Of the many superlatives history will bestow on America’s 2016 presidential race, here’s one you might not have heard: It will be the biggest political gambling event of all time. And as a British professional gambler, without any ideological axe to grind, I have one simple agenda: to make as much money as humanly possible, right up until November 8, 2016, betting on your elections.

Political betting is virtually unknown to most Americans, mainly because betting on politics is illegal in the U.S., apart from small-stakes prediction sites. But in Britain, where I live, our ultra-liberal gambling laws let us bet on pretty much anything taking place anywhere in the world, for whatever stakes we can afford. And when it comes to the profit scale, opportunities and pure entertainment, no gambling market quite compares to this one.

The attention and research lavished on your presidential race by overseas betters would astonish American observers. During the last presidential election in 2012, Betfair, the world's biggest peer-to-peer betting exchange (for which I write as a freelance political analyst), saw a record $200 million traded on the main “Next President” market. That's just one market with one firm. There are other peer-to-peer exchanges; and traditional oddsmakers like Paddy Power, Ladbrokes, William Hill and Skybet are all in the business. Taken across all markets throughout the whole race, with odds offered on every single step of the race, that figure easily runs into billions.

As a gambler, I’ve noticed that Americans might also be obsessed with predicting their presidential races, but they often rely on pundits whose name recognition far outstrips their accuracy. Gamblers can’t afford to be wrong that often: Political prediction is a genuine game of skill, with serious research going into the effort — and serious rewards for the gambler who gets it right.

I’ll cut to the chase: my current prediction is for Hillary Clinton to become president, in line with Betfair's ratings, at about 54 percent. But my main focus — and where the greatest potential profit lies — is predicting the winner of the GOP nomination. In gambling terms, this race is the perfect political market: one that’s wide-open, and in which momentum (and therefore the betting), swings regularly between candidates. Right now I have positions on a raft of outsiders, including Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina — and my biggest bet, on Ted Cruz.

That is far from what the polls and pundits are telling us. But I’m not necessarily making a call about who will win: like a stock trader betting on the direction of prices, I’m really betting on how the story will unfold. In other words, my bets are my best guess at the future narrative of the whole campaign.

Political gambling isn’t like playing a slot machine, a game of luck that hinges entirely on hitting the right answer. It’s a research-driven enterprise in which you can buy and sell positions as the market changes. Correctly predict that Cruz is underrated today, and then sell off your position when his rating jumps, and you’ll make money.

The range and size of these bets can differ vastly, depending on confidence, returns and trading potential. For instance, immediately after the 2010 mid-term elections, I placed a $10,000 bet on President Barack Obama for a second term. At the time, Obama was given a 52 percent chance of winning; so with those odds, just as it works at the racetrack, the bet yielded a $9,400 profit.

At the other end of the betting scale, my early 2016 positions consist of cheap, speculative bets on dark horses at big odds. I put down $200 on Ben Carson at just 1.5 percent, $150 on Ted Cruz at 1 percent. Those offer potential returns of $13,000 and $15,000, respectively, if one of them actually wins. They probably won’t, but to make a profit, all I need is for any of them to be among the main candidates remaining once the field has shrunk, because I intend to cash out at much shorter odds. Throughout the year, I'll have a stack of bets running concurrently across the range of different markets, carrying a total risk of up to $50,000 at any one time.

This real-world betting was so much easier than sports, I realized. A well-thought out political bet won’t lose because of a bad refereeing decision, and luck is far less relevant.”

The key to playing these markets successfully is a ruthless neutrality. There’s no room for emotions or personal beliefs when “getting it right” pays the mortgage. And it turns out that applying a dispassionate, gambler’s eye to the American electorate is a profoundly educational way to learn about it — one that forces you to cut through partisan analysis, ratings-driven media froth and a sometimes bewildering array of polling data. (Those polls, by the way, are merely snapshots, restricted by their rigid and far-from-bulletproof methodologies. But the political gambler is free to take a longer view)

It’s a surprisingly wonkish world, and in this way, I have long suspected that American politics has much to learn from political gambling. Compared to polls and other conventional predictors, the record of betting markets is truly outstanding. I’m not the first to note that gambling markets tend to predict outcomes far better than polls do. As a race gets serious, more players enter the market, and thus prove the wisdom of crowds nearly every time. If Americans want to predict the political future, they should start by paying close attention to the logic of the bookie.

* * *

Political betting began for me 14 years ago in college. In 2001, I was getting to ready to complete an undergraduate Politics degree at the University of Hull in Yorkshire, England; my teens and twenties had been devoted to sports gambling. I went to college in pursuit of a more “respectable” career, supplementing my paltry student income on the weekends as a semi-professional sports gambler.

Then came the 2001 U.K. General Election. I took my last $700 of a student loan — and a freshly minted politics degree — and laid a wide range of bets, from individual district winners to the total seats in parliament for each party. The $700 turned into $2500. Then the losing Conservative Party held an election to find a new leader. My bank built up to $7,500. I was hooked.

This real-world betting was so much easier than sports, I realized. A well-thought out political bet won’t lose because of a bad refereeing decision, and “luck” is far less relevant. My best sport, cricket, yields a profit in 80 percent of matches, but the losses in those other 20 percent can be substantial. In contrast, politics yields a profit in around 90 percent of markets, and proves far less risky.

It was in the 2004 election season that I first saw the enormous profits to be made in U.S. politics. In 2004, Betfair and other markets consistently predicted a Bush second term — even as American media were calling it too close to call or, in some cases, as late as election night, a win for Kerry. That night, I watched silently on my laptop as the results came in; it looked like the shaking of a seismograph as the in-play markets in key states like Florida and Ohio changed dramatically as each district declared its results.

I knew right then that I had to get a piece of the action, and I began training for 2008 like the Olympics. This meant staying up through the night, alone, watching CNN and various pundits discuss the prospects of politicians I'd barely heard of. No matter. I was soon locked into John King's detailed analysis of races and districts. Eventually I swapped time zones, staying up all night watching the entire process, from nominee debates, primaries to the general election. We had nothing like this in the U.K.

Around December 2007, I placed my first bets. Rudy Giuliani was famous in the UK, perhaps explaining why he was such a strong early favorite in our betting markets. Yet it was common knowledge that Giuliani was a social liberal, at odds with median GOP opinion. I'd previously noted how name recognition could create false favorites in UK party leadership contests, and he seemed like another overhyped name, ripe for selling. Meanwhile, the other well-known candidate was John McCain, whose floundering campaign drove his rating down to just 4 percent. Yet McCain was adamant about staying in the race and looked bound to fare respectably, due to his military record and foreign policy prowess. Just as Giuiliani looked a cheap sell, McCain was the classic cheap, speculative buy — virtually risk-free in the short-term as his odds could barely fall any further.

The strategy worked perfectly. Giuliani bombed. McCain quickly assumed the mantle of contender. No sooner had I familiarized myself with his less-than-convincing rivals — Romney and Huckabee — than the “Straight Talk Express” had won New Hampshire and become a runaway favorite. I saw no need to sell back, and eventually netted $3,500.

But as any experienced gambler knows, consistent winnings never come easy. In 2012, I got a sharp reminder about the complexity of American politics when I got the GOP race dead wrong. First, I threw away some money on Tim Pawlenty. Then I just short-sold Romney, convinced he would lose after a seriously underwhelming performance in 2008. In addition to the constant rumors that Jeb Bush or Chris Christie might join the race, I felt that the Tea Party had enough momentum to coalesce around an alternative. I didn't realize this alternative would boil down to fundamentally flawed, limited candidates like Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. By the time I conceded that truth — the Florida primary, in January — it was too late to correct matters, and Romney was now rated around 85 percent.

I ended up losing $1000 on that primary, but for me (and other gamblers), it was a bargain price to learn a fundamental lesson now at play in the 2016 Republican nomination. What if my initial instinct — that previously bulletproof establishment candidates had now become vulnerable — had substance after all? 2012 was just the wrong race, with the wrong candidates.

My gambling strategy this year is built around that insight: A revolution has been well underway on the right for eight years but, in order to beat the establishment, this insurgency needs a stronger leader. This mystery candidate would combine McCain's straight-talking, anti-pork-barrel rhetoric with Huckabee's impeccable social conservative credentials, and someone who could raise the cash to build a nationwide ground campaign. If such a candidate had existed in 2012, perhaps Romney would have been defeated. The fact it took him so long to wrap up victory against such weak opposition was a signal that the growing distrust of the GOP establishment was rampant and getting stronger.

This time around, I believe an outsider can win. Real outsiders like Trump and Carson have dominated polls for six months, while supposedly safe candidates like Walker and Bush have floundered. Among the so-called establishment, only Marco Rubio has reached double digits. Nothing like this remotely occurred in 2012, where Romney’s consistent delegate lead had forced the party to unite behind the only realistic candidate. I doubt this year’s mainstream pick, whoever it is, will enjoy such advantages.

But to apply the logic of the market, we have to zoom out further — to global trends, not American ones; measured in decades, not election cycles. Thus, the emergence of outsider candidates actually reflects a widespread phenomenon in Western politics. Political elites are distrusted, and governments are seen as corrupt and ineffective. Voters get their information from ever more diverse media options, and they’re harder — some would say impossible — to control or predict.

Europe has witnessed a series of these “earthquake” elections. Far-Right parties such as Marine Le Pen's Front Nationale or Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, and far-Leftists like Spain's Podemos or Greece's Syriza are all thriving. Scottish Nationalists now control over 90% percent of parliamentary districts in their country and have transformed the UK’s electoral balance. Across the globe, previously unimaginable leaders, parties and platforms are rising. The unlikely candidacies of Trump, Carson, Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz all reflect that trend.

This year, I’m so committed to this race that I’m moving across the pond to research these curious American voters myself — think de Tocqueville meets Wolf of Wall Street. I'll arrive in San Francisco before Christmas, then make my way to Las Vegas, New York and Washington DC, before heading to Iowa and New Hampshire for those critical opening primaries. Then I’ll fly to Texas for Super Tuesday. After that, my schedule will follow the most pivotal contests, in order to better understand the race and predict the markets. After all, my livelihood depends on it.

How good do I feel about my odds? I’ve recently set a profit target: $50,000, a personal record. To reach that goal, here is where my money is going in 2016.

* * *

First, I’ll tell you who I’m staying away from. When the Republican Nominee market opened, Jeb Bush was regarded as the mainstream pick, enjoying a wall of establishment cash behind him and an overwhelming consensus as the favorite for the nomination. During this phase, he peaked at 42 percent odds of winning the nomination. But based on the larger market forces described above, I’ve never believed this would be a straightforward win for any establishment candidate. Early GOP favorites have a poor historical record based on both 2008 and 2012 — Giuliani, Rick Perry, for example — and Bush seemed similarly vulnerable by my reckoning.

I short-sold Bush in September when he was at 35 percent, citing seven factors why he’d lose. That rating has since dropped to 10 percent, meaning I could cash out for around $1100 profit. I’m not. To me, Bush’s paltry 10 percent is still too high.

That initial aura of success around Bush has now migrated to Marco Rubio, similarly backed by huge, mainstream donors that historically go to the winner. Indeed, he looks and sounds electable — like a President — with a great backstory and positive narrative. But the market knows that. That high potential is factored into his current rating: a 40 percent chance of being the nominee.

That means that backing Rubio doesn’t come cheap, and it carries a lot of risk as a bet. We don’t really know if Rubio has the tools for this marathon campaign, or how well he’ll withstand attacks over past immigration stances. That is especially true if he’s trailing after Super Tuesday, as I predict he will be. Maybe he comes through in the course of time, but I'm in no hurry to take an expensive and risky early position.

I'm not simply avoiding the mainstream, either. I put some early money on Scott Walker, whom I felt was capable of bridging the establishment-outsider divide. He was a purple state winner with an outsider, anti-Washington narrative, backed by big donors. I backed him at 4% for the presidency, but after watching his anonymous performances in the first two debates, sold back at 3% for a small loss.

Then there is the matter of Donald Trump. Trump is the antithesis of an establishment candidate, but also bears the hallmarks of a classic sell — far too many negatives to justify a high market rating. His great poll numbers are fueled by voters less likely to turn out in primaries, and he owes plenty to superior name recognition at what is still a preliminary stage of the contest for most voters. As the race develops, I seriously doubt Trump's potential to improve. In the latest Quinnipac poll, for instance, 27 percent name him as first choice, but 26 percent say he's the one candidate they definitely wouldn't support. Only 6 percent say they haven't heard enough to form an opinion about Trump. His favorability rating is 17, 19 and 21 percent behind those of Carson, Cruz and Rubio, respectively.

None of this bodes well for when the realistic field is whittled down to two or three. I expect a better motivated, high-turnout anti-Trump contingent to coalesce around the candidate best placed to beat him. Given that Carson and Trump together add up to over 40 percent of poll share, their decline or withdrawal would utterly transform the race. Their former backers would prove decisive. Where would these voters go next?

Both candidates represent hostility to conventional politicians: Trump’s bid has been fueled by extreme rhetoric on immigration — now the third most important issue as of last month, behind the economy and national security — while Carson is thriving among evangelicals. So the beneficiary of their decline should be anti-establishment, immigration hardliner, popular among evangelicals and well-resourced to withstand a long race.

I've felt for months that this mystery candidate is Ted Cruz, as only he can convincingly tick off all four of these boxes. He appeals to social conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists and immigration hardliners. His candidacy has immeasurably greater potential than a damaged Gingrich or under-resourced Santorum. Wrecking ball tactics in Washington effectively make him the outsider the base seems to want. Cruz has avoided criticizing Trump and is openly chasing his voters. And as far as evangelicals are concerned, who better than the winner of the Values Voter Straw Poll for the past three years?

I backed Cruz in mid-October, citing five reasons. I have $750 at 3.5 percent for the nomination, and $150 at 1 percent for the presidency, yielding $20,000 and $15,000 respectively. Since his ratings in those races have at least quintupled to 18 percent and 6 percent, I could already cash out for a substantial profit. Unless something dramatic happens to change my mind in the meantime, I have no intention of doing so until after Super Tuesday. That's because I think Cruz will win Iowa, South Carolina and Texas, plus some other Southern states on March 1st, thus building a formidable early lead.

Does this mean I believe Cruz will definitely be the nominee? Not necessarily. He still has plenty of negatives. Right now I’m still just gaming out the race trajectory, building a position for when the race gets serious. Still, the math behind backing Cruz is striking. He's currently polling at 16 percent, but has serious potential to tap the pool of more than 40 percent who currently support Trump and Carson. And while Cruz is poised to build a strong position in early states like Iowa, South Carolina and Texas, the major states in which he is expected to lose — like New Hampshire — are profoundly close, enough to prevent a candidate in the mainstream pack from winning a decisive victory and emerging as the clear leader. With Rubio facing strong opposition for that establishment mantle, it surely makes more sense to “buy” Cruz at 18 percent.

This is a long race, with plenty of twists and turns ahead. The growing emphasis on foreign policy has already damaged Carson, and voters could recalibrate their preferences to privilege experience ahead of outsider rhetoric; Experienced hands like Bush and Christie could rise again. But right now, my instincts as a gambler tell me that this race is heading inevitably toward a Cruz-Rubio matchup.

You never stop learning in this game, and I intend to learn a whole lot more. Forming conclusions about America’s body politic from foreign media is surely one thing. Travelling across key primary states, seeing the country and meeting real voters, is quite another. The closer we get to polling day, the stronger the conclusions I’ll form about the eventual winner — and the more I’ll be prepared to bet big at short odds, as I did with Obama in 2012. And if you’re watching the markets now and wondering what they mean, remember that the sterling record of betting markets at predicting political outcomes only applies to the latter stages. There's no hurry to back the favorites. For now, I'm playing the long game with Cruz. Until Rubio proves otherwise, I'm sticking to the view that outsiders now hold the edge.

Paul Krishnamurty is a professional gambler and political analyst. He writes about US and UK politics at the blog The Political Gambler.