Thread Rating:

redietz
redietz
Joined: Jun 5, 2019
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 767
Thanks for this post from:
FinsRule
October 28th, 2020 at 9:26:49 AM permalink
Quote: Lando

It's funny to me that people don't think something else is going on and the historical methods not only are wrong but they can't capture what and why; yet it's easy for us who see the fraud of the Nate Silver's of the world.

If you think Joe Biden/Kamala Harris ticket wins against an incumbent, you better be getting money. I can give you all sorts of historical precedents (Primary model, woman on ticket, incumbent) that are MAJOR factors that are being disregarded based on pure politics and propaganda. Still, I wouldn't make too much fun of a bet on them.

To suggest that Joe Biden is going to win 80+ elections out of 100 is pure insanity.

I'll come back either way, but it will be to gloat since this is by far the best bet of the year. If not for coronavirus, it would have been among the best bets of my lifetime (and I cashed Trump at 100-1 in 2015 and 4-1 before the 2016 election).




Well, see, this is where my interest lies. Not with the election, but with the way people process information and overrate their own expertise.

So you have statistical models and people with survey doctorates and companies that have invested in doing this very kind of projection that were wrong (once) electorally, but dead accurate popular vote-wise. And then you have individuals who, for unknown or unfathomable reasons, decide they know better than the models and the experts and the companies.

So the real interest, for me, is why do people believe in their own expertise and not respect the actual experts? This seems to be a relatively new and snowballing phenomenon, and I'll plug Tom Nichols' book, The Death of Expertise, again.

People have overblown ideas regarding their own expertise, especially in subjects in which they have no actual expertise, and American culture has trained people in some sort of "believing makes it so" nonsense.

And I guess that's why we have casinos. LOL.

Now Lando in the post above is anonymous. So my other questions regard to what extent the explosion of anonymous communication has emboldened folks with no expertise to (1) believe they have expertise (2) ignore actual experts, and (3) state their theories or ideas in terms significantly more strident, kind of like proclamations, with much more degree of certainty, than what they would do if not anonymous. Graduates of the Stephen A. Smith School of Proclamation, more or less. How does online anonymous interaction create this certainty or the inclination to state certainty? And actual certainty versus stated or advertised certainty are of course very different things. So that's interesting on its own.
"You can't breathe dead hippo waking, sleeping, and eating, and at the same time keep your precarious grip on existence."
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23603
Thanks for this post from:
FinsRule
October 28th, 2020 at 9:32:33 AM permalink
I just spent about another two hours revising my newsletter, to be more forceful in recommending betting Biden laying 2 to 1.

Here is the updated version.

Betting the 2020 Election
Last edited by: Wizard on Oct 28, 2020
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 123
  • Posts: 3781
October 28th, 2020 at 9:48:11 AM permalink
I just bet $400. For me, thatís a lot. The biggest single wager I have ever made actually...
mcallister3200
mcallister3200
Joined: Dec 29, 2013
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 2856
October 28th, 2020 at 10:31:24 AM permalink
Quote: redietz

Well, see, this is where my interest lies. Not with the election, but with the way people process information and overrate their own expertise.

So you have statistical models and people with survey doctorates and companies that have invested in doing this very kind of projection that were wrong (once) electorally, but dead accurate popular vote-wise. And then you have individuals who, for unknown or unfathomable reasons, decide they know better than the models and the experts and the companies.

So the real interest, for me, is why do people believe in their own expertise and not respect the actual experts? This seems to be a relatively new and snowballing phenomenon, and I'll plug Tom Nichols' book, The Death of Expertise, again.

People have overblown ideas regarding their own expertise, especially in subjects in which they have no actual expertise, and American culture has trained people in some sort of "believing makes it so" nonsense.

And I guess that's why we have casinos. LOL.

Now Lando in the post above is anonymous. So my other questions regard to what extent the explosion of anonymous communication has emboldened folks with no expertise to (1) believe they have expertise (2) ignore actual experts, and (3) state their theories or ideas in terms significantly more strident, kind of like proclamations, with much more degree of certainty, than what they would do if not anonymous. Graduates of the Stephen A. Smith School of Proclamation, more or less. How does online anonymous interaction create this certainty or the inclination to state certainty? And actual certainty versus stated or advertised certainty are of course very different things. So that's interesting on its own.



They might have got a whiff of Silverís NBA trash modeling and carried that opinion over to his election stuff.
Ace2
Ace2 
Joined: Oct 2, 2017
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 1113
October 28th, 2020 at 10:34:46 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

You are describing the fire bet to a tee. When you place the bet you are thousands to one against. But after hitting 5 points the odds have changed significantly. By betting against the number you need for the fire bet, you can essentially cash out if you want.

Good point, I hadnít considered the fire bet. And I guess the All Tall/Small bets would be similar

However I donít see why youíd hedge them. I assume the max bet is low, so it wouldnít be a life changing amount of money if you hit it.
Itís all about making that GTA
ams288
ams288
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 5466
October 28th, 2020 at 10:53:44 AM permalink
I found this to be very helpful. There will have to be a much larger polling error than in 2016 for Trump to win, and of course the polling error could turn out to be in Bidenís favor (a la 2012):

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
redietz
redietz
Joined: Jun 5, 2019
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 767
Thanks for this post from:
FinsRule
October 28th, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I just spent about another two hours revising my newsletter, to be more forceful in recommending betting Biden laying 2 to 1.

Here is the updated version.

Betting the 2020 Election




You talked me into it. I found a -190, but don't have enough money there, so I'll use a -193. What the hell. I really do see this as a -450 minimum appropriate line if no court challenges loomed.

I just want to add, if Trump is having a rally today in Bullhead City (AZ), the election is a lock. Why would anyone schedule a rally in Bullhead City? May as well head to Frackville (PA), my hometown of 6,000, or Centralia, the town down the road with the famous mine fire and six current residents.
Last edited by: redietz on Oct 28, 2020
"You can't breathe dead hippo waking, sleeping, and eating, and at the same time keep your precarious grip on existence."
Lando
Lando
Joined: Aug 14, 2014
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 50
October 28th, 2020 at 12:11:24 PM permalink
Quote: redietz

Well, see, this is where my interest lies. Not with the election, but with the way people process information and overrate their own expertise.

So you have statistical models and people with survey doctorates and companies that have invested in doing this very kind of projection that were wrong (once) electorally, but dead accurate popular vote-wise. And then you have individuals who, for unknown or unfathomable reasons, decide they know better than the models and the experts and the companies.

So the real interest, for me, is why do people believe in their own expertise and not respect the actual experts? This seems to be a relatively new and snowballing phenomenon, and I'll plug Tom Nichols' book, The Death of Expertise, again.

People have overblown ideas regarding their own expertise, especially in subjects in which they have no actual expertise, and American culture has trained people in some sort of "believing makes it so" nonsense.

And I guess that's why we have casinos. LOL.

Now Lando in the post above is anonymous. So my other questions regard to what extent the explosion of anonymous communication has emboldened folks with no expertise to (1) believe they have expertise (2) ignore actual experts, and (3) state their theories or ideas in terms significantly more strident, kind of like proclamations, with much more degree of certainty, than what they would do if not anonymous. Graduates of the Stephen A. Smith School of Proclamation, more or less. How does online anonymous interaction create this certainty or the inclination to state certainty? And actual certainty versus stated or advertised certainty are of course very different things. So that's interesting on its own.



You are the other poster, along with Fins, that I have responded to on this - his posts are more about asking for data, while yours are rightly directed but you think incorrectly in the larger picture. I agree with you that on average, people overestimate all manner of things about themselves. But that's not what we are talking about. Nor are we talking about buzzwords that you associate with veracity, like "expert", "model" etc that mean nothing in and of themselves. Those of us who are intelligent (and I know you doubt this) look at experts and see what, and more importantly, WHY they are saying what they are saying.

To Fins and you on the data and "expert" idea or data: Why wouldn't you use Trafalgar? Most of your experts were embarrassingly wrong last time and when they were right it was because they got Obama's elections correct, lol. If you can't see through that, however long ago it is, you purposefully being closed minded, and mainly because you are a partisan, I have noticed 95%.

You don't know anything about my intelligence and qualification, you might be right on average again assuming XYZ, but funny enough, you are wrong here. Regardless, I still bet and won on the last Trump election. Hint: it wasn't luck.

If you don't know or see why polls like Quinnipiac, widely accepted AT LEAST in averages, are a joke ... YOU my friend haven't looked at the data, the experts, the bias, the fraud.

It's there. But you'll see again next Tuesday, and I'll be here. What will be silly is when you claim I don't deserve credit.
Lando
Lando
Joined: Aug 14, 2014
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 50
October 28th, 2020 at 12:15:25 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I just spent about another two hours revising my newsletter, to be more forceful in recommending betting Biden laying 2 to 1.

Here is the updated version.

Betting the 2020 Election



I feel bad that CNN talked you out of winning 5 figures. Another sad day, another victim of CNN.

The extension of media propaganda and inability to understand polling is really funny around here.

I have $12k on Trump all at prices between +150 and +180. Believe it or not, I'm just telling you.

There is no path to Biden victory, and when I say that, I mean in only 5% of the elections is it squeaky close.
billryan
billryan 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 202
  • Posts: 12037
October 28th, 2020 at 12:22:36 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I had one $5000 at +110 odds on Trump. I just paid $1,500 to surrender it. Time will tell if it was a good decision.



Why not put a bet on Biden instead of surrendering?
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.

  • Jump to: