25 Oct
3:01pm, 25 Oct 2024
23,311 posts
|
rf_fozzy
All of these things have been discussed on various podcasts - 538 have talked about all of these issues in the past few episodes. They even briefly discuss betting markets - although less so since the compulsive gambler Silver left. But Paul, you're not going to convince me of the predictive quality of betting markets on **partisan** events without evidence and I've not seen enough data to support that the clear inherent biases in them can be ignored. In the end, they use polling, plus a whole dollop of emotional input from the gambler, to make the prediction. So it's like taking the data and then dumping an irrational layer on top based on gut feel or partisan belief to predict a result. Why not just use the data and take the irrationality out? Obviously models have priors and assumptions, but these are usually written down and can be critiqued. A person's partisan desire and emotion cannot be critiqued in the same way. That's why they are inherently flawed. |
|
25 Oct
3:05pm, 25 Oct 2024
23,312 posts
|
rf_fozzy
The other issue - particularly with betting markets in this election cycle is that several of those are self-selecting in that they are cryptocurrency only. Most people don't have cryptocurrency and the ones that do tend to lean towards the libertarian right. Particularly in the US. |
25 Oct
3:15pm, 25 Oct 2024
9,954 posts
|
simbil
rf_fozzy wrote: And simbil - That's me  rf_fozzy wrote: saying that professional pollsters don't know what they're doing Is that what I said, I'll have to read back and check!? rf_fozzy wrote: is armchair quarterbacking of the highest degree. No no no, the highest degree of armchair quarterbacking would be something like claiming a mate in the pub is as good or better than a doctor at diagnosing illness! rf_fozzy wrote: It's like saying you trust your mate down the pub to diagnose a disease better than a doctor. Oh my mistake! It is like that? rf_fozzy wrote: Unless your mate down the pub is also a doctor, which should you trust? The doctor! Do I win a prize? I'll be amazed if that formatting works. Just a bit of sillyness, as you were :D |
25 Oct
3:20pm, 25 Oct 2024
6,790 posts
|
paulcook
Pollsters, betting companies, magic octopus, Johnny down the street. It's all baloney anyway. Only poll that counts is on Bonfire Night (*). The rest just make us debate / worry / rejoice, delete as applicable. * unless ... |
|
25 Oct
3:23pm, 25 Oct 2024
23,313 posts
|
rf_fozzy
paulcook wrote: Pollsters, betting companies, magic octopus, Johnny down the street. It's all baloney anyway. This is the brexiters view. Equating the expert view with the bloke down the pub. "We have had enough of experts." Have more respect for professional pollsters. There is a scientific basis behind their methods. That's what really annoys me about this semi-regular debate about whether polling can be trusted. |
25 Oct
3:24pm, 25 Oct 2024
33,313 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
I only bet once a year, and when I leave the Wood Street branch of Ladbrokes after placing my widow's mite on the horse with the best name, "winning at life" is not my immediate impression of the clientele within. Forbes: The crypto-based Polymarket gives Trump a 66% chance of prevailing over Harris, the first time his odds have risen over 65% since July 21, the day Biden dropped his reelection bid. The trend toward Trump comes as Polymarket looks into the source of recent bets which contributed to the tilt and whether they came from U.S. entities, Bloomberg reported Tuesday, citing unnamed sources. Polymarket operates as an offshore betting operation, unlike Kalshi and PredictIt, making it illegal for individuals in the U.S. to wager on election outcomes on the blockchain-based site. Bloomberg noted the $43 million placed on Trump and other victorious Republican election scenarios across four Polymarket accounts are not based domestically, according to an anonymous source, corroborating a Friday report in Reuters. Blockchain analyst Miguel Morel told the Wall Street Journal last week there’s “strong reason to believe” the four prolific accounts are the “same entity.” ahhhh |
|
25 Oct
3:25pm, 25 Oct 2024
23,314 posts
|
rf_fozzy
simbil wrote: Is that what I said, I'll have to read back and check!? simbil wrote:
jThis is why the polling numbers and minutiae around polls don't resonate that much with me - unless the sample is good, the whole process is flawed from there on. |
|
25 Oct
3:25pm, 25 Oct 2024
6,791 posts
|
paulcook
rf_fozzy wrote: paulcook wrote:Pollsters, betting companies, magic octopus, Johnny down the street. It's all baloney anyway. This is the brexiters view. Equating the expert view with the bloke down the pub. "We have had enough of experts." Have more respect for professional pollsters. There is a scientific basis behind their methods. That's what really annoys me about this semi-regular debate about whether polling can be trusted. It's nothing to do with trust. Where did I say that? It's about only one poll puts someone in the White House. The rest are fluff and debate (or if you believe that persuasion, leading people's choice of vote). |
|
25 Oct
3:26pm, 25 Oct 2024
33,314 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
Those anonymous offshore crypto betting entities. They have the inside track alright.
|
25 Oct
3:28pm, 25 Oct 2024
51,238 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
You lot *are* funny. G
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
