- 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
re: Sensing a little bit of unease from Nate Silver today
Posted on 10/27/20 at 1:36 pm to barry
Posted on 10/27/20 at 1:36 pm to barry
quote:
It's like none of you understand the concept of odds or probability.
you can't apply pure mathemetical odds if i can make up the rules of the game on the fly
take his "inside straight" example. if, in the middle of the game, i say you can complete a straight if you hit a card at OR 1 slot above/below the number needed for the straight, your odds just changed significantly (by 300%)
that's the issue here b/c Nate is using bad data to create the appearance of objective analysis
0
Posted on 10/27/20 at 1:38 pm to Goldrush25
quote:
Just because you can't ever be "proven wrong" doesn't mean that there's not value in attempting to anticipate future events based on past events.
but this is only as valuable (in real time) as the data fueling your modeling is
i'm not arguing "wrong" or "right" (b/c as long as Silver never goes to 0% he is always "right"). just saying the probabilities are garbage b/c they're being calculated by garbage, biased input
Posted on 10/27/20 at 1:41 pm to Goldrush25
quote:
Just because you can't ever be "proven wrong" doesn't mean that there's not value in attempting to anticipate future events based on past events.
when you have a series of events like poker hands
Polls have no value whatsoever besides pushing a narrative?
Do you think any of these clowns are objectively seeking truth?
Posted on 10/27/20 at 1:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
there's 1 clear example of bad input to a 538 model: the 2016 presidential election. they've proven to do a good job predicting results over the last decade.
538 has never tried to be "wrong" or "right", just apply probabilities. They also never give 0 because it's impossible to give zero, the mathematics of probability prevent a 0% chance in an election based on people voting when they haven't asked every single one the voters. They don't avoid saying 0 to avoid being wrong, it's just math.
538 has never tried to be "wrong" or "right", just apply probabilities. They also never give 0 because it's impossible to give zero, the mathematics of probability prevent a 0% chance in an election based on people voting when they haven't asked every single one the voters. They don't avoid saying 0 to avoid being wrong, it's just math.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 1:44 pm to tigerskin
Haters gonna Hate but Nate Silver keeps skating on!
Posted on 10/27/20 at 1:48 pm to nc_tiger
quote:
538 has never tried to be "wrong" or "right", just apply probabilities.
and i have defended them on here within the past week
but, if Nate is really using his own subjective grading scale to rank polls, then he's making subjective evaluations. and we all know those decisions are primed and biased to hell (not due to Nate; due to human nature)
quote:
there's 1 clear example of bad input to a 538 model: the 2016 presidential election
which was such a blow to the system it should have invalidated this talking point entirely
however, we're back again...with...mirrored polling to 2016. if Nate were this robot "just entering data" then he'd have to account for this. he has...just not in the data and modeling he presents (he saves it for words on his podcast where he basically admits he knows the polls are bullshite but throws up his hands and goes "oh well" while giving Biden higher odds than he admits he should)
Posted on 10/27/20 at 1:50 pm to nc_tiger
quote:
538 has never tried to be "wrong" or "right", just apply probabilities.
And yet you said he “aced” 2012. Isn’t that a claim that he was right?
Posted on 10/27/20 at 1:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Another fricked aspect of this all.
however, we're back again...with...mirrored polling to 2016. if Nate were this robot "just entering data" then he'd have to account for this. he has...just not in the data and modeling he presents (he saves it for words on his podcast where he basically admits he knows the polls are bullshite but throws up his hands and goes "oh well" while giving Biden higher odds than he admits he should)
Posted on 10/27/20 at 1:55 pm to Scruffy
i listen to the 538 podcast a lot 
time has melted together for me since Laura but i think a few weeks ago they had a conversation about what a trump win does to polling and they got into this all. this was back when biden was WAY up with some crazy projections (like that NBC poll)
time has melted together for me since Laura but i think a few weeks ago they had a conversation about what a trump win does to polling and they got into this all. this was back when biden was WAY up with some crazy projections (like that NBC poll)
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News