If you followed Nate Silver instead of msm 'too close to call' farce, Obama win was no big surprise & you were not expecting a long night the way the media advertised
Obama's probability of winning did dip to something like 63% from 87% after debate 1. But what msm didn't accurately report about polling was that Obama slowly and steadily rose thereafter -- with a little extra bump to 90% near the end.
And if you're a trader, you would have had the added insight of how dead cat bounces work and applying that analogy to the Romney bounce after debate 1.
Being aware of all this means you don't get that momentarily but powerful hit of thrill at pay-off time. Which makes me realize something about gambling versus trading. There's a thrill that comes with the ups and downs of being uninformed, in the dark, not being aware of the probabilities -- there's a thrill that comes with gambling. It's powerful and can be addictive. America didn't want to face the math, and I bet a lot of that kind of willful ignorance is because it's more exciting that way. And it's the easy way, and of course some are too math-challenged to overcome it without some help, plus the agendas & shortcomings of the hacks & shills, but I digress. So, in essence, cheap thrills and spills versus being informed; gambling versus skillfu trading.