Meet Théo, the Man Who Bet $30 Million on Trump Winning the Election

Théo is controlling the election speculation on Polymarket with massive bets of nearly all his liquid net worth.

Trump-Betting Whale Speaks Out

Théo, The Trump-Betting Whale, tells the Wall Street Journal ‘I Have Absolutely No Political Agenda’

“My intent is just making money,” the man, who called himself Théo, said during a Zoom call with a reporter from The Wall Street Journal earlier this week. He described himself as a Frenchman who had previously lived in the U.S. and worked as a trader for banks.

Théo’s huge wagers on Polymarket—a prediction market that isn’t open to Americans—drew broad attention last month after the Journal reported that four accounts on the platform had been systematically purchasing wagers on a Trump victory. 

Last week, New York-based Polymarket said it had contacted the Trump whale as part of an investigation into the wagers. The company described the person behind the bets as a French national with extensive trading experience and a financial-services background.

“Based on the investigation, we understand that this individual is taking a directional position based on personal views of the election,” Polymarket said in a statement.

The details in Polymarket’s statement lined up with how Théo described himself. He confirmed that he had spoken to a member of Polymarket’s legal and compliance team.

Théo emailed the Journal after the publication of an Oct. 18 article about his wagers. To prove that he was behind the Polymarket wagers, the Journal asked him to place a bet on whether Taylor Swift would announce that she is pregnant in 2024—one of the many small, nonpolitical wagers available on the platform. Minutes later, Polymarket’s website showed that one of the four accounts, Theo4, had placed a small bet on Swift’s pregnancy.

During the Zoom call, Théo wore a gray Nike sweater and sported a short, neatly trimmed beard. Speaking English with a slight accent, he said he had made his bets after concluding that polls were underestimating Trump’s support. He denied speculation that his wagers were aimed at creating a sense of momentum for Trump. 

Théo declined to give his real name, and the Journal wasn’t able to confirm all the elements of his story. Although Théo said he was funding the bets with his own money, it couldn’t be determined whether this is true. Nor could the Journal rule out links between Théo and any political organization or Trump allies.

“I have absolutely no political agenda,” Théo wrote in his initial email. 

 Théo could get a payday of more than $80 million-—more than double his investment—if all of his expectations of a sweeping Trump victory come true. Besides his main wager on Trump winning the Electoral College, Théo has bet millions more on Trump winning the popular vote—a scenario that many political observers consider unlikely—and on Trump winning individual swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. 

Selling Crypto Buying Trump

The Journal noted Blockchain data showed that the accounts were all funded by the same crypto exchange.

If Harris wins, Théo could lose most or all of his $30 million, which he described as the majority of his available liquid assets.

Théo’s conviction is based on the idea that polls undercounted Trump twice and will do so again.

Poll Methodology Changes

Nearly all pollsters have modified their weighting methodologies this year based on how respondents claimed to have voted in previous elections. This is called weighting by “recalled votes”.

However, people have false memories often claiming they voted for the winner when registrations show they did not even vote.

NYT/Siena is one of few pollsters this year who don’t use recalled votes.

Two Distinct Stories of the Election

On October 6, Nate Cohn at the New York Times explained How One Polling Decision Is Leading to Two Distinct Stories of the Election

Some of the numbers are more than a bit stale so it’s the methodology that’s important.

In one universe, Kamala Harris leads only narrowly in the national popular vote against Donald J. Trump, even as she holds a discernible edge in the Northern battlegrounds. The numbers look surprisingly similar to the 2022 midterm election.

In the other, Ms. Harris has a clear lead in the national vote, but the battlegrounds are very tight. It’s essentially a repeat of the 2020 election.

[Mish Comment: That lead in the states has now vanished]

This divide is almost entirely explained by whether a pollster uses “weighting on recalled vote,” which means trying to account for how voters say they voted in the last election.

This approach had long been considered a mistake. For reasons we’ll explain, pollsters have avoided it over the years. But they increasingly do it today, partly as a way to try to make sure they have enough Trump supporters after high-profile polling misfires in 2016 and 2020. The choice has become an important fault line among pollsters in this election, and it helps explain the whiplash that poll watchers are experiencing from day to day.

Over the last month, about two-thirds of polls were weighted by recalled vote.

An important — and perhaps obvious — consequence of weighting by recalled vote is that it makes poll results look more like the 2020 election results. The polls that don’t do it, including New York Times/Siena College surveys, are more likely to show clear changes from four years ago.

While the differences between the two sets of polls are relatively small, they add up to two different stories of the election. The polls that don’t weight on past vote tend to show results that align more closely with the result of the 2022 midterm election than the last presidential election. They also show that Mr. Trump’s advantage in the Electoral College, with respect to the popular vote, has dwindled over the last four years. The polls weighted on past vote, on the other hand, show little more than a 2020 repeat of the Electoral College gap.

When I started following polling methodology debates 20 years ago, weighting on recalled vote was considered a very bad idea. A surprising number of respondents don’t remember how they voted; they seem likelier to remember voting for the winner; and they sometimes report voting when voting records show they did not.

This pattern has persisted all the way from the first time I read about recall vote all the way to the present, based on data archived at the Roper Center and 2021-24 data from the Pew Research Center and Times/Siena. The same pattern shows up in the exit polls in every presidential election year when it was asked (2004, 2008, 2020).

Is Trump Ahead or Behind?

I am a believer in trends. Trump had momentum for weeks that has mostly flattened over the past few days.

So the question at hand now is whether that momentum put Trump ahead or just caught him up to a tossup.

I Challenge Nate Silver to an Election Bet

On October 27, I wrote I Challenge Nate Silver to an Election Bet, Winnings Go to Charity

I rated the odds of a reply from Silver as about zero percent and sure enough, no response.

I think Trump is at least a 56 percent favorite based on momentum alone, even if he just managed to catch up.

But I don’t rule out the possibility that pollsters messed this up again, in either direction, by monkeying around.

And I certainly can’t see cashing in $30 million in Bitcoin or whatever to place on this trade, if that was my entire liquid net worth.