[thepossum]

I disagree
They are usually very reliable predictors as well as being designed to make money

If they were unreliable wouldn't it lose you money

But obviously in any one off event there are many interesting philosophical and statistical arguments as to what a probability or odds even mean

And I'm not an old school bookie but I'm sure there used to be interesting anomalous situations with odds

I was just commenting by way of support for Nate who's work I have followed for years

I still want to know the probability of another attempt at insurrection

[hrothgar]

thepossum, on 2024-September-18, 05:41, said:

I disagree
They are usually very reliable predictors as well as being designed to make money

If they were unreliable wouldn't it lose you money

But obviously in any one off event there are many interesting philosophical and statistical arguments as to what a probability or odds even mean

And I'm not an old school bookie but I'm sure there used to be interesting anomalous situations with odds

I was just commenting by way of support for Nate who's work I have followed for years

I still want to know the probability of another attempt at insurrection

Once again

These markets are very very thin and there are a number of people actively working to manipulate them.

I'll note in passing that Polymarket is currently owned by Peter Thiel (as is Nate Cohen)
Thiel is hardly a disinterested party in this all...

> If they were unreliable wouldn't it lose you money

1. Was Musk interested in making money when he purchase Twitter?
2. Pump and dump schemes are great ways to make money
3. People are often willing to burn money to signal tribal affiliation

The following chart shows the trading price for Trump's SPAC over time

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/DJT

Do you really believe that the share price on any given day signified anything about the fundamentals of the company?

[jillybean]

I am reading Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson.
Musk's purchase of Twitter may have been motivated less by profit and more by his belief that Twitter was a "dark collusion between deep state actors conspiring with big tech and legacy media to preserve power". Musk now controls the content moderators.

But, we are getting off topic.

[Winstonm]

jillybean, on 2024-September-18, 06:27, said:

I am reading Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson.
Musk's purchase of Twitter may have been motivated less by profit and more by his belief that Twitter was a "dark collusion between deep state actors conspiring with big tech and legacy media to preserve power". Musk now controls the content moderators.

But, we are getting off topic.

The oligarchs who are trying hard to use Trump as an American Putin proxi are very much on topic so please continue to post.

[kenberg]

As to predictions, odds, and me:


The Fed is going to announce a change in interest rates today and that will affect stock prices. What should I do? Simple. I ignore it. I should do something only if I have a better understanding of what will happen than do those who have already analyzed things and made their choices. I do not have any such insight.

As to horse racing, the bookies make money. So the average better loses money. So I can make money only if I understand horese racing better than the average better does. I don't, nor do I wish to. So I don't bet.

Thiis all seems both simple and logical to me, but there are large numbers of people going hopelessly in debt by placing bets. I have no idea how to convince them not to do this.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2024-September-18, 07:34, said:

As to predictions, odds, and me:


The Fed is going to announce a change in interest rates today and that will affect stock prices. What should I do? Simple. I ignore it. I should do something only if I have a better understanding of what will happen than do those who have already analyzed things and made their choices. I do not have any such insight.

As to horse racing, the bookies make money. So the average better loses money. So I can make money only if I understand horese racing better than the average better does. I don't, nor do I wish to. So I don't bet.

Thiis all seems both simple and logical to me, but there are large numbers of people going hopelessly in debt by placing bets. I have no idea how to convince them not to do this.

The issue is you cannot. No one can. People have to change their own minds. This becomes increasingly difficult the more vested you are in the beliefs.

The difficulty with Trump followers was explained marvelously by National Security reporter Marcy Wheeler. There are two truth for Trump faithful. 1) What Trump says. 2) That anything said to disprove his lies is ignored as deep state or liberal propaganda, left-wing press bias, or from other Trump haters.

As Ms. Wheeler pointed out, the way to attack Trump is the way Kamala Harris did in the debate, to make him look weak and small,. His schtick only works if he is perceived as a ""strong man", an Orban or a Putin lookalike. When he is explosed as a true weakling, the doubt begins to creep into the righteous believers that just maybe that Kool Aid he is pouring is poison.

In case anyone would like to go to the source rather than rely on my recap of what Marcy Wheeler said. https://www.emptywhe...truths-problem/

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2024-September-17, 08:02, said:

A guy is on a golf course, he has an AK-47 with a scope and a camera. Oh, he is just out for a stroll, exercising his second amendment rights?

Cellphone records show that he was hiding out on the golf course for 12 hours before the SS agent noticed him. So his "stroll" was in the middle of the night, when he was unlikely to be noticed regardless of what he was carrying.

One of the late night comics last night made a good point: his golf course is where he should have built the wall.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2024-September-18, 07:34, said:

As to horse racing, the bookies make money. So the average better loses money. So I can make money only if I understand horese racing better than the average better does. I don't, nor do I wish to. So I don't bet.

There's a big difference between betting and odds on a horse race versus a market or election: Feedback effects.

The horse and jockey aren't aware of the odds, so they can't change how they behave during the race. They're all just trying their hardest to win.

But when you bet on an election, you're not betting on some independent event. The betters influence the outcome, since they're also voters. Also, some voters read the predictions, and it may make them more or less likely to vote ("it's already a foregone conclusion, my vote doesn't matter" or "uh oh, my candidate is behind, I'd better get out and vote").

In sports, we don't allow the players to bet on their own games, even if they're betting on themselves (and it would be really problematic if they bet against themselves). We also don't allow insider trading in financial markets. But there's no similar restriction in election markets.

[johnu]

kenberg, on 2024-September-18, 07:34, said:

As to horse racing, the bookies make money. So the average better loses money. So I can make money only if I understand horese racing better than the average better does. I don't, nor do I wish to. So I don't bet.

I used to work with at the same company as a couple of guys who were into horse racing, harness racing in particular. So much interest that they bought a stake in one of the horses. They spent hours a day studying the racing forms, plus, as owners, they had inside information about the horses racing at their track. These were very smart guys, they kept track of their betting results, and they barely broke even, or lost a little every year due to the track vigorish, (aka parimutuel betting pool).

[helene_t]

johnu, on 2024-September-17, 18:28, said:

Betting odds are not designed to accurate predict the outcome of an event. Betting odds are designed to get equivalent amounts of money bet on the various outcomes, so that the bookie doesn't lose money on the bet whichever way the event plays out. Then the bookie can take his vigorish, the cost of making a bet, to the bank for a steady income.

Depends. Bookies sometimes estimate the chance of an event happening, sometimes they estimate the number of people backing the event, sometimes a mixture of both. And some work like miniature versions of Betfair in that they sell an off-balance product where pundits bet against other pundits rather than against the bookie, so that the bookie can run with zero risk but a very thin margin.

Probability-based approaches are best for repeated series of small and very modellable markets, such as for example a tennis match where you can bet on each individual serve rather than each match or tourney. Presidential elections are big, low-frequency and not very modellable markets so more suitable for a volume-based or off-balance approach.

[pilowsky]

Unsurprisingly, the accuracy of betting markets at predicting US presidential elections has been examined fairly carefully.
Here's the result.

Quote

Of the last 35 U.S. presidential elections where there was a clear betting favorite by the odds, that favorite has won 27 times, or 77.1% of the elections. Note that there were 3 elections (1880, 1952, and 1980) where the candidates were tied in the final odds.

[kenberg]

pilowsky, on 2024-September-19, 05:58, said:

Unsurprisingly, the accuracy of betting markets at predicting US presidential elections has been examined fairly carefully.
Here's the result.

[/size][/font]

Quote

Of the last 35 U.S. presidential elections where there was a clear betting favorite by the odds, that favorite has won 27 times, or 77.1% of the elections. Note that there were 3 elections (1880, 1952, and 1980) where the candidates were tied in the final odds.

But from this we should conclude what?

The 1948 election was close, and at age 9 I was too young to have an opinion but I would have bet my bike on Eisenhower in 1952 and bet my car on Ike in 56. Less certaity in 1960 but LBJ was beating Goldwater in 64, no need to read the odds. Nixon over Humphrey seemed highly likely in 68. And Reagan or Carter in 80? Reagan or Mondale in 84? If the oddsmakers success rate was 77% I think I could have tied, or maybe beaten, that just by being alive and reading the paper.

Back to politics.

I don't yet have a firm belief as to who will win this time. I fear it will be Trump. I think Harris has done some things right, but I very much think that she and her fellow Dems need to sit down and carefully consider why it is that she is not winning overwhelmingly, as she should be. "People are stupid" is a handy reason, but unfortunately it suggests there is nothing to be done. A quickie IQ stimulant is lacking. After my second marriage came to an end I decided that it was time to give some thought to my own mistakes rather than concentrating on the faults of my ex-wives. Becky and I will soon be celebrating our thirtieth wedding anniversary so there just migt be something to be said for looking at, and attempting to correct, one's own shortcomings.

[Winstonm]

I read an article the other day https://www.huffpost...4b0f6ea72e2b59c about attending Trump rallies.
Bascially, what the author is saying is that Trump rallies are attended by the deplorables, people who are thrilled to at last be able to openly display all their bigotry, not only without fear of retribution but garnering praise and fellowship for doing so.

This bunch cannot be reached as this is part of identify, not politics. The disturbing part is how many there are. For Harris to win, she has to attract those Republican in the swing states who are at least aware, if not sensitive to, minority plights and the difficulties of immigrants and asylum seekers, old time Republicans who will vote Republican forever but need to be coerced into staying home this election cycle or at least not casting a top of the ticket vote.

It's either than, or a Democratic turnout that is historical in its size and devotion to democracy. Something I can't see happening, but could.

[pilowsky]

Winstonm, on 2024-September-19, 14:28, said:

This bunch cannot be reached as this is part of identify, not politics. The disturbing part is how many there are. For Harris to win, she has to attract those Republican in the swing states who are at least aware, if not sensitive to, minority plights and the difficulties of immigrants and asylum seekers, old time Republicans who will vote Republican forever but need to be coerced into staying home this election cycle or at least not casting a top of the ticket vote.

It's fairly well understood that in two-party political systems about a third of voters are rusted on supporters of one party, and a third are rusted on supporters of the other.
The problem in the USA seems to be that the other third of eligible voters don't.

Elections aren't free and fair when voter turnout is so dismal.

[johnu]

pilowsky, on 2024-September-19, 15:30, said:

It's fairly well understood that in two-party political systems about a third of voters are rusted on supporters of one party, and a third are rusted on supporters of the other.
The problem in the USA seems to be that the other third of eligible voters don't.

Elections aren't free and fair when voter turnout is so dismal.

Good observation. Another question that was asked was why the Democrats don't have an overwhelming lead against Trump (a psychopath with advanced dementia).

Poll indicate that young people most closely associate with Democratic policies and by a wide margin. Young people are also the least likely to be registered to vote, and to actually vote in elections.

In the 2020 election, 67% of registered voters voted.

By percentages:

Ages 18-24 - 51%
Ages 25-34 - 60%
Ages 35-44 - 65%
Ages 45-64 - 71%
Ages 65+ - 75%
Total - 67%

For party voting by age in 2020,

Ages 18-29 - Democrats 61%, Republicans 35%
Ages 30-49 - Democrats 55%, Republicans 43%
Ages 50-64 - Democrats 46%, Republicans 53%
Ages 65+ - Democrats 48%, Republicans 52%
Total - Democrats 51%, Republicans 47%

These numbers tell the tale. Young Democratic voters don't bother to vote in huge numbers. If young voters turned out at the same percentages as seniors 50+, the current swing states would be solid blue states, red state Florida would be a blue state, and the swing states would be current red states like Texas and Ohio.

The biggest key to winning the 2022 presidential and other elections is not convincing Convicted Felon Trump voters to switch their votes. Sure that would be nice, and maybe that could swing an election that was decided by say 10,000 votes. Looking at the voting by age numbers, the key to winning the 2022 and later elections is to get younger voters to register to vote, and to get them to actually vote. That's why endorsements from young stars like Taylor Swift and Billie Eilish matter because they may be able to get the unregistered young voters registered, and the registered voters to use their right to vote by actually voting.

[pilowsky]

The numbers also reflect the structural difficulties that block younger people from voting.
1. It's on a Tuesday. WTF?
2. It's hard to register to become a voter.
3. 2+% of the voting age population can't because of a felony conviction - this means shoplifters that steal >$1000 worth of goods can lose their voting rights.

You could argue that this discourages theft because a 19 year old that pinches a television would be discouraged by the threat of losing their voting rights.

Meanwhile, in New York a candidate for President was convicted of fraud to the tune of >$350,000,000.
He doesn't seem discouraged.

[awm]

Non-voters don't consume news the same way as voters. It's far from clear that if they were somehow convinced to vote, they would vote the same way as dependable voters belonging to the same age/gender/ethnicity cohort.

It was not that long ago that Democrats were lamenting that they could not get their blue-collar, lower middle class base out to vote (especially in non-presidential years). Well, in 2020 those people turned out en masse... and voted for Trump. Sometimes you need to be careful what you wish for!

[johnu]

awm, on 2024-September-20, 16:28, said:

Non-voters don't consume news the same way as voters. It's far from clear that if they were somehow convinced to vote, they would vote the same way as dependable voters belonging to the same age/gender/ethnicity cohort.

Most voters don't consume political news at all, and are remarkably ignorant of important news of the day. I can't speak for all polls, but they should normally ask what political party do you most associate with, or something similar. AFAIK, the QOP does better in non-presidential year elections when turnout is very low, and the Democrats do better in presidential years when the voter turnout is bigger.

awm, on 2024-September-20, 16:28, said:

It was not that long ago that Democrats were lamenting that they could not get their blue-collar, lower middle class base out to vote (especially in non-presidential years). Well, in 2020 those people turned out en masse... and voted for Trump. Sometimes you need to be careful what you wish for!

Yes, President Lyndon Johnson famously once said " "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Trump has made if fashionable to be openly racist in America, and that has allowed racist QOP to rile up those susceptible to racism to vote against their own interests by voting for the QOP, the party of billionaires and racists. The billionaires get their tax breaks and government contracts, the racists get a pat on the back for being racists.

[kenberg]

awm, on 2024-September-20, 16:28, said:

Non-voters don't consume news the same way as voters. It's far from clear that if they were somehow convinced to vote, they would vote the same way as dependable voters belonging to the same age/gender/ethnicity cohort.

It was not that long ago that Democrats were lamenting that they could not get their blue-collar, lower middle class base out to vote (especially in non-presidential years). Well, in 2020 those people turned out en masse... and voted for Trump. Sometimes you need to be careful what you wish for!

As your comment reminds me, I occasionally wonder whether we really want to get the uninformed non-voter to be come an uninformed voter. Of course "informed" comes in degrees. In 1960 I was 21. I could vote for the first time. I took it seriously. Two years earlier, for Houise, Senate, governor voting, I could not vote. I was fine with not being able to vote when I was19. 21 is different. At 21 I was married, my wife and I were living on our own, paying our own bills, making our own plans and so on. For the summer I was working for NASA as a mathematician, in the fall I was in grad school. When I was 19 I was an undergrad making money by delivering furniture for Al's Discount Furniture, Everything One Third Off and living with my parents, or at least sleepining my parents house so I could afford college. Tobogganing took priority over politics.

I did my best to be informed back in '60, at least about Kennedy and Nixon. Maybe not so much about school board candidates, life was seriously busy,

Maybe we should require that would-be voters be able to name at least two candidates who are running for something. But then again, if I had to name all of the school board candidates or else I would not be allowed in the voting booth, I would need to better prepared than I usually am. Actually this November I will pay attention to the school board candidates and their opinions on books in libraries.

[kenberg]

Just for amusement I went to Wikipeedia to check voting percentages by state in 2020.

https://en.wikipedia...ntial_elections


My home state of Minnesota came in first with 79.21 % of eligble voters voting. Silly of course, but this pleases me.