Did OP delete those responses, or some crazy mod? In either case, what's wrong with you?
It's a mod
Nate Silver is the biggest joke in prediction markets
-
to get the overall prediction wrong, he was systematically wrong in hundreds of jurisdictions. While there is correlation across events, it’s probably enough wrong predictions at the micro level to say his model was dead wrong.
It’s not like he predicted a single event to occur 60% of the time and then after one draw it failed to occur, which would tell you nothing about whether the 60% prediction was good or bad.
But then he touts himself for providing predictions that were less bad than his rivals. Think about what he would have said if Hillary won: “we all got it right”. He wouldn’t have tipped his hat to his rivals who got it “more right”.
The guy is a hack. Look at his sports predictions for a good laugh.
-
You're not very bright, are you?
to get the overall prediction wrong, he was systematically wrong in hundreds of jurisdictions. While there is correlation across events, it’s probably enough wrong predictions at the micro level to say his model was dead wrong.
It’s not like he predicted a single event to occur 60% of the time and then after one draw it failed to occur, which would tell you nothing about whether the 60% prediction was good or bad.
But then he touts himself for providing predictions that were less bad than his rivals. Think about what he would have said if Hillary won: “we all got it right”. He wouldn’t have tipped his hat to his rivals who got it “more right”.
The guy is a hack. Look at his sports predictions for a good laugh. -
You're not very bright, are you?
to get the overall prediction wrong, he was systematically wrong in hundreds of jurisdictions. While there is correlation across events, it’s probably enough wrong predictions at the micro level to say his model was dead wrong.
It’s not like he predicted a single event to occur 60% of the time and then after one draw it failed to occur, which would tell you nothing about whether the 60% prediction was good or bad.
But then he touts himself for providing predictions that were less bad than his rivals. Think about what he would have said if Hillary won: “we all got it right”. He wouldn’t have tipped his hat to his rivals who got it “more right”.
The guy is a hack. Look at his sports predictions for a good laugh.
Great response. Really convincing
-
538 emphasized much of the election season that while Clinton was clearly ahead, that Trump was within a very reasonable polling error. And their model also predicted (which the frequently wrote about) that if a polling error came out in Trump’s favor, the Clinton had electoral college problems and there was a reasonable chance for a popular vote/electoral college split.
Look, lots of people on this board are economists. Some are grad students learning the ropes. We have a really intuitive sense of how these models work, and for people like that Nate comes across as imminently reasonable and transparent.
So take this sh!t back to reddit. You’re clearly not an economist or grad student, and you really just don’t belong here.Appeal to authority means s**t to me.
-
Nate's a pretty impressive dude. His politics models are better than his sports models though. No way Raptors were favorites to beat the Warriors with a healthy Klay, and with KD expected to come back in game 4. Now with Klay having missed the end of the last game, still not at 100%, and Looney out, and Iggy not at 100%, the Raptors will still lose the series. Vegas certainly had more realistic odds than Nate did.