Betting on the wrong stock, as every investor knows, can bloody you financially. One of the New York Stock Exchange’s wealthiest specialists is painfully discovering the same also holds true if you bet on the wrong politician

Here’s the story. On December 6, I reported that this specialist had just wagered $100,000 with two hedge fund managers that neither of the two frontrunners vying for their party’s presidential nomination — Senators Clinton and McCain of Arizona — would actually be nominated.

I injected my two cents at the time, telling him I thought it was a dumb bet, given Mrs. Clinton’s solid lead in the Democratic ranks. At the time, he laughed. Now, he concurs.

The specialist, who got 7 to 5 odds on his wager, or $140,000 to his $100,000, also bet $10,000 with a drug company official in the tristate area that Senator Obama of Illinois would get the Democratic nomination. On that wager, he got odds of 10 to 1.

The latest gambling odds on the 2008 election from London-based William Hill, one of the world’s largest bookmakers, suggest the specialist is a likely loser on both wagers. So I rang him up to see if he still felt as strongly about his bets as before.

He doesn’t. “I made a mistake; they were stupid bets,” he lamented. The specialist, who has an estimated net worth of about $1.4 billion and spoke to me on the condition of anonymity since gambling on elections is illegal in America and he wants to steer clear of any IRS problems, now believes he’s a likely loser on both bets. In fact, he has already offered each of the two hedge fund managers $35,000 to call them off. So far, both have said no.

Why does the specialist rate himself a loser on the two bets? Because, he says, he badly underestimated Mrs. Clinton’s national appeal, which he now believes will earn her the Democratic nomination and probably the presidency, as well. As for Mr. Obama, while he has momentum, the specialist no longer believes he can sustain it to the point where he can dethrone Mrs. Clinton from the top spot.

He says he has spoken to several presidential candidates on the Democratic side who strongly agree with him, doggedly insisting that Mr. Obama has no chance whatsoever of capturing the nomination.

The specialist, however, believes he was right on target with his view that Mr. McCain will not win the Republican nomination and thinks Mayor Giuliani, who is ballooning in the polls, will probably get the nod.

The latest betting odds from William Hill on the 2008 election strictly focus on who will win the presidency. The numbers emphatically suggest the bookmaker is convinced Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Giuliani will be their parties’ combatants for the White House in 2008.

“We’re saying it will be Hillary versus Rudy, something like a recap of the New York Senatorial race that never took place between the two in 2000,” a William Hill spokesman said. Mr. Giuliani had considered challenging the former first lady for the Senate seat at the time, but backed off, citing a bout with prostate cancer.

Mrs. Clinton, currently quoted by William Hill at odds of 2.75 to 1, is regarded as far and away President Bush’s likely successor. That means you put up $1 for a total return of $3.75. Mr. Giuliani is the runner-up at 4.5 to 1; in his case, you wager $1 to get back $5.50.

Messrs. Obama and McCain currently tie for fourth, both at 7 to 1 odds, followed by former vice presidential candidate, Senator Edwards or North Carolina at 8 to 1, Vice President Al Gore at 15 to 1, and Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts at 21 to 1.

Interestingly, another bookmaker, Costa Rican-based Sportsbook.com, the largest sports book and casino on the planet, is offering a different set of odds on the presidential race. Mrs. Clinton is rated first at 1 to 1, followed by Messrs. Gore and McCain at 3 to 1; Mr. Obama, 6 to 1; Mr. Edwards, 8 to 1; and Messrs. Romney and Giuliani, both 10 to 1.

Mayor Bloomberg also makes the Sportsbook.com list at 50 to 1. William Hill also includes the mayor on its list at 34 to 1.

dandordan@aol.com