan Hunter to be the Republican Nominee for President" would or should be linked to the standing in the popularity polls.
Clearly there is no direct link.
It is very easy to imagine a time when the field has winnowed and there are only two candidates left, one with say 70% popularity and the other with 30%. I would expect the prices on Intrade to be more like $95 for the 70% guy and $5 for the 30% guy.
Why? Because these contracts do not measure percent popularity. Is there a chance that Duncan Hunter contracts could come off the 10 cent price? Sure. I wouldn't hold my breath. But again that's not what you have been arguing. In fact Duncan Hunter contracts are too expensive, and that's why there are no buyers. If they were cheaper, maybe buyers would come to the party, but we can't find out because the next tick down is zero. There's your liquidity issue explained for you again.
One final point: There is some dead certain money to be made on the Intrade exchange, and that is in shorting Ron Paul. The profit will be small, but is a dead certain lock.