I think the process isn't just putting money on the winner. I think the bet was made because a majority of people overvalued the winner. So hedging the bet wo

I think the process isn't just putting money on the winner. I think the bet was made because a majority of people overvalued the winner. So hedging the bet would win big especially if the margins are close. I didn't read much of what Nate Silver wrote, but I did listen to the podcast. Clearly, he would have preferred a Hillary win, but I'm not sure it biased the forecasts (he's said it's just an algorithm he wrote and they just plug in the polls). He and his team said many times, just because Hillary was ahead it wasn't a guarantee. Since the election they've said it's very difficult to convey probability to people and they're trying to get better at that. He also pointed out that he was less confident of Hillary than most other sources (even if they had her ahead). They were very clear that they had no expectations of correctly guessing all 51 states because it was so close. I'm not sure if this was because if him calling Trump wrong in the primaries or if he was objectively looking at the numbers.