Current Intertop odds for VP:

[PeaceProgProsp]

Odds to run for Democratic Vicepresident in 2004 Presidential Elections
Closing Date: Jun 30, 2004 08:00 GMT -4

Odds on other candidates available upon request.

John Edwards -----2
Bill Richardson ----2.75
Bob Graham --------5
Dick Gephardt ------6
Wesley Clark -------9
Hillary Clinton ------10
Howard Dean ------10
Evan Bayh ---------11
Tom Vilsack --------11
John McCain ------12
Al Gore -------------21
Bill Nelson ---------21
Joe Lieberman ----29
Al Sharpton --------51

http://www.intertops.com/sportsbook/cgi-win-2/itbet.exe?scrncd=BO;spofno=288182

[Renew Deal]

1. This guy is way off.

Gephardt has no shot. I don't know why everyone said he was going to win th eprimary and now this. I also think that Vilsack and Bayh are higher and Graham is lower.

[PeaceProgProsp]

2. Does that mean you'll put some money on Vilsack and Bayh?

[Renew Deal]

6. Hell no.

I don't think either will get it. I just think that they have a better shot than Gep.

[PeaceProgProsp]

3. Trying to find other odds -- the all rank Gep highly

Crawford, in a column that appeared in Congressional Quarterly last week, assigned odds to a dozen potential vice presidential picks. He acknowledged that his assessments were based on very little real information from a campaign "that has shown less skin than any I remember in recent times."

Edwards was given the best shot, at 5-to-1, followed by Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt, at 6-to-1, and Arizona Sen. John McCain, a Republican, at 7-to-1.

America's Line, a service best known for providing newspapers with sporting odds, has also weighed in. It now gives Gephardt the best shot, at 5-to-1, followed by Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, both at 6-to-1, according to a summary on the services' Web site, www.americasline.com.

http://newslink.nandomedia.com/NandoTimes/politics/election/president/story/1378607p-8616150c.html

(Of course, the first one isn't a bookmaker...)

[Renew Deal]

5. It's amazing.

I don't understand why this keeps happening.

[PeaceProgProsp]

7. As Crawford says, there's no skin showing...

...so it's just guessing based on nothing more than perhaps on the fact that people think Gep is owed his due after running in the past, because of his labor ties, and because the midwest is a swing region.

[robbedvoter]

4. Can you actually bet money there? I could use a windfall!

[Padraig18]

8. Very interesting...

:hi:

[Lefty Pragmatist]

9. I will take *anybody's* money...

... and give odds of 51:1 on Reverand Al. Hell, I'll give 51,000:1.

[Awsi Dooger]

13. Correct, most of these are obscenely low

Predictably, you can only wager on the yes and get ripped off beyond description, in virtually every instance.

My first DU post, in 2002, dealt with this topic: how absurd posted election odds are in most cases. I wager on politics frequently, but have never dealt with Intertop.

The odds should increase geometrically, not in stepped fashion similar to future odds on a balanced professional league. But that is what sportsbooks are accustomed to, and they don't adjust upward based on the nature of the sport or event.

For example, in college football only a handful -- perhaps 12 to 20 -- schools have a legit shot at the BCS national title. Any team that figures to lose 3+ or 4+ games should be hundreds or thousands to one, similar to Al Sharpton for VP, but even sharp offshore sportsbooks will offer 50/1 or less since they know team-loyal suckers will pounce on those numbers, regardless of value.

I believe the 2/1 quoted here on Edwards is about right. I'll jump on that 5/1 or 6/1 quoted by others, in the preposterous chance I can find a legit offshore sportsbook offering those numbers.

[AP]

15. Money talks. If people do jump on those odds, they'll lower.

And theyt're probably where they are because that's what they need to be to get people to take a chance on them.

[Awsi Dooger]

16. Partially correct, they lower but seldom raise

If a bettor wagers a huge amount on Wesley Clark, for example, and Intertop drops him from 9/1 to 6/1, do they also raise the odds on one or more of the other candidates? If not, the sportsbook's "juice," or take, goes up significantly.

The sharpest and most legit outfits raise and lower odds in tandem, to keep the juice from getting out of hand in the book's favor. But in Las Vegas it's hardly uncommon for odds on a half dozen or more teams to be lowered without a single one raised.

These VP odds appear much too low to me, after the first few names. But it's a specialized category and the books typically are conservative with those, at the mercy of someone with inside information. And it's not like you'll get an insider trading conviction for leaking the VP choice to someone who places a wager with an offshore sportsbook.

[Radical Activist]

10. Are there odds on Congressman John Lewis?

[Padraig18]

11. Not that I'm aware. n/t

[bklyncowgirl]

12. Wes Clark at 9-1=good value

In this line up I'd bet Clark at 9-1. No payoff at these odds with Edwards.

[WI_DEM]

14. interesting Howard Dean has almost as good of odds as Clark

and Hillary Clinton. Dean hasn't even been discussed as a possible VP candidate really.

[cjbuchanan]

17. He'll be the secret pick

No one would see it coming.

Either that or they are saying that "from this line on down, there is no chance in hell of these people becoming VP."