Remember when Romney used to have a chance at winning?

[Steve-O]

Please show me these "often wrong" examples at intrade when the predictive market is 66/34? Maybe on things that are virtual tossups they can be wrong (which is expected), but I doubt you'll find many examples of intrade being wrong on 66/34 shots, most will be 54/46 type numbers.

Nate Silver may not have a long track record BUT, when you predict this amount of outcomes he has a pretty good sample size: something like 34 out of 36 senate races in 2010 (the super close Buck/Bennett was one and Harry Reid was the other); 49 out of 50 states correct in 2008 presidential election; 36 out of 37 Gubernatorial races in 2010.

The Colorado study is 8-for-8, a nice record but considering only 2000 and 2004 were overly close it's not all that impressive.

Sure, I'll be happy to but first let me point out that in your question you edited what I said. I said "Intrade has often been wrong with a variety of predictions". You added the "66/34" part.

Intrade was wrong (or in deference to PLOL, the underdog won) when they predicted the Obamacare individual mandate would be struck down. In that example Intrade predicted a 77/23 in favor of the Supreme Court striking it down. Not even close.

Want more? OK.

GOP Retention of Senate (2006)

Michael Jackson Trial Results

Morgan Stanley CEO Purcell resignation

Howard Dean’s Iowa Primary

pre-Election 2004

Election day trading frenzy

Great, 7 instances on thousands of wagers. you're right, those numbers can't be trusted; better to go with an economic model that has been tested 8 times and was created in 1980

[NaturalBornHustler]

God you're a terrible poster.

It really is amazing how much fail can come from one poster.

Like he goes out of his way to be the biggest fool possible, with no regard for the people that have to consume this garbage.

[SixToedPete]

You also have to keep in mind that InTrade is not some "supreme deity", it's simply a collection of it's users who are setting the percentages. And if you believe the percentages are incorrect, then you can go on InTrade and make some money.

Staying with your poker analogy, on a poker TV broadcast, if a 30% hand beats the guy who shoved with a 70% chance even announcer Mike Sexton will say 'so and so' was wrong that time.

I don't watch poker on TV, but if he says the guy with 70% was wrong that time, then Mike Sexton is an idiot.

If you read my earlier post you will see I said the player with the 70% chance made a correct bet, i.e., he was right to do so. However, he was wrong in that specific hand because the 30% dog won.

Although he would always be mathematically correct to make that bet, the fact is he will be wrong (he will lose) 30% of the time.

[manowar]

Intrade has often been wrong with a variety of predictions. Nate Silver of 538 has had success in sports but just starting predicting political stuff right before the 2008 Presidential election.

University of Colorado prediction model points to big Romney win

Here's the news release of the study that has correctly predicted the winner of every presidential election since 1980.

I like Nate Silver (he's a successful poker player btw), but the guy does work for the radical left-wing NYT. I'm wary of anything I read in that liberal propaganda rag. Nate also has a huge ego so it was no surprise he slammed the University of Colorado prediction model.

Most of Nate's criticisms were complete bullshit. He thinks he's the top dog political prognosticator. He's good but he makes many mistakes.

One huge factor in Obama's favor is that the liberal MSM will not report his many failures (dismal economic policies, lack of leadership, abysmal foreign policy, high unemployment, destruction of online poker, the list is endless) but will instead misdirect viewers and readers with faux stories about Romney's tax returns, his dog, his wife's horses or anything they can twist and spin.

Recent polls reveal this is still a close race.

Please show me these "often wrong" examples at intrade when the predictive market is 66/34? Maybe on things that are virtual tossups they can be wrong (which is expected), but I doubt you'll find many examples of intrade being wrong on 66/34 shots, most will be 54/46 type numbers.

Nate Silver may not have a long track record BUT, when you predict this amount of outcomes he has a pretty good sample size: something like 34 out of 36 senate races in 2010 (the super close Buck/Bennett was one and Harry Reid was the other); 49 out of 50 states correct in 2008 presidential election; 36 out of 37 Gubernatorial races in 2010.

The Colorado study is 8-for-8, a nice record but considering only 2000 and 2004 were overly close it's not all that impressive.

Here's another one. Obama beat Clinton in the 08 primary. The story references Clinton being a mid to low 60% favorite just prior to Super Tuesday. I remember Clinton being in the mid 70s a month prior to that, I'm trying to find a chart.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...l_n_85489.html

[Steve-O]

You also have to keep in mind that InTrade is not some "supreme deity", it's simply a collection of it's users who are setting the percentages. And if you believe the percentages are incorrect, then you can go on InTrade and make some money.


I don't watch poker on TV, but if he says the guy with 70% was wrong that time, then Mike Sexton is an idiot.

If you read my earlier post you will see I said the player with the 70% chance made a correct bet, i.e., he was right to do so. However, he was wrong in that specific hand because the 30% dog won.

Although he would always be mathematically correct to make that bet, the fact is he will be wrong (he will lose) 30% of the time.

He's never "wrong". the wins and losses are factored in together to give you positive equity in the hand. te outcome doesn't make the percentages right or wong; it doesn't even mean they guessed wrong; it's simply variance which is inherent in any percentage short of 100%.

[Steve-O]

Please show me these "often wrong" examples at intrade when the predictive market is 66/34? Maybe on things that are virtual tossups they can be wrong (which is expected), but I doubt you'll find many examples of intrade being wrong on 66/34 shots, most will be 54/46 type numbers.

Nate Silver may not have a long track record BUT, when you predict this amount of outcomes he has a pretty good sample size: something like 34 out of 36 senate races in 2010 (the super close Buck/Bennett was one and Harry Reid was the other); 49 out of 50 states correct in 2008 presidential election; 36 out of 37 Gubernatorial races in 2010.

The Colorado study is 8-for-8, a nice record but considering only 2000 and 2004 were overly close it's not all that impressive.

Here's another one. Obama beat Clinton in the 08 primary. The story references Clinton being a mid to low 60% favorite just prior to Super Tuesday. I remember Clinton being in the mid 70s a month prior to that, I'm trying to find a chart.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...l_n_85489.html

6TP, are you sure you're a poker player? How do you not get that InTrade will always have opposite outcomes even when the market has one thing as a heavy favorite? The reason I asked for examples is because you said they are "often wrong" which implies higher than the true percentage. If you can show me that InTrade is wrong on more than 34% of their 66/34 predictions that I will bow down to your vast knowledge of the predictive markets.

The original point is that InTrade and the 538 have Obama as 68% (today's number) and 75% to win. If you want to bet me even money based on your Colorado study I will gladly accept

[SixToedPete]

Sure, I'll be happy to but first let me point out that in your question you edited what I said. I said "Intrade has often been wrong with a variety of predictions". You added the "66/34" part.

Intrade was wrong (or in deference to PLOL, the underdog won) when they predicted the Obamacare individual mandate would be struck down. In that example Intrade predicted a 77/23 in favor of the Supreme Court striking it down. Not even close.

Want more? OK.

GOP Retention of Senate (2006)

Michael Jackson Trial Results

Morgan Stanley CEO Purcell resignation

Howard Dean’s Iowa Primary

pre-Election 2004

Election day trading frenzy

Great, 7 instances on thousands of wagers. you're right, those numbers can't be trusted; better to go with an economic model that has been tested 8 times and was created in 1980

Steve, Intrade has been 'wrong' many, many times, I just cited some famous examples. However, the fact that Intrade has been 'wrong' so often is NOT a bad thing. It's a good thing!

Here's why. Intrade is a market where folks can trade $10-0 shares. Intrade has to be wrong sometimes for it to be right. PLOL's comment about using the word 'wrong' for Intrade predictions is a very important point.

If Intrade's predictions with 51% and higher probability always came true Intrade would cease to exist. Many people short that market, others bet on the underdog. To make a killing, if all an investor had to do was bet on the favorites listed at Intrade, everyone would do that and Intrade would quickly go out of business.

PLOL is correct. Intrade really isn't right or wrong. It's just a prediction model market.

[NaturalBornHustler]

6TP winning this thread going away.

When intrade starts casting votes let me know, until then every poll has it a dead heat within margin of error.

You know, the polls that count REAL PEOPLE, not figments of the internets imagination.

[SixToedPete]

If you read my earlier post you will see I said the player with the 70% chance made a correct bet, i.e., he was right to do so. However, he was wrong in that specific hand because the 30% dog won.

Although he would always be mathematically correct to make that bet, the fact is he will be wrong (he will lose) 30% of the time.

He's never "wrong". the wins and losses are factored in together to give you positive equity in the hand. te outcome doesn't make the percentages right or wong; it doesn't even mean they guessed wrong; it's simply variance which is inherent in any percentage short of 100%.

Semantics.

You're just repeating what I already said. If you don't want to say the guy was 'wrong' on that hand, that specific outcome was not the right one for him, then fine. I have no problem with that.

[PLOL]

6TP winning this thread going away.

When intrade starts casting votes let me know, until then every poll has it a dead heat within margin of error.

You know, the polls that count REAL PEOPLE, not figments of the internets imagination.

So naturally you're going to immediately put some money on InTrade and start shorting Obama and ship it holla balla come election time?

There have been 417 national polls since 6/1. Number of times candidate polled at >= 50%? Obama: Just 31. Romney? ZERO. If you're looking only at polls that have them in a dead heat, then you're looking at polls that are statistical outliers.

[NaturalBornHustler]

6TP winning this thread going away.

When intrade starts casting votes let me know, until then every poll has it a dead heat within margin of error.

You know, the polls that count REAL PEOPLE, not figments of the internets imagination.

So naturally you're going to immediately put some money on InTrade and start shorting Obama and ship it holla balla come election time?

There have been 417 national polls since 6/1. Number of times candidate polled at >= 50%? Obama: Just 31. Romney? ZERO. If you're looking only at polls that have them in a dead heat, then you're looking at polls that are statistical outliers.

LOL, I guess rasmussen and gallup are "outliers" just like to 20 others that gave it 48-47 one way or the other.

[PLOL]

So naturally you're going to immediately put some money on InTrade and start shorting Obama and ship it holla balla come election time?

There have been 417 national polls since 6/1. Number of times candidate polled at >= 50%? Obama: Just 31. Romney? ZERO. If you're looking only at polls that have them in a dead heat, then you're looking at polls that are statistical outliers.

LOL, I guess rasmussen and gallup are "outliers" just like to 20 others that gave it 48-47 one way or the other.

The RCP average has Obama +2.9%.

But if you'd like to put some money on it, I'll happily give you 3 to 2 on Romney winning. Must escrow.

[Steve-O]

LOL, I guess rasmussen and gallup are "outliers" just like to 20 others that gave it 48-47 one way or the other.

The RCP average has Obama +2.9%.

But if you'd like to put some money on it, I'll happily give you 3 to 2 on Romney winning. Must escrow.

It amazes me how people simply refuse to understand things they are emotionally vested in when it comes to the outcome (like an election). Anyone who thinks the election is a dead heat is absolutley clueless. I guarantee if the numbers were reversed 6tp and the others would be singing InTrade's praises as a predictive market.

[PLOL]

And Nate Silver is one of my favorite homosexuals, so lets go easy on him.

[OSA]

And Nate Silver is one of my favorite homosexuals, so lets go easy on him.

And he lives in Brooklyn.

[PLOL]

And Nate Silver is one of my favorite homosexuals, so lets go easy on him.

And he lives in Brooklyn.

Do you know what card rooms he frequents? I know he basically plays poker semi-professionally. I'm assuming Parx?

[TheXFactor]

Mitt Romney needs to keep saying more outrageous shit, like "I will abolish the IRS".

Then he needs to teach middle-class families how to transfer their money to the Cayman Islands or
Switzerland so they can avoid paying federal taxes.

[OSA]

And he lives in Brooklyn.

Do you know what card rooms he frequents? I know he basically plays poker semi-professionally. I'm assuming Parx?

There are only like 2-3 card rooms frequented by enough people to be considered a "poker room" back when I used to play. Most of the action is in the city nowadays i think.

[NaturalBornHustler]

The RCP average has Obama +2.9%.

But if you'd like to put some money on it, I'll happily give you 3 to 2 on Romney winning. Must escrow.

It amazes me how people simply refuse to understand things they are emotionally vested in when it comes to the outcome (like an election). Anyone who thinks the election is a dead heat is absolutley clueless. I guarantee if the numbers were reversed 6tp and the others would be singing InTrade's praises as a predictive market.

Pretty much every poll of LIKELY VOTERS(you know, real live people who vote) has it within 3 fucking points. The only one with a delusional vested interest skewing viewpoints is YOU.

Lol at using some degenerate political gambling site as the be all end all into who is going to win.

Wonder what Karl Rove's poll says, that would be the equivalent of Nate Silver. About as worthless as it can get.

[Steve-O]

It amazes me how people simply refuse to understand things they are emotionally vested in when it comes to the outcome (like an election). Anyone who thinks the election is a dead heat is absolutley clueless. I guarantee if the numbers were reversed 6tp and the others would be singing InTrade's praises as a predictive market.

Pretty much every poll of LIKELY VOTERS(you know, real live people who vote) has it within 3 fucking points. The only one with a delusional vested interest skewing viewpoints is YOU.

Lol at using some degenerate political gambling site as the be all end all into who is going to win.

Wonder what Karl Rove's poll says, that would be the equivalent of Nate Silver. About as worthless as it can get.

So you feel someone betting money is less reliable than someone randomly called, aked if they are a likely voter, and then asked a series of randomly worded questions about voting? Look at the conglomerate of polls like PLOL said, the trend is very clear. I look at the polls that take the emotion out of it and rely strcilty on the numbers, InTrade and 538, even my Republican and like-minded Libertarians know 538's recent numbers is the deathblow for Romney unless he kills the debates