- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:25 pm to Tigerdev
I’m quoting Nate Silver, sorry you’re too stupid to understand
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:27 pm to Strannix
You are quoting him, it’s you logical falacy that his comment insinuates changes in probability...which it does not.
This post was edited on 11/5/18 at 9:30 pm
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:29 pm to GeorgeWest
quote:You just took the average midterm seat gain for the out of executive power party over the last 21 midterm elections as your prediction. Not much of a wave.
Democrats +30 in the House.
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:31 pm to Strannix
quote:No. The article misquoted him. Here is the official transcript:
Most of those are under 23,
'This Week' Transcript 11-4-18: Special edition from ABC News Election HQ
quote:
Most of those are above 23,
This post was edited on 11/5/18 at 9:33 pm
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:32 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Um, Nate Silver’s models which you just referenced display around a 20% chance that GOP retains the House.
12.3%
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:33 pm to moneyg
quote:
Most of those are above 23,
Have fun tomorrow Staaaanix!!!
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:34 pm to Strannix
quote:You’re actually interpreting the quote from the hill article correctly. The problem is that the hill article mosquoted him and changed “over” to “under.” That’s really bad on their part.
I’m quoting Nate Silver, sorry you’re too stupid to understand
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:34 pm to 70806
quote:
It seems that some people here slept thru statistics class.
What's the first rule of random sampling?
When you answer that, you'll understand why so many are skeptical.
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:36 pm to MisslePig
quote:
You are quoting him, it’s you logical falacy that his comment insinuates changes in probability...which it does not.
Did you miss the part where he states verbatim he has no idea if the underlying polling data the outcomes are based on are accurate or not. So it’s really stupid to say with any certainty he has a clue, which is why he is saying he doesn’t. I’m not sure what your incapable of grasping here, but it’s tiresome honestly.
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:36 pm to moneyg
quote:There isn’t one? But I welcome the list of “rules” if they do exist.
What's the first rule of random sampling?
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:40 pm to buckeye_vol
Not true. Each outcome is assigned a probability. If it was a coin or dice you would be correct but it’s not. The outcomes probability is weighted in the total calculation.
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:41 pm to Strannix
quote:Well technically that’s unknowable, even with the most thorough polling possible, especially considering the behavior of voting is impossible is fundamentally different than obtaining a representative sample of those we CAN vote.
Did you miss the part where he states verbatim he has no idea if the underlying polling data the outcomes are based on are accurate or not.
That doesn’t mean that they aren’t valid estimates when you have a bunch of different polls and control for factors that minimize error, and account for potential biases in the sampling.
I have no way of truly knowing if Alabama will win their next game, and there is no evidence to directly sample from the matchup itself, but there is plenty of evidence overall to reach a predictive conclusion that is accurate.
This post was edited on 11/5/18 at 9:46 pm
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:42 pm to MisslePig
quote:
Did you miss the part where he states verbatim he has no idea if the underlying polling data the outcomes are based on are accurate or not.
Is this what you’re going to hang your hat on? Some stating that polls are uncertain?!?!
Jesus :lol:Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:43 pm to MisslePig
quote:What does that have to do with the fact that there isn’t a “first rule of random sampling,” and sampling/polling is something outside of Silver’s control, even though I defend Silver’s modeling and think he does the best with what is available.
Not true. Each outcome is assigned a probability. If it was a coin or dice you would be correct but it’s not. The outcomes probability is weighted in the total calculation
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:45 pm to buckeye_vol
It has everything to do with the fact that number of outcomes doesn’t directly add up as OP is trying to insinuate as a 1 for 1...some outcomes are more likely and the calculation reflects that.
Posted on 11/5/18 at 9:48 pm to MisslePig
quote:Of course. Some races are forgone conclusions (> 99% chance), and whether just multiplying by the probability and adding together, or simulating it with error margins (better method), that will be given a stronger weighting in the total outcome than a race that is closer to 50% but still expected to go the same way.
It has everything to do with the fact that number of outcomes doesn’t directly add up as OP is trying to insinuate as a 1 for 1...some outcomes are more likely and the calculation reflects that.
The bigger issue is that the OP’s article misquoted Silver though.
This post was edited on 11/5/18 at 9:49 pm
Posted on 11/6/18 at 7:39 pm to MisslePig
quote:
It’s quite simple, some outcomes are more likely than others. Just because there are more possible combinations/outcomes doesn’t mean they’re all equal. Some outcomes are highly probable, some are not.
Posted on 11/6/18 at 7:40 pm to Strannix
Gonna be a great night folks
Posted on 11/6/18 at 7:40 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
What's the first rule of random sampling?
There isn’t one?
Sure there is a first rule.
Progs are filth.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News