Actually it would be 1-1.75 in laymans terms... You lay 1.75 to win a dollar. The other way you're laying a dollar to win 2.35. At least the way you've explained it. But there is no account for the vig in those numbers. Down the stretch of the last election Kerry went from a slight favorite in the summer (about 1.5 to win 1) down to an underdog by oct/nov when he was more than 2-1 (lay 1 to win about 2.20) while with Bush you were laying about 3 to win 1 by election time. I called up my book in costa rica (the boss whom I speak to often) and told him to check out the line on tradesports and that I wanted to bet 20 grand against Hillary being the nominee with those lines... he laughed at me. Told me I'd have to lay a min of 20, maybe 30 to 1 if I wanted to bet against her right now. So it looks like even the Dems know Hillary has no chance and isn't worth the gamble of putting up in the election. Anyway this book told me that tradesports relies on people (suckers) betting way in advance on an event and they usually clean up on those suckers willing to lay those kind of odds well in advance.