Paddy Power pays out £400,000 to people who bet on Obama

[AlpsStranger]

So the Irish gambling dude outfit ( now I feel silly ) Paddy Power is already paying on Obama's victory? That's crazy

Paddy Power is paying out to punters who backed Barack Obama to win the US Presidential election 2012.

There’s still two days to go before America votes and national polls show voters remain largely undecided with nothing more than a sheet of ballot paper between Democrat Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney.

But Paddy Power believes it’s a done deal and Obama is a nailed-on certainty to win a second term.

 

[ori]

Not really crazy, just going with a call when to call a rather good chance as fact. If you look at the polls currently, Obama is well ahead in enough states to win a second term even though national polls currently give him only the smallest of leads. US elections being what they are are won on a state level though - and unless all polls are currently skewed against Romney he just won't win in enough states for his relatively good standing in the popular vote to matter.

 

[Cutlass]

Won't they be embarrassed if it goes the other way.....

 

[AlpsStranger]

Won't they be embarrassed if it goes the other way.....

Romney winning will definitely feel like an episode of the Twilight Zone if it happens. Obama is a clear, clear favorite at the moment.

Still, not sure what this Paddy Power deal is. What if they end up having to pay both sets of gamblers? Surely the people they just paid won't return the money

 

[ori]

Meh - they are in the betting business - they essentially just place a bet on their own. If it goes as they believe it does (and as is reasonably likely) they win essentially free advertisement/publicity, if it doesn't go as the think it does it probably is still a publicity stunt which probably isn't that much more expensive than advertisement with the same reach would have been...

 

[Ayatollah So]

I'm afraid all those conservatives who harp about the definition of a "likely" voter actually have a good point. Turnout matters, and is hard to predict. (Pollsters can ask questions like how likely are you to vote this year, but how much validity do those answers have, I mean c'mon.) Democrats are more vulnerable to low turnout even if both parties lack enthusiasm for their guy, because so many Republican voters are retired, and have nothing better to do than vote, or are just more buttoned-down organized types. Here's hoping the Luck of the Irish holds out.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Romney winning will definitely feel like an episode of the Twilight Zone if it happens. Obama is a clear, clear favorite at the moment.

Still, not sure what this Paddy Power deal is. What if they end up having to pay both sets of gamblers? Surely the people they just paid won't return the money

Meh - they are in the betting business - they essentially just place a bet on their own. If it goes as they believe it does (and as is reasonably likely) they win essentially free advertisement/publicity, if it doesn't go as the think it does it probably is still a publicity stunt which probably isn't that much more expensive than advertisement with the same reach would have been...

Yes they pay both and the above is pretty much why. In addition, held gambler's money that they anticipate losing is dead money. Much better in the gamblers pockets where they can re-invest and lose it back.

And these things have certainly backfired before leading to big losses.

 

[Dreadnought]

This is just plain stupid. No respectable gambling ring would ever pay off betters before the event is done. What -- do they just want to give away their money at this point?

It makes literally zero sense.

 

[Antilogic]

In the interest of discussing the system as opposed to the event, what happens if Obama doesn't win? Do they politely ask all the people to give back nearly a half-million pounds?

 

[classical_hero]

We need to photoshop this to Obama defeats Romney. Now that would be funny to have happen.

 

[Antilogic]

The difference being Obama is the clear Truman analog in this election and Romney the clear Dewey analog. Everything from Romney's background, the Republican primaries, the campaign style, number of events, use of subordinates, etc. supports this.

/derailonthreadInearlywrotebutdidn't

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

This is just plain stupid. No respectable gambling ring would ever pay off betters before the event is done. What -- do they just want to give away their money at this point?

It makes literally zero sense.

In the interest of discussing the system as opposed to the event, what happens if Obama doesn't win? Do they politely ask all the people to give back nearly a half-million pounds?

It's not stupid, it's a relatively (relative to how crazy it seems) common practice. In this case, due to the closeness of the event there is, as Ori points out, a large degree of publicity stunt / free advertising to it. They are taking quite a risk. Would you think it was as stupid if, say for instance the World Series was best of 1001 games that they paid out when one side led 499 to nil? Similarly it creates goodwill with existing customers and encourages them to start gambling again and return their winning to the house....who will always win out in the long run.

What happens if Obama doesn't win? They lose the lot. Ori again has it right. They are in the gambling business. They are gambling that the benefits detailed above obtained by paying out early outweigh the cost should they be wrong.

 

[Dreadnought]

There's a difference between having the series at 499-0 and having it at 3-2 out of 7 and still paying out.

 

[dutchfire]

Honestly, 400k isn't that much for a publicity stunt. They already had a 120k underwear footballer incident: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/nicklas-bendtner-to-pay-1_n_1605728.html

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

There's a difference between having the series at 499-0 and having it at 3-2 out of 7 and still paying out.

Which I addressed in the prior sentence by pointing out that the closeness of the event increases the aspect of publicity stunt/advertising. This would not be news if Obama led 99% to 1% in the polls.

 

[Deaths Advocate]

For the size of the business, that payout is a pretty cheap payout they probably will have to do anyway, an a pretty effective ad campaign.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Honestly, 400k isn't that much for a publicity stunt. They already had a 120k underwear footballer incident: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/nicklas-bendtner-to-pay-1_n_1605728.html

For the size of the business, that payout is a pretty cheap payout they probably will have to do anyway, an a pretty effective ad campaign.

And may end up costing nothing anyway if Obama wins (the $400,000 is would be gone regardless)

 

[dutchfire]

And if Romney wins, they've made a killing on all those suckers who believed Nate Silver and the lamestraim media anyway. So they are basically hedging their bets, and doing some nice marketing.

Intrade seems to have been the leading betting market during this race, I think Paddy Power might want to have that position next time.

 

[ace99]

The Redskin's lost. These guys made a bad bet.

 

[Azale]

The Redskin's won. These guys made a bad bet.

No they didn't