While I'm no expert and I'm not gonna say it's a foolproof method. Wouldn't it be a decent idea to go with the actual for cash money betting odds in places where betting on the US presidential election is allowed?
Betting odds can have a sense of "herding" and like to overly favor distant underdogs; I'm more inclined to trust Nate Silver's willingness to stick to his model.
Wouldn't that suggest there's money to be made here? Anything overly favored when money is on the line is an opportunity.
Yes. If you want to probably make some money, bet on the outcomes that FiveThirtyEight thinks is more likely than the betting market.
In any other election I would say it's all but decided, but the shifts this season have been so dramatic and swift I hesitate to predict anything.
I'm curious about your thinking. We have a gold standard: 538.
Nate Silver says Hillary has an 80% chance to win, so I predict she has an 80% chance to win.
It's not perfect, but unless someone has pretty compelling arguments as to how their model is better, that prediction is not really meaningful.
538 can't factor in significant developments or scandals that could happen between now and November. I trust the numbers are right, but I also know the numbers can change.
While I'm no expert and I'm not gonna say it's a foolproof method. Wouldn't it be a decent idea to go with the actual for cash money betting odds in places where betting on the US presidential election is allowed?
Betting odds can have a sense of "herding" and like to overly favor distant underdogs; I'm more inclined to trust Nate Silver's willingness to stick to his model.
Wouldn't that suggest there's money to be made here? Anything overly favored when money is on the line is an opportunity.
Yes. If you want to probably make some money, bet on the outcomes that FiveThirtyEight thinks is more likely than the betting market.
Next assumption: this isn't a phd thesis.
This isn't hidden knowledge. If this works reliably, I expect someone is already doing this. If someone, or more likely a whole bunch of people, is/are already doing this, there's a point where the odds begin to reflect the person/people already doing this. Thereby making them more reflective of the actual odds.
In any other election I would say it's all but decided, but the shifts this season have been so dramatic and swift I hesitate to predict anything.
I'm curious about your thinking. We have a gold standard: 538.
Nate Silver says Hillary has an 80% chance to win, so I predict she has an 80% chance to win.
It's not perfect, but unless someone has pretty compelling arguments as to how their model is better, that prediction is not really meaningful.
538 can't factor in significant developments or scandals that could happen between now and November. I trust the numbers are right, but I also know the numbers can change.
They do! Part of the uncertainty in their forecast is due to factors like that.
Nate Silver says Hillary has an 80% chance to win, so I predict she has an 80% chance to win.
Listen to the podcast. Both Nate and Whiz Kid Harry Enten both caution against thinking it's decided yet, and point out that it's easily possible for the race to tighten, and for trump to be in with a chance. It's far from decided yet.
Nate Silver says Hillary has an 80% chance to win, so I predict she has an 80% chance to win.
Listen to the podcast. Both Nate and Whiz Kid Harry Enten both caution against thinking it's decided yet, and point out that it's easily possible for the race to tighten, and for trump to be in with a chance. It's far from decided yet.
And that is why I tell people to "Don't vote Trump"
Mike Barnicle: "If you were elected, what would you do about Aleppo?" Gary Johnson: "About?" MB: "Aleppo." GJ: "And what is Aleppo?" *One second stunned silence* MB: "You're kidding." GJ: "No." *Looks around at other panelists, confused*
Mike Barnicle: "If you were elected, what would you do about Aleppo?" Gary Johnson: "About?" MB: "Aleppo." GJ: "And what is Aleppo?" *One second stunned silence* MB: "You're kidding." GJ: "No." *Looks around at other panelists, confused*
My aunt in law was the director of the situation room during 9/11 (she actually was with Bush in Florida) She's pretty moderate and pragmatic but definitely has leaned Republican in recent years.
Jill Stein is now my favorite candidate, because who doesn't want a President who protested for Indian rights so hard she got arrested under the charge of "mischief". I'll still be voting Clinton, if only because the only thing that would fuck America up more than plurality voting is instant runoff, but I don't like her as much.
As you've already pointed out Greg: it's Andrew hypocrite about slavery and mostly responsible for the trail of tears Jackson.
Sorry I don't feed trolls.
My apologies. I was just trying to echo some of what you've said. I guess I'm not educated enough to comment. or didn't read critically. either way. I'm not trolling, just ignorant. sorry, again.
Trump is basically accusing literally everyone of lying about what happened in his classified briefing that he started blabbing about the other day. The media, the Democrats, the intelligence community, generals, and witnesses.
How is it that people believe a guy who says that everyone is lying, but him?
Comments
This isn't hidden knowledge. If this works reliably, I expect someone is already doing this. If someone, or more likely a whole bunch of people, is/are already doing this, there's a point where the odds begin to reflect the person/people already doing this. Thereby making them more reflective of the actual odds.
Where's the flaw in my logic?
Mike Barnicle: "If you were elected, what would you do about Aleppo?"
Gary Johnson: "About?"
MB: "Aleppo."
GJ: "And what is Aleppo?"
*One second stunned silence*
MB: "You're kidding."
GJ: "No." *Looks around at other panelists, confused*
Source.
My aunt in law was the director of the situation room during 9/11 (she actually was with Bush in Florida) She's pretty moderate and pragmatic but definitely has leaned Republican in recent years.
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
That was easy.
Sincerely,
Science
What's a leppo?
How is it that people believe a guy who says that everyone is lying, but him?
Wikileaks excludes evidence of 2 billion Euro transfer between Syrian Regime and Russian government-owned bank, threatens retribution against journalists who pursue the story.
My Aunt in Law is making the Media rounds, Always thought she'd make a good VP candidate :-p