Duncan Hunter gaining traction?

CaliforniaArchitect wrote:

It seems like there is a loadup on the Ask side. The last time I looked at the contract there weren't that many contracts up for the asking.

I agree, but I don't know what it means. The last time I checked, there was only ONE ask price, of 0.1 and NO bid prices. As a Hunter supporter, I consider this to be significant! But someone will probably be along shortly to straighten us out.

CaliforniaArchitect wrote:

The followup question now would be, how long is the Hunter contract a bargain? If you think the target trade price is $4, then it wouldn't be really worth the risk at buying in at $3.50.

That's a good question. Of course, for me, I would consider it a bargain at $50, but everyone knows that there's an exaggerated emotional component to that suggestion, and there are traders here who would LOVE to deal with me, hah hah.

Here's how I would look at it. The price someone is willing to pay for a futures contract would have maybe 5 elements: Current Poll Support + Financial Support + Followers' Energeticism + Media Buzz + Campaign Ability. Let's use the respective Acronyms CPS + FS +FE + MB +CA. I'm sure there are more. When you look at Ron Paul, his CFS was ~3%(???notsure); FS was low then in one day, high -- and notably here on Intrade that was treated with a yawn; FE is very high; MB was kind of high for such a low polling candidate; CA was probably high, though I was not following his campaign. All that translated into a trading price in the 9's, and Delphi felt compelled to ask why. Huckabee's CPS was kind of low; his FS was medium; FE was medium; MB was Medium; CA was pretty high, he's an engaging speaker and campaigner. That translated into an Intrade value that was higher than the poll numbers at the time, if I recall correctly. Here's where I see Hunter: CPS low; FS low; FE very high; MB very low; CA about medium. It all translates into a completely stagnant Inprice value, which looks like it is in the midst of changing upward.

Going on poll results is not based upon a presumption any more than one would presume that 5 cards dealt in a poker game have the same odds as 5 cards dealt to someone else. Hunter would need to go from 4% to 5%. What are those chances? I would put them at about 2 to 1. So I would be taking a 2-to-1 bet to gain a 40-to-1 contract. That’s a great bargain. It’s like poker, when the pot odds are way above your hand odds.

When Hunter gets to 0.2, the pot odds go to 20-to-1 payout, and at 0.4 it's 10-to-1, at $3 it's 3-to-4 payout. The RATIONAL approach is to gauge what you think are his chances of Intrade meeting the poll support against the current "pot odds". But the irrational approach is when I'm a Hunter supporter, I see his chances of getting to 5% in the polls and being invited to the Iowa debate as less than 1-to-1, maybe 1-to-1.5. That means I consider a $4 price to still be a bargain, and there are plenty of Intraders out there who probably think it would be a good time to sell. That's the beauty of the market. Eventually the folks who think a $10 price for Hunter when he's polling 5% ( basically 1-to-2 emotional hand odds) are very few, and they buy only a few contracts and the price tends to stabilize around an agreed median between the two camps.

For me personally, I think Hunter's chances of getting to 5% in the polls are about 1-to-1.2 (20% likelihood of not happening) and that gets weighed against the current price and what I'm willing to pay, which unfortunately is not that much because I am losing my job and money is extremely tight in our household as Christmas approaches and I have to find ways to make the kids happy.

The interesting thing about the elements CPS + FS +FE + MB +CA is that they are constantly dynamic. When we see someone trading above their polling numbers like Ron Paul was, it's an indicator that the other elements are high, and when we see them trading below the polling numbers the reverse is true. In Thompson's case it is a blinking red light because he has plenty of money, media buzz (he's a hollywood pro), FE seems about medium or high. That means his CA score is Very Low, or there is some other element in my goofy equation that is bringing down his score here at Intrade.

What makes you think the price shoots up to 4 if he gets into this debate?

GAW838 wrote:

What makes you think the price shoots up to 4 if he gets into this debate?

That was posted in the article above and also here

Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts?page=1,250
Self ^ | 11/11/07 | Kevmo

That doesn't answer my question.

All you say is that 'everyone will know he's at 5% in the polls'. So what? I he doesn't have a legitimate chance to win the nominations his numbers won't move much. What evidence is there that there's any plausible scenario under which he wins the nomination.

McCain is in the high teens in national polls, but trades around 8, do you think that # is wrong as well? Polls are only one factor that go into valuation, and the mechanism is not nearly so quantifiable in terms of metrics as you seem to imply. What the price is supposed to reflect is the probability of the event occurring. Thus even if someone were polling at 20%, but we knew that that was a hard ceiling in terms of support, they should trade at a much lower price.

So I ask again: What makes you think the price shoots up to 4 if he gets into this debate?

GAW838 wrote:

That doesn't answer my question.

All you say is that 'everyone will know he's at 5% in the polls'. So what?

No, I say more than that. Also, my article is based upon the discussions we've been having here and on the Thompson-tanking thread, where Delphi and CA Architect and probably others all noted that Hunter had measurable support in the polls and IIRC "how that translates into Intrade results" was an open question.

Here's a couple of quotes from the article where I said more than that.

At that point, everyone will know he’s at 5% in the polls. His futures contracts at Intrade, if they’re still at 0.1, will have relentless upward pressure from bargain hunters, but by then it will be too late to buy in at that price.

So your decision comes down to this: Is it more likely that Hunter will get 1% more exposure in national polls, and move up to 4 or 5% at Intrade or is it more likely that Thompson will win the presidency outright? Remember, this is the guy who had the spotlight shined on him as the conservative golden boy and lost 30 points at Intrade, and has been losing ground in the polls lately.

GAW838 wrote:

I he doesn't have a legitimate chance to win the nominations his numbers won't move much. What evidence is there that there's any plausible scenario under which he wins the nomination.

The same evidence that Ron Paul , which is hard to believe -- Ron Paul??? How much of a legitimate chance does he have? He may actually have more democratic support than republican support. Also the same evidence that Huckabee has. Their Intrade results rose recently after their poll numbers rose, and Hunter's are likely to rise as well. Look at what happened right after this article -- Intraders started buying Hunter futures already, on a contract that was stalled for a long time. It's happening right now. Or do you not accept that as an indicator?

GAW838 wrote:

McCain is in the high teens in national polls, but trades around 8, do you think that # is wrong as well?

That kind of thing is already covered in my post directly before yours.

GAW838 wrote:

Polls are only one factor that go into valuation,

Which is almost exactly what I wrote.

GAW838 wrote:

and the mechanism is not nearly so quantifiable in terms of metrics as you seem to imply.

Why do you ask about what I "seem to imply" rather than what I explicitly wrote?

GAW838 wrote:

What the price is supposed to reflect is the probability of the event occurring.

And that is what it probably does reflect at any point in time. Hunter has a pretty low probability. Giuliani and Romney have a higher probability. Hunter appears to be a bargain based upon what has happened here on Intrade in the past and what his current valuation is.

GAW838 wrote:

Thus even if someone were polling at 20%, but we knew that that was a hard ceiling in terms of support, they should trade at a much lower price.

Then explain the Intrade results for Ron Paul and Huckabee. And also whether this is true of Thompson, who is at 6% here at Intrade when his polls are in the 20%ile range (and dropping fast). Over on the Thompson thread, the first main emphasis of the discussion was about where his support would land, and a reasonable guesstimate is that ~2-3% could land in Hunter's back yard.

And that is what it probably does reflect at any point in time. The price is what Intraders think is the probability. A lot goes into such pricing, including emotional content which is difficult to quantify. It seems right that right now Hunter has a pretty low probability. Giuliani and Romney have a higher probability. Hunter appears to be a bargain based upon what has happened here on Intrade in the past and what his current valuation is.

GAW838 wrote:

So I ask again: What makes you think the price shoots up to 4 if he gets into this debate?

You have been on this thread and have had ample opportunity to express that but chose not to. Now that I've posted the article and it is slowly catching on and Hunter's contracts are moving, what is it that motivates you to be focusing on this? The first post you put up said something like, nothing to see here, just move on. Well, there IS something to see here. It seems like the market has already begun to speak, and it doesn't agree with what you have to say.

The price moved from .1 to .2, let's not get carried away here. Condoleeza Rice is still trading about 5 times that to win the GOP nomination.

As an aside, I've always wonder who's shorting these contracts at .1 and .2, what do they expect to gain. Unless that are MMs that pay no fees, they have already lost their entire max gain if they are price-taking, then they have to get out at some point or pay expiry.

Anyway, I think Ron Paul's pricing is WAY to high and that is because people are making incorrect assumptions about his viability, namely that being well funded makes him a legitimate contender. I have said on many times on this forum that I think fair value for that contract is around 1 or less.

You could argue that the same sort of irrationality is possible with Hunter. In a way, that's what I'm asking you to do. If you think there's some compelling reason that getting into this debate with polls numbers at 5% will cause his price to shoot up, please explain. What you've said to so far does not address this basic question. At least Paul is in the news and is building name ID and fundraising well, so it's understandable why people (incorrectly) see his candidacy as viable. I do believe Huckabee is a viable candidates, especially in light of recent Iowa poll that have him within a few points of Romeny, though I do think his contract is currently a little overpriced and have sold most of my substantial long position in recent weeks. Duncan Hunter, on the other, shows no real signs of viability other than the polls you mention, so it is difficult to see why you expect such a steep rise. I consider it plausible that his nomination contract could rise as high as 1 or so in a speculative bubble, but consider that to be relatively unlikely as well. That said, he may not be a horrible invest at .1, since you could probably get your money out anyway and it's pretty much all upside. Regardless, you have not provided any convincing reasons for why you are so bullish on him, you merely assert that there will be upward pressure from 'bargain hunters'. Doesn't that assume there's a bargain in the first place? What does Thompson have to do with this, buying Thompson or Hunter are not the only two options?

If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. But don't act you already have and attack me for requesting that you back up your claims with some sort of evidence or analysis. There may be a good argument to be made that Hunter is currently undervalued, I'm just asking you to actually make it instead of just asserting it.

GAW838 wrote:

As an aside, I've always wonder who's shorting these contracts at .1 and .2, what do they expect to gain. Unless that are MMs that pay no fees, they have already lost their entire max gain if they are price-taking, then they have to get out at some point or pay expiry.

This is an interesting question. There was a related thread started back in August by politics_liquidity_trader (who seems to have since disappeared from the forum unfortunately). There are arb trades in many of the markets that only make sense if someone is trading commission free. I'll post a reply to that thread in a minute, so that you can take a look.

Update: here's the link: https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1733.page

GAW838 wrote:

The price moved from .1 to .2, let's not get carried away here. Condoleeza Rice is still trading about 5 times that to win the GOP nomination.

Well, I'm an acknowledged newbie here and as far as I can tell, when I posted my article it was "the lever that moved Hunter's contracts past the coefficient of static friction" and so I'm a little bit excited, but not carried away. It starts with a trickle.

GAW838 wrote:

Anyway, I think Ron Paul's pricing is WAY to high and that is because people are making incorrect assumptions about his viability, namely that being well funded makes him a legitimate contender. I have said on many times on this forum that I think fair value for that contract is around 1 or less.

Here it appears that you do what basically most intraders do, which is to focus on one of the elements I mentioned, point out that it is high or low and how that affects the positioning of the contract. As I wrote, the interesting thing about the elements CPS + FS +FE + MB +CA is that they are constantly dynamic. When we see someone trading above their polling numbers like Ron Paul was, it's an indicator that the other elements are high, and when we see them trading below the polling numbers the reverse is true. In Thompson's case it is a blinking red light because he has plenty of money, media buzz (he's a hollywood pro), FE seems about medium or high. That means his CA score is Very Low, or there is some other element in my goofy equation that is bringing down his score here at Intrade.

GAW838 wrote:

You could argue that the same sort of irrationality is possible with Hunter. In a way, that's what I'm asking you to do. If you think there's some compelling reason that getting into this debate with polls numbers at 5% will cause his price to shoot up, please explain. What you've said to so far does not address this basic question. At least Paul is in the news and is building name ID and fundraising well, so it's understandable why people (incorrectly) see his candidacy as viable.

I do believe Huckabee is a viable candidates, especially in light of recent Iowa poll that have him within a few points of Romeny, though I do think his contract is currently a little overpriced and have sold most of my substantial long position in recent weeks.

Thank you for your analysis. Again I note that you are focusing on one or two of the 5 elements of the price and showing why it affects the contract futures. Those same 5 elements apply to Hunter. When all elements are = 1 (which never happens) then the contract price would probably settle around the polling percentages, which as you point out in Huckabee's case is lower than the price and in Hunter's case is higher than the price. My argument is that some of his other 4 elements to the price are starting to show signs of strength, particularly Campaign Ability. That's because he has been so resilient and kept his eye on the ball, no bad political gaffes so far [no Dean Scream], and he has won some important straw polls like in Texas and Spartanburg. No one expected him to make it this far -- he has real endurance.

Now as far as the irrational side of my approach, it should be obvious to you that, since I'm a Hunter supporter and I see his contract as undervalued here at Intrade, that I am trying to call attention to that and get some interest in it by attracting some new buyers over to Intrade. I'm sure Intrade doesn't have a problem with that. I'm also pretty sure that the new contract Ask Prices reflect the desire for some Intraders to profit from any new surge of interest, which is fine, that's what this game is all about. The irrational side of my argument that Hunter's price should go up is based upon the hope that some Hunter followers will log in and put their money where their mouth is and give his contracts a bit of a nudge. But the volume has already started to slowly move up, so that is very unlikely to be an upsurge of New Hunter Supporters but someone who's already signed up at Intrade and had an account and started trading because it looked like a bargain. Even you call it a bargain at 0.1.

Part of the deal here is that Huckabee and Paul probably do not have much chance of gaining the republican nomination. We all know it, but the futures contracts are still trading above 1.0. Hunter is probably going to be in the same boat soon.

GAW838 wrote:

Duncan Hunter, on the other, shows no real signs of viability other than the polls you mention, so it is difficult to see why you expect such a steep rise. I consider it plausible that his nomination contract could rise as high as 1 or so in a speculative bubble, but consider that to be relatively unlikely as well. That said, he may not be a horrible invest at .1, since you could probably get your money out anyway and it's pretty much all upside.

***I see that upside as well and that was the impetus for writing the article. I never said there would be a steep rise. It will probably be gradual at first and at some point hit an inflection point and then it might go steep, but I have no way of knowing when, where or even whether that would happen.

GAW838 wrote:

Regardless, you have not provided any convincing reasons for why you are so bullish on him, you merely assert that there will be upward pressure from 'bargain hunters'. Doesn't that assume there's a bargain in the first place?

This is an excellent point, it actually shows that I used a bit of circular reasoning. Yes I do assume there was a bargain in the first place and the market has started to move slowly, so I think my contention is well attested that Hunter was a bargain at 0.1. Then I answered with the post about how long I consider Hunter to be a bargain (basically until the pot odds are less than the emotional hand odds) and with the hope that there would be some new Intraders coming on board I think it would push Hunter's contracts upward in price.

I am a newbie here, I feel it necessary to repeat. When Hunter's Ask price went from 0.1 to 0.2, what I see is that the bargain hunters have moved into the low end and already inhabited that real estate. That is an example of upward pressure from bargain hunters.

Please keep in mind that another reason why I'm so bullish on Hunter is that he is truly a straight-shootin', rock-ribbed conservative. I think that sells well in Middle America, a.k.a. Flyover Country.

GAW838 wrote:

What does Thompson have to do with this, buying Thompson or Hunter are not the only two options?

Well, the original premise of the article was

OK, so you’ve got a thousand dollars burning a hole in your pocket and you want to make a statement with it at the same time as getting 40X return on your “investment”, you want $40,000 for that $1000 bet, like Hillary did in her Pig Belly futures or whatever it was. You’re going to decide between putting it down on Hunter or Thompson over at Intrade because these are the 2 most conservative candidates in the race.
https://www.intrade.com/
Which one do you choose?

GAW838 wrote:

If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. But don't act you already have and attack me for requesting that you back up your claims with some sort of evidence or analysis. There may be a good argument to be made that Hunter is currently undervalued, I'm just asking you to actually make it instead of just asserting it.

OK, I think I answered your questions, as far as I can tell I didn't "attack" you, and I still think Hunter is undervalued due to the 5 elements of an Intrade price that I posted. Are there defined elements to the price that have been discussed before? I feel like I just reinvented the wheel, I couldn't find any discussion on elements of the Intrade price.

ranthambhore wrote:

This is an interesting question. There was a related thread started back in August by politics_liquidity_trader (who seems to have since disappeared from the forum unfortunately). There are arb trades in many of the markets that only make sense if someone is trading commission free. I'll post a reply to that thread in a minute, so that you can take a look.

Update: here's the link: https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1733.page

How did you import that old thread? Is there an archive we can look through?

ko wrote:

How did you import that old thread?

All previous topics are listed in order of most recent posting. Roll your mouse over the topic you want to link to, right click, copy link location, and paste into your message.

ko:

OK, that cleared things up a little bit and I also think it helped illuminate our corp disagreement. This may only be a semantic distinction, but I don't see poll numbers as some sort of baseline around which other variables perturb valuations to arrive at the price/probability. I am also suspicious of the sort of formalism you are trying to apply to valuation. I see polls as one of many sources of information available to market participants that help them make subjective determinations about the underlying value or probability. This is the sense in which the markets are information aggregators. Though some participants have access to more data than others, all have imperfect information or else they would know for sure who the nominees are going to be. That is, these are effective rather than fundamental probabilities (more like rolling dice than quantum mechanics).

On the Hunter contract in particular, my disagreement is not so much with the pace of the rise you expect as the upper bound. I cannot imagine a credible scenario under which Duncan Hunter wins the nomination, so I would place fair value below 1. That means he may be a bargain at .1, (it's hard for an announced candidate not be, but some succeed nonetheless) but I don't see traders lining up to go long at 1 or higher. It seems to me that there's only two ways you can disagree with me that get you to your expectation of a rise to significantly higher than 1: You can either dispute my fair value determination and contend that it should be closer to his poll numbers if he gets into this debate, or you can think that the sort of market irrationality that we have seen in the Paul, Rice and Gore contracts is likely to be exhibited in the Hunter nomination contract. Other than the fact that you like him and see him as a solid conservative that is a decent campaigner (these don't seem to be sufficient), why do you think at least one of these things is true / will happen.

GAW838 wrote:

ko: This may only be a semantic distinction, but I don't see poll numbers as some sort of baseline around which other variables perturb valuations to arrive at the price/probability. I am also suspicious of the sort of formalism you are trying to apply to valuation. I see polls as one of many sources of information available to market participants that help them make subjective determinations about the underlying value or probability. This is the sense in which the markets are information aggregators. Though some participants have access to more data than others, all have imperfect information or else they would know for sure who the nominees are going to be. That is, these are effective rather than fundamental probabilities (more like rolling dice than quantum mechanics).

I gather that this is a semantic discussion because I see it the same way you do, but when I explain how I look at things, it starts to sound like formalism. I do not apply formalism to valuation, I use formalism as a way to describe how I look at things.

GAW838 wrote:

On the Hunter contract in particular, my disagreement is not so much with the pace of the rise you expect as the upper bound. I cannot imagine a credible scenario under which Duncan Hunter wins the nomination, so I would place fair value below 1.

I do not see, using your approach, how Huckabee nor Ron Paul get above 1.0 either, so there are other factors which seem to determine the market value. Those same factors would apply to Hunter. So his "fair value", which I perceive to be "market value" could easily be above 1.0 and it appears that after I posted my analysis the market has started to move in that direction.

GAW838 wrote:

That means he may be a bargain at .1, (it's hard for an announced candidate not be, but some succeed nonetheless) but I don't see traders lining up to go long at 1 or higher. It seems to me that there's only two ways you can disagree with me that get you to your expectation of a rise to significantly higher than 1: You can either dispute my fair value determination and contend that it should be closer to his poll numbers if he gets into this debate, or you can think that the sort of market irrationality that we have seen in the Paul, Rice and Gore contracts is likely to be exhibited in the Hunter nomination contract.

Yes to both sides of the OR statement. I dispute your fair value determination and I think we'll see some market irrationality.

GAW838 wrote:

Other than the fact that you like him and see him as a solid conservative that is a decent campaigner (these don't seem to be sufficient), why do you think at least one of these things is true / will happen.

The issue isn't whether I like him & see him as that, but whether traders and middle america view him. Reading through this thread you'll find that that is the case for others -- folks reading through this would naturally want to discount my heavy bias. And these days we see these interesting online "candidate calculators" that spit out how a candidate matches up with your own views.
http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

I have seen quite a few people go out of their way to try their darndest to push down this candidate, even though he's a supposed 1%er. But I don't see that happening to Brownback, Tommy Thompson and other true 1%ers. That's a good indicator that he really isn't a 1%er, which the polls are starting to indicate. Also, the case for Hunter takes a long time and very few Intraders have the time/wherewhithal/patience to read through volumes of stuff, so I'll just direct the interested reader to Free Republic and have them see for themselves & get a start.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=duncanhunter

To be candid, I would put more effort into making the case for Hunter, but I get the impression that you might be in that camp of pushdowners. I kinda get confirmation of that when I see that your first post on this thread said, "It's not gonna happen, and it's not a big mystery; Let's move on. " So, suffice it to say, the case is being made and one of the best places to see how Hunter resonates with conservatives is to wander over to Free Republic. I've been a Freeper for almost a decade, and an Intrader for only a few months.

ranthambhore wrote:

GAW838 wrote:

As an aside, I've always wonder who's shorting these contracts at .1 and .2, what do they expect to gain. Unless that are MMs that pay no fees, they have already lost their entire max gain if they are price-taking, then they have to get out at some point or pay expiry.

This is an interesting question. There was a related thread started back in August by politics_liquidity_trader (who seems to have since disappeared from the forum unfortunately). There are arb trades in many of the markets that only make sense if someone is trading commission free. I'll post a reply to that thread in a minute, so that you can take a look.

Update: here's the link: https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1733.page

Thanks, Ran. I have opened up a new thread and copied your post over into it.

Possible examples of Intrade political data being manipulated
https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/0/1855.page#22808#22808

DFCSTech 05/12/2007 17:30:07 Subject: "Candidate" Field

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DFCSTech wrote:

I don't know who this guy is named Field, but judging by the increases he's been seeing on Intrade, he must be gaining a lot of support out there.

The funny thing about it though, is that he only seems to be catching on really strong in the states that don't show a listing for Huckabee!

That's strange.

The answer is on the Hunter thread. The price is being manipulated. So the action has moved from the Hunter.NOM contract to the President.Field contract, which has escaped manipulation.

I will be copying this answer onto the manipulation thread.

Possible examples of Intrade political data being manipulated
http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1855.page

Here's what Ran wrote about the manipulation on the Hunter thread:

ranthambhore wrote:

GAW838 wrote:

As an aside, I've always wonder who's shorting these contracts at .1 and .2, what do they expect to gain. Unless that are MMs that pay no fees, they have already lost their entire max gain if they are price-taking, then they have to get out at some point or pay expiry.

This is an interesting question. There was a related thread started back in August by politics_liquidity_trader (who seems to have since disappeared from the forum unfortunately). There are arb trades in many of the markets that only make sense if someone is trading commission free. I'll post a reply to that thread in a minute, so that you can take a look.

Update: here's the link: https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1733.page

Here are the new Intrade results after the debate.

For the first time there has been a measurable change for DUNCAN HUNTER, doubling in price and showing a major jump embedded in Iowa.Field with a 3.3 point jump.

Duncan Hunter Won the debate. Huckabee Lost.

And, since this is going to be controversial, I will point out that I’ve been logging onto several prior debate threads (on http://www.freerepublic.com ) where I analyzed the changes in Intrade results from the debates, and usually before it was Huckabee who won.

2008 Republican Presidential Nominee
Old Price … New Price… Change

2008.GOP.NOM.GIULIANI 41.1 41.1 No chg
2008.GOP.NOM.ROMNEY 20.2 21.4 +1.2
2008.GOP.NOM.HUCKABEE 17.8 18.0 +0.2
2008.GOP.NOM.MCCAIN 9.2 9.2 No chg
2008.GOP.NOM.PAUL 5.0 6.0 +1.0
2008.GOP.NOM.THOMPSON(F) 5.1 5.0 -0.1
2008.GOP.NOM.HUNTER 0.1 0.2 +0.1

Winner of 2008 Republican Iowa Caucus

Old Price … New Price … Price Change
REP.IOWA.HUCKABEE
Mike Huckabee to Win 72.5 70.8 -1.7
REP.IOWA.ROMNEY
Mitt Romney to Win 25.1 25.1 No chg
REP.IOWA.THOMPSON(F)
Fred Thompson to Win 1.5 1.5 No chg
REP.IOWA.GIULIANI
Rudy Giuliani to Win 0.4 2.5 +2.1
REP.IOWA.MCCAIN
John McCain to Win 0.5 1.7 +1.2
REP.IOWA.FIELD
Field (any other individual) to Win 1.1 4.4 +3.3

The smart money really IS on Duncan Hunter.

.

.

.

Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts