Also known as "prediction markets," these markets are typically more accurate than polls because people are putting money on the line. here are two that I track on a regular basis: https://electionbettingodds.com/ https://primary.guide/

Cool sites, thanks It’s more about who you think will win verses who you want to win. Definitely a different thought process

There are a couple of rinos running against him. I can't remember their names and most people are unaware of their existence.

Don't know about the ones you cited, but generally these odds makers skew the odds to make sure that half of the participants bet one way, and half the other. This is how the odds makers make money.

Betfair is a Brit betting market, not an oddsmaker. Prices are determined by those making bets on each side of the bet. If someone thinks that event A has X-to-Y odds of winning, then someone else can take the opposite position and bet that same event of losing. The quoted prices are based on the ratio of bid to ask prices on bets already made, the same way any other market works. Here is the description of how it works, and I quote: Methodology *very technical* Short answer: This site simply averages the market "bid" and "ask" prices to come up with the implied odds. Long answer: The odds on Betfair are not expressed as percentages and have to be converted. The conversion formula is 1/x, where x is the Betfair price. For example, on Betfair a candidate will trade at "50" -- that means the candidate has a 1/50 = 2% chance of winning. ElectionBettingOdds.com converts the Betfair odds to percentages, and then averages them. Specifically, the formula is: ((1/Bid + 1/Ask)/2) This generally gives intuitive results. For example, on Betfair, Chris Christie may have a "bid" price of "50" and an "ask" price of "25". In other words, the bid is (1/50)=2% and the ask is (1/25)=4%. It seems logical that the implied chance is the average: 3%. But the sites mentioned above do not do that. Instead of calculating the percentages and then averaging those, they average the Betfair numbers first. Their formula is 1 / ((Back + Lay)/2) which in the Chris Christie example above would yield 2.66% instead of 3%. This is a particular issue for low odds. For example, if a candidate on Betfair has a spread between "1000" (.1%) and "100" (1%), this site's formula would conclude that the odds are the average: .55%. But the other sites' formulas would compute the odds to be just .18%. In general, their formula skews odds towards 0% probability and 100% probability. Although it is theoretically possible that skewing the odds in that way makes them better at predicting events, there does not seem to be hard evidence for that notion. So ElectionBettingOdds.com uses the simple averaging method because it most faithfully depicts the odds themselves without alteration. One tricky thing is the rare occasion when liquidity is very low for a candidate. For example, one could imagine a candidate who has no chance -- so low that almost nobody is bothering to trade on the person's chances. In that case you might see a wide bid-ask spread. In the most extreme possible case, the bid might be 1% and the ask 99%. In that case the average would compute as 50%, which would be pretty clearly misleading for a candidate so obscure that nobody bothers to trade. It would not be good if this site suddenly put that candidate in the lead at 50% just because nobody was trading that person. The solution this site uses is: In cases where the bid-ask spread is greater than 10%, the bid alone is used, because it provides a solid lower-bound. In cases where the bid is greater than 50% and the bid-ask spread is greater than 10%, the ask alone is used. (These cases are extremely rare; the average bid-ask spread is around 1% and nearly all the time all of the candidates' spreads are well under 10%.)

I follow the election futures markets closely each election cycle. The election futures markets here in America are basically betting by buying into the candidate you believe will win. Here in the states, the ones I follow are run by University of Iowa and BallotPedia. The markets have amazingly accurate predictive abilities. They failed predicting Trump and that is their most glaring failure ever. One theory holds it reflects the Electoral College impact. It accurately predicted the winner by votes, but the future shares did not anticipate the Electoral College results being different than the majority of voters. Previous election cycles the markets were at times 100% accurate.

Yeah they’re not perfect though. They tend to get more accurate the closer it gets to the event. For example, Trump has a way more than 85% chance of getting the nomination. Basically he’d have to have a debilitating heart attack not to. Same with the election, way more than 55%. You’ll see the numbers get close to the actual outcome within a day or two of the election.

Or move farther apart if a candidate weakens. They will only get closer if the race gets tighter. The farther the bids are apart, the more certain the expected outcome is. The closer the bids are, the closer the expected election is and more uncertain the results.

Here are my wagering sports books odds for US President They change daily. Trump -102 Biden +560 Warren +1000 Buttigieg +940 Sanders +770 Clinton +1550 Bloomberg +1140 Yang +1800 Pence +2200 Field any other candidate +1110 Good luck

You stated what I was going to point out. Polls are used to suppress the vote. Don't we have the patience to just wait for election day. Or do we want someone to tell us who is going to win so we vote for the winner or stay home. Resistance is futile! Trump has lost already. Stay home, don't vote! Please! Slightly off topic but Google executives vowed to never allow the likes of Trump to win again. One was born in Russia. Don't they see the irony of their statements. If you rig the election it is illegitimate. Somehow you think the people will not know? If you ruin the democratic process (so your man wins) you will end up with a dictatorship just like the one you escaped from. Evil or stupid except these people are far from stupid.