Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many of the posters here looked at him as though he was some kind of magical deity.....but he was nothing more than a one term wonder.
I've seen NFL/College football touts outa Jersey that had better track records in a far more widespread statistical field.
Football is a LOT easier to predict. The level of insanity this election? Yeah.
By FAR Nate Silver had the best data out there. As someone pointed out-gambling sites were giving 10-1 odds against Trump! Nate silver gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance. With the data he had he nailed it. When gamblers bet against him, and almost every single polling group was saying Trumps odds were insignificant. Silver had a methodology and he followed it.
Guessing the effect of the insanity could have gone either way. The vast majority bet against Donald at huge odds by doing that.
The only poll that mattered was the infamous C-D poll , which was correct in the end
Now going off on oblique tangents just ties you in knots . It seems you try to be incredibly intellectual but the whole facade just crumbles around you the more you try.
Are you in Mensa or a wannabe?...Seriously ?....forget the other tests , Mensa is the one
I can give you details on testing ....just pm me
The CD poll wasn't correct, though. The CD poll showed a Trump victory of 7-8%, I believe. That was about 8-9% off.
I'm not trying to be incredibly intellectual. I just don't post the drivel that is popular on this forum. Btw, I have test scores that qualify for the Triple Nine Society, which is twenty times more selective than Mensa. I'm not in it, however, because high IQ societies are stupid.
You're referencing the primary. That's a totally different beast. Trump winning the primary had a lot to do with when other people dropped out of the race, which is inherently hard to predict.
And yet, others did predict it.
Quote:
Yesterday morning, Silver's prediction was about a 28% chance for Trump. That is hardly "slim." That is a real shot, and it's possible that was correct.
If you tell me team B has a 28% chance of winning, I'm betting team A every time.
Quote:
Just because you made a correct prediction doesn't mean you did so based on sound reasoning and using solid evidence.
Nor does it mean I didn't. I provided my evidence when I said Trump would win Michigan and likely Pennsylvania. I was right. It wasn't just a guess. It was based upon solid reasoning.
Obama had turned his back on Detroit while providing billions to Wall Street. Sanders upset Hillary in Michigan. The writing was on the wall.
Coal played a huge roll this time. Pa. Is coal country also outside of Philly. I said Hillary would win Philly with Trump taking the rest. That Hillary had to get a massive turn out in Philly to win. She didn't, I was right.
Quote:
I might predict the weather better than the local weather guy, but if I do so by flipping a coin and drawing a weather condition out of a hat, I didn't actually have knowledge.
If you are not able discern arguments built upon facts and a coin flip, oh well.
Football is a LOT easier to predict. The level of insanity this election? Yeah.
By FAR Nate Silver had the best data out there. As someone pointed out-gambling sites were giving 10-1 odds against Trump! Nate silver gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance. With the data he had he nailed it. When gamblers bet against him, and almost every single polling group was saying Trumps odds were insignificant. Silver had a methodology and he followed it.
Guessing the effect of the insanity could have gone either way. The vast majority bet against Donald at huge odds by doing that.
The 10-1 odds are weighted in the houses favor!! I'm not talking about picking just winners and losers in terms of sports - I'm talking about picking winners and losers with weights attatched....All Nate Silver had to do is pick the winner with no spread - huge difference.
See my discussion below about this. Simply because one made a correct prediction doesn't mean they had a sound method of arriving at that prediction. This sort of phenomenon happens in the stock market all the time. Thousands of people are constantly making predictions, so when something actually does happen, there's always a group that can claim they predicted it. And guess what? They can point to reasoning they used as well. But that doesn't mean that they weren't simply blind squirrels finding nuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
If you tell me team B has a 28% chance of winning, I'm betting team A every time.
Of course, but that's irrelevant. 1 in 4 is not that much of a long shot, and it certainly isn't enough to conclude that the odds must have been incorrect if the 1 in 4 possibility occurs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Nor does it mean I didn't. I provided my evidence when I said Trump would win Michigan and likely Pennsylvania. I was right. It wasn't just a guess. It was based upon solid reasoning.
Obama had turned his back on Detroit while providing billions to Wall Street. Sanders upset Hillary in Michigan. The writing was on the wall.
Coal played a huge roll this time. Pa. Is coal country also outside of Philly. I said Hillary would win Philly with Trump taking the rest. That Hillary had to get a massive turn out in Philly to win. She didn't, I was right.
You were right, but that doesn't mean you were right for the right reasons. We probably don't have sufficient epistemic access to really answer this question. But like I said above, every major stock market event has people in your same situation who predicted the event. They can point to their reasoning as well. It is very hard to tell whether they arrived at the correct conclusion due to genuine insight or luck, however.
Here's a commonly-accepted standard for knowledge among philosophers: your belief must be truth-sensitive such that if the truth were otherwise you would believe otherwise. PA and MI were extremely close. You cannot honestly claim that you would have believed a different outcome would occur in PA and MI had conditions been slightly different such that HRC won either state. I simply don't believe that, which means you got lucky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
If you are not able discern arguments built upon facts and a coin flip, oh well.
I don't know what that has to do with my post. My point is that getting lucky precludes one from having knowledge. Simply because one reasons with facts doesn't mean that person isn't just getting lucky, either.
The 10-1 odds are weighted in the houses favor!! I'm not talking about picking just winners and losers in terms of sports - I'm talking about picking winners and losers with weights attatched....All Nate Silver had to do is pick the winner with no spread - huge difference.
Silver didn't "pick" anyone. He gave a probabilistic estimation, and he very well might have been correct. If you have a four-sided die and I tell you there's a 75% chance you won't roll a 3, should you conclude that my odds were incorrect if you do in fact roll a three?
The 10-1 odds are weighted in the houses favor!! I'm not talking about picking just winners and losers in terms of sports - I'm talking about picking winners and losers with weights attatched....All Nate Silver had to do is pick the winner with no spread - huge difference.
The winner of 52 contests, with extremely slim margins in some.
Given the poll data he did extremely well from a scientific standpoint.
Betting on the Cubs because you love them doesn't suddenly make you awesome when they win.
Giving the cubs bad odds doesn't make you horrible at it either.
I see no reason not to use Nate Silver in the future. He didn't let emotion guide him.
lol....any way you want to cut it and justify it, I was right, Silver was wrong.
If you had taken my advice and parlayed Michigan And Pennsylvania as Trump wins, you would be sitting pretty this morning.
When did I dispute that? My argument is that you got lucky.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
