It appears some people really don’t understand what odds mean. Just because a 1/10 bet comes in, it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t really 1/10. If you get hit by lightning it doesn’t mean that getting hit by lightning is actually very common.
That's not good analogy for political polls and 2016.
That wasn't a roll of the dice that ended up deuces. It was the result of a couple of factors we can investigate in hindsight. We have single digit response polls that systematically undercount Trump supporter turnout:
"The risks of “coming out” as a Republican, or worse as a Trump supporter, can be severe. As a result, many conservatives simply keep their mouths shut and remain quiet about their political views. Then on voting day, these same conservatives show up at the polls and pull the lever for Republican candidates. Fear of stigma has likely a driving factor behind Republican voters misleading not only their friends and relatives, but pollsters as well. Considering invective against Trump and his supporters, why would you tell a pollster from a partisan press how you truly felt?"
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...zing-trump-supporters-destroys-accurate-polls
You have voter suppression that can't be predicted or anticipated by polling:
"She’d lost her driver’s license a few days earlier, but she came prepared with an expired Wisconsin state ID and proof of residency. A poll worker confirmed she was registered to vote at her current address. But this was Wisconsin’s first major election that required voters—even those who were already registered—to present a current driver’s license, passport, or state or military ID to cast a ballot. Anthony couldn’t, and so she wasn’t able to vote."
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/
And you had effects like Trump's massive advantage in leveraging micro-targeting on Facebook which polls can't predict the results either:
"If each variation is counted as a distinct ad, then the
Trump campaign, all told, ran 5.9 million Facebook ads. The
Clinton campaign ran sixty-six thousand...
It’s no longer good enough to run one radio ad in Scranton and another one in Pittsburgh. These days, campaigns can carve the electorate into creepily thin segments: Gold Star moms near military bases, paintball-playing widowers in the Florida Panhandle, recovering addicts in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. And, for anyone who wants to reach a specific audience with an actionable message, there has never been a platform as potent as Facebook. No matter how many bad press cycles or localized boycotts the company endures, the number of users keeps expanding; on average, those users are growing older, and that presumably redounds to Trump’s advantage."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/03/09/the-man-behind-trumps-facebook-juggernaut