Who was the genius that posted that "highly scientific" poll that assured us of a clinton victory? Apparently the pollster was some hot shit mathematician or whatever.
Not really. In the last week or two leading up to the election, he actually caught a lot of shit from the Huffington Post and a few other further left leaning media sites for saying that Trump had a legitimate shot at winning the election.
Fuck Nate Silver. Cartoonist Scott Adams had been predicting a Trump win almost since the very beginning. His predictions are scary-accurate and I don't believe he's ever once been wrong. The man is a wizard, and he does it all without math or science, just an exceptional understanding of psychology and persuasion. Ol' Nate just looks at the polls like everyone else.
Edit: Forgot to mention that Nate Silver also jokingly predicted that the Cubs would win the World Series and that Trump would win the election. Irony.
Ronnie B said it a few months ago too. Something like "I don't care about the polls. I've been outside the city. I see all the signs in people's yards."
I tried to. I offered $100 to any of my friends on Trump winning. Thought I could be rooooollllliinnnn innnnn the doooouuughhhhh like Ted Sheckler, but all my friends were too much of pussies to take the bet.
I put $850 on Trump in June at 2.7-to-1 odds. Over the intervening months there were opportunities for better odds (I think 6-to-1 was the best I saw). After fees and what not I got paid out close to $2,000.
Nate Silver was actually the closest to getting it right because he left the possibility open of a widespread polling error (which is what happened in the Great Lakes/Rust Belt). Most had Hillary at 90+%.
I didn't post it but please don't embarrass yourself, if someone says "30% trump win" and he wins, the prediction isn't "wrong". Being right or wrong about a prediction has to do with calibration, not who you assign >50% actually winning. The person you're probably talking about is Nate Silver, and his predictions were far more accurate than anyone else, other places were giving Clinton like 90%+.
You think you're being clever but that's actually right. If you assign 30% to the earth exploding, and repeat that prediction 100 times and it never explodes, your prediction is very poorly calibrated. If it explodes 30 out of 100 times then you're probably right.
So there's no way of knowing how well calibrated a prediction is until after the event it's predicting has taken place, and since general elections aren't repeatable there's literally no way of correctly evaluating election predictions. Thanks for proving the point that Nate Silver is a dumb Jew.
No i'm just saying it's more way more complicated than you guys are making it out. Statistics isn't republican or democratic you dunce. I don't know why i'm wasting my time when all you guys really wanted to do was make fun a jew...
Don't act all high and mighty when you demonstrated in two posts how you know just as little as the rest of us. First you say Nate Silver was "far more accurate", then you describe a procedure for determining prediction accuracy which is completely impossible to carry out when talking about election predictions. As far as we know, Trump had a 1% chance of winning and just happened to pull it off. If that was the case then Nate Silver's predictions were actually further from the truth. Point being you lack the information required to make the statements you're making, but you're making them anyway and then trying to act like you're somehow smarter than those of us who come here to engage in kike humor. How about this, Mr. Intellectual, the next time someone disagrees with you don't accuse them of being partisan despite the fact that they never once mentioned any party -- stupid arguments make clear your ignorance. Now go home and get your fucking shine box.
That's why I said it's more complicated, we can guess that he was more accurate because he gave more probability mass to Trump than other experts who also looked at the data. That suggests his model was more accurate, but it's not a guarantee. Like someone who didn't have any data at all and guessed 90% trump victory is probably less accurate because they didn't have a model to back it up, even though that individual prediction looks like it's more accurate. I don't think you're being partisan I think you're just being lazy because it's easier to make a kike joke, i mean go ahead, but you're still wrong. I think Nassim Taleb had a model that showed around 50% using a model more sensitive to fat tails, so he might have been more accurate but it's still being debated in the quant community.
Edit: I recommend "Superforcasting" by Phillip Tetlock, and "Black Swan" by Taleb, and "Signal and the Noise" by Silver if you actually want to know more about forecasting. Also Robin Hanson and Andrew Gelman's blogs are great.
No i'm just saying it's more way more complicated than you guys are making it out. Statistics isn't republican or democratic you dunce. I don't know why i'm wasting my time when all you guys really wanted to do was make fun a jew...
35 comments
12 takyon_deathyon 2016-11-12
Nate Silver. He spent the entire election cycle saying, "Trump's finished this week, just watch!"
5 cosko 2016-11-12
Yeah he's the worst. He said trump had less of a chance than the cubs. Both won. He gave trump a 12% chance in October. http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/election/article112491722.html
2 bonniesretardsister 2016-11-12
He was on the news election night looking like he was going to cry because blowing this and the Cubs predictions probably killed his career.
2 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-11-12
Um actually, his botched predictions are actually a huge victory for Nate Silver NICE TRY WITH THE HATE THO
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/
2 Psychobob35 2016-11-12
He gave Trump more of a chance than most pollsters did, to be fair.
2 bowmanrtr 2016-11-12
Not really. In the last week or two leading up to the election, he actually caught a lot of shit from the Huffington Post and a few other further left leaning media sites for saying that Trump had a legitimate shot at winning the election.
-1 [deleted] 2016-11-12
[deleted]
6 cosko 2016-11-12
Maybe he should have listened this time tho.
1 shmigshmog 2016-11-12
When it comes to humans, pay some attention to the noise.
9 John_Gulbunny 2016-11-12
Probably /u/ShadowbannedKeithM
6 [deleted] 2016-11-12
Lol. Radio silence since Tuesday.
1 shmigshmog 2016-11-12
Delish
4 ElectricHellKnight 2016-11-12
Fuck Nate Silver. Cartoonist Scott Adams had been predicting a Trump win almost since the very beginning. His predictions are scary-accurate and I don't believe he's ever once been wrong. The man is a wizard, and he does it all without math or science, just an exceptional understanding of psychology and persuasion. Ol' Nate just looks at the polls like everyone else.
Edit: Forgot to mention that Nate Silver also jokingly predicted that the Cubs would win the World Series and that Trump would win the election. Irony.
9 holodog 2016-11-12
Ronnie B said it a few months ago too. Something like "I don't care about the polls. I've been outside the city. I see all the signs in people's yards."
5 jellyravel23 2016-11-12
Wish I'd bet now. At one point it was 150/1.
2 ElectricHellKnight 2016-11-12
I tried to. I offered $100 to any of my friends on Trump winning. Thought I could be rooooollllliinnnn innnnn the doooouuughhhhh like Ted Sheckler, but all my friends were too much of pussies to take the bet.
2 BestGetOutOfMoyWay 2016-11-12
I made 1200 bucks
1 jellyravel23 2016-11-12
How much did you bet?
3 BestGetOutOfMoyWay 2016-11-12
I put $850 on Trump in June at 2.7-to-1 odds. Over the intervening months there were opportunities for better odds (I think 6-to-1 was the best I saw). After fees and what not I got paid out close to $2,000.
1 jellyravel23 2016-11-12
Can't believe you guys have to pay fees on winnings, we pay no tax or fees here at all
5 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-11-12
a land free of jews you say?
1 VladiRad 2016-11-12
Nate Silver was actually the closest to getting it right because he left the possibility open of a widespread polling error (which is what happened in the Great Lakes/Rust Belt). Most had Hillary at 90+%.
1 rollerboogie 2016-11-12
Why is this in /r/opieandanthony ?
OPIE SUCKS!!!
-8 spooky_rationality 2016-11-12
I didn't post it but please don't embarrass yourself, if someone says "30% trump win" and he wins, the prediction isn't "wrong". Being right or wrong about a prediction has to do with calibration, not who you assign >50% actually winning. The person you're probably talking about is Nate Silver, and his predictions were far more accurate than anyone else, other places were giving Clinton like 90%+.
16 [deleted] 2016-11-12
Lol
11 takyon_deathyon 2016-11-12
shut up faggot
10 TheDarkFezRises 2016-11-12
Holy shit! We found Nate Aluminium's reddit account.
3 spooky_rationality 2016-11-12
Actually my name is Jon Leibowitz.
3 [deleted] 2016-11-12
((()))
7 cosko 2016-11-12
He completely fucked up. Why do you feel the need to white knight him?
"Thus, as of early Monday evening, our polls-only model gave Hillary Clinton an 85 percent chance of winning the popular vote but just a 75 percentchance of winning the Electoral College. There’s roughly a 10 percent chance of Trump’s winning the White House while losing the popular vote, in other words." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-odds-of-an-electoral-college-popular-vote-split-are-increasing/
This guy is fawkin good
Edit: exit polls are worthless
6 [deleted] 2016-11-12
30% chance the Earth spontaneously combusts tomorrow morning. If it doesn't, the prediction isn't "wrong".
-4 spooky_rationality 2016-11-12
You think you're being clever but that's actually right. If you assign 30% to the earth exploding, and repeat that prediction 100 times and it never explodes, your prediction is very poorly calibrated. If it explodes 30 out of 100 times then you're probably right.
3 [deleted] 2016-11-12
So there's no way of knowing how well calibrated a prediction is until after the event it's predicting has taken place, and since general elections aren't repeatable there's literally no way of correctly evaluating election predictions. Thanks for proving the point that Nate Silver is a dumb Jew.
0 spooky_rationality 2016-11-12
No i'm just saying it's more way more complicated than you guys are making it out. Statistics isn't republican or democratic you dunce. I don't know why i'm wasting my time when all you guys really wanted to do was make fun a jew...
4 [deleted] 2016-11-12
Don't act all high and mighty when you demonstrated in two posts how you know just as little as the rest of us. First you say Nate Silver was "far more accurate", then you describe a procedure for determining prediction accuracy which is completely impossible to carry out when talking about election predictions. As far as we know, Trump had a 1% chance of winning and just happened to pull it off. If that was the case then Nate Silver's predictions were actually further from the truth. Point being you lack the information required to make the statements you're making, but you're making them anyway and then trying to act like you're somehow smarter than those of us who come here to engage in kike humor. How about this, Mr. Intellectual, the next time someone disagrees with you don't accuse them of being partisan despite the fact that they never once mentioned any party -- stupid arguments make clear your ignorance. Now go home and get your fucking shine box.
1 spooky_rationality 2016-11-12
That's why I said it's more complicated, we can guess that he was more accurate because he gave more probability mass to Trump than other experts who also looked at the data. That suggests his model was more accurate, but it's not a guarantee. Like someone who didn't have any data at all and guessed 90% trump victory is probably less accurate because they didn't have a model to back it up, even though that individual prediction looks like it's more accurate. I don't think you're being partisan I think you're just being lazy because it's easier to make a kike joke, i mean go ahead, but you're still wrong. I think Nassim Taleb had a model that showed around 50% using a model more sensitive to fat tails, so he might have been more accurate but it's still being debated in the quant community.
Edit: I recommend "Superforcasting" by Phillip Tetlock, and "Black Swan" by Taleb, and "Signal and the Noise" by Silver if you actually want to know more about forecasting. Also Robin Hanson and Andrew Gelman's blogs are great.
0 spooky_rationality 2016-11-12
No i'm just saying it's more way more complicated than you guys are making it out. Statistics isn't republican or democratic you dunce. I don't know why i'm wasting my time when all you guys really wanted to do was make fun a jew...
6 cosko 2016-11-12
Maybe he should have listened this time tho.
1 shmigshmog 2016-11-12
When it comes to humans, pay some attention to the noise.
2 bonniesretardsister 2016-11-12
He was on the news election night looking like he was going to cry because blowing this and the Cubs predictions probably killed his career.