- This topic has 495 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
equalizer.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 4, 2008 at 11:20 AM #298711November 4, 2008 at 11:23 AM #298298
afx114
Participantpartypup,
Have you read the methodology that 538 uses? Yes, they rely on polling data, and I will agree with you that polls cannot be trusted. However, 538 attempts to compensate for that by giving weights to polls based on their historical accuracy. It is further refined to take into account current trends, regression analysis, etc, etc…
I recommend you read the “Process Overview” section of the FAQ to understand how they crunch their numbers: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html
There are detailed answers to questions such as “How do you determine a pollster’s reliability?” and “How do you adjust for the recentness of a poll?”
BTW, McCain is now down to 1.1% chance to win.
November 4, 2008 at 11:23 AM #298647Participantpartypup,
Have you read the methodology that 538 uses? Yes, they rely on polling data, and I will agree with you that polls cannot be trusted. However, 538 attempts to compensate for that by giving weights to polls based on their historical accuracy. It is further refined to take into account current trends, regression analysis, etc, etc…
I recommend you read the “Process Overview” section of the FAQ to understand how they crunch their numbers: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html
There are detailed answers to questions such as “How do you determine a pollster’s reliability?” and “How do you adjust for the recentness of a poll?”
BTW, McCain is now down to 1.1% chance to win.
November 4, 2008 at 11:23 AM #298659Participantpartypup,
Have you read the methodology that 538 uses? Yes, they rely on polling data, and I will agree with you that polls cannot be trusted. However, 538 attempts to compensate for that by giving weights to polls based on their historical accuracy. It is further refined to take into account current trends, regression analysis, etc, etc…
I recommend you read the “Process Overview” section of the FAQ to understand how they crunch their numbers: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html
There are detailed answers to questions such as “How do you determine a pollster’s reliability?” and “How do you adjust for the recentness of a poll?”
BTW, McCain is now down to 1.1% chance to win.
November 4, 2008 at 11:23 AM #298675Participantpartypup,
Have you read the methodology that 538 uses? Yes, they rely on polling data, and I will agree with you that polls cannot be trusted. However, 538 attempts to compensate for that by giving weights to polls based on their historical accuracy. It is further refined to take into account current trends, regression analysis, etc, etc…
I recommend you read the “Process Overview” section of the FAQ to understand how they crunch their numbers: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html
There are detailed answers to questions such as “How do you determine a pollster’s reliability?” and “How do you adjust for the recentness of a poll?”
BTW, McCain is now down to 1.1% chance to win.
November 4, 2008 at 11:23 AM #298721Participantpartypup,
Have you read the methodology that 538 uses? Yes, they rely on polling data, and I will agree with you that polls cannot be trusted. However, 538 attempts to compensate for that by giving weights to polls based on their historical accuracy. It is further refined to take into account current trends, regression analysis, etc, etc…
I recommend you read the “Process Overview” section of the FAQ to understand how they crunch their numbers: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html
There are detailed answers to questions such as “How do you determine a pollster’s reliability?” and “How do you adjust for the recentness of a poll?”
BTW, McCain is now down to 1.1% chance to win.
November 4, 2008 at 11:42 AM #298328mazeltov
Participant[quote=partypup]
McCain Victory No Longer Unikely
[/quote]That is true. McCain victory is now just plain IMPOSSIBLE.
November 4, 2008 at 11:42 AM #298677Participant[quote=partypup]
McCain Victory No Longer Unikely
[/quote]That is true. McCain victory is now just plain IMPOSSIBLE.
November 4, 2008 at 11:42 AM #298689Participant[quote=partypup]
McCain Victory No Longer Unikely
[/quote]That is true. McCain victory is now just plain IMPOSSIBLE.
November 4, 2008 at 11:42 AM #298705Participant[quote=partypup]
McCain Victory No Longer Unikely
[/quote]That is true. McCain victory is now just plain IMPOSSIBLE.
November 4, 2008 at 11:42 AM #298752Participant[quote=partypup]
McCain Victory No Longer Unikely
[/quote]That is true. McCain victory is now just plain IMPOSSIBLE.
November 4, 2008 at 1:55 PM #298443cooperthedog
Participant[quote=partypup][quote=esmith][quote]I bet if you reviewed some of the wagers placed on Intrade you would find that this time last year the chance of a recession was almost nil because the sheep were going on the phony, published, flawed data issued by our government.[/quote]
Actually, this time last year the chance of a 2008 recession on Intrade was just below 50%. It was above 50% throughout most of September ’07.
I should have been more clear. I was thinking more about Spring 2007, when it really became clear to me that things were going to hell. Can you get the numbers for that period? Everyone was telling me I was nuts back then.
But look at this chart — there’s something else that’s pretty telling here. These fools actually thought the chances of a recession were DROPPING in May – August of this year! Correct me if I’m mis-reading this, but weren’t they putting the odds of a recession at 10% at the beginning of September ’08? After the Bear Stearns collapse and the IMF issuing warnings about a global depression? What does that tell you? Gamblers, like stock investors, can be complete and total idiots if they are working with bad data.
What are the odds of a Depression? Is there an index for that, esmith? I have to create an account ASAP and start making some bank. I may not be able to naked short financials, but I can still take advantage of some fools on Intrade :-)[/quote]
partypup:
Two issues with your logic; first the “bad data” is what Intrade futures contracts are based on (the underlying), so the “real data” is irrelevant.
Second, to win the bet you will need two consecutive quarters of negative gdp growth (as compiled by the govt, the same ones supplying the bad data). As of May, with a positive quarter in the books, plus stimulus checks to affect 2nd quarter growth, the chances of a technical recession were receding, so odds went down. As of September their were two known quarters of positive growth in the books, with another two + months of “relative calm” before the financial meltdown. If the meltdown had occurred later, consumers may have spent enough in the 3rd qtr. to have flat to slightly positive gdp (vs. the barely negative .3% decline for Q3), and the chances of technical recession in 2008 would be zero.
November 4, 2008 at 1:55 PM #298793Participant[quote=partypup][quote=esmith][quote]I bet if you reviewed some of the wagers placed on Intrade you would find that this time last year the chance of a recession was almost nil because the sheep were going on the phony, published, flawed data issued by our government.[/quote]
Actually, this time last year the chance of a 2008 recession on Intrade was just below 50%. It was above 50% throughout most of September ’07.
I should have been more clear. I was thinking more about Spring 2007, when it really became clear to me that things were going to hell. Can you get the numbers for that period? Everyone was telling me I was nuts back then.
But look at this chart — there’s something else that’s pretty telling here. These fools actually thought the chances of a recession were DROPPING in May – August of this year! Correct me if I’m mis-reading this, but weren’t they putting the odds of a recession at 10% at the beginning of September ’08? After the Bear Stearns collapse and the IMF issuing warnings about a global depression? What does that tell you? Gamblers, like stock investors, can be complete and total idiots if they are working with bad data.
What are the odds of a Depression? Is there an index for that, esmith? I have to create an account ASAP and start making some bank. I may not be able to naked short financials, but I can still take advantage of some fools on Intrade :-)[/quote]
partypup:
Two issues with your logic; first the “bad data” is what Intrade futures contracts are based on (the underlying), so the “real data” is irrelevant.
Second, to win the bet you will need two consecutive quarters of negative gdp growth (as compiled by the govt, the same ones supplying the bad data). As of May, with a positive quarter in the books, plus stimulus checks to affect 2nd quarter growth, the chances of a technical recession were receding, so odds went down. As of September their were two known quarters of positive growth in the books, with another two + months of “relative calm” before the financial meltdown. If the meltdown had occurred later, consumers may have spent enough in the 3rd qtr. to have flat to slightly positive gdp (vs. the barely negative .3% decline for Q3), and the chances of technical recession in 2008 would be zero.
November 4, 2008 at 1:55 PM #298804Participant[quote=partypup][quote=esmith][quote]I bet if you reviewed some of the wagers placed on Intrade you would find that this time last year the chance of a recession was almost nil because the sheep were going on the phony, published, flawed data issued by our government.[/quote]
Actually, this time last year the chance of a 2008 recession on Intrade was just below 50%. It was above 50% throughout most of September ’07.
I should have been more clear. I was thinking more about Spring 2007, when it really became clear to me that things were going to hell. Can you get the numbers for that period? Everyone was telling me I was nuts back then.
But look at this chart — there’s something else that’s pretty telling here. These fools actually thought the chances of a recession were DROPPING in May – August of this year! Correct me if I’m mis-reading this, but weren’t they putting the odds of a recession at 10% at the beginning of September ’08? After the Bear Stearns collapse and the IMF issuing warnings about a global depression? What does that tell you? Gamblers, like stock investors, can be complete and total idiots if they are working with bad data.
What are the odds of a Depression? Is there an index for that, esmith? I have to create an account ASAP and start making some bank. I may not be able to naked short financials, but I can still take advantage of some fools on Intrade :-)[/quote]
partypup:
Two issues with your logic; first the “bad data” is what Intrade futures contracts are based on (the underlying), so the “real data” is irrelevant.
Second, to win the bet you will need two consecutive quarters of negative gdp growth (as compiled by the govt, the same ones supplying the bad data). As of May, with a positive quarter in the books, plus stimulus checks to affect 2nd quarter growth, the chances of a technical recession were receding, so odds went down. As of September their were two known quarters of positive growth in the books, with another two + months of “relative calm” before the financial meltdown. If the meltdown had occurred later, consumers may have spent enough in the 3rd qtr. to have flat to slightly positive gdp (vs. the barely negative .3% decline for Q3), and the chances of technical recession in 2008 would be zero.
November 4, 2008 at 1:55 PM #298820Participant[quote=partypup][quote=esmith][quote]I bet if you reviewed some of the wagers placed on Intrade you would find that this time last year the chance of a recession was almost nil because the sheep were going on the phony, published, flawed data issued by our government.[/quote]
Actually, this time last year the chance of a 2008 recession on Intrade was just below 50%. It was above 50% throughout most of September ’07.
I should have been more clear. I was thinking more about Spring 2007, when it really became clear to me that things were going to hell. Can you get the numbers for that period? Everyone was telling me I was nuts back then.
But look at this chart — there’s something else that’s pretty telling here. These fools actually thought the chances of a recession were DROPPING in May – August of this year! Correct me if I’m mis-reading this, but weren’t they putting the odds of a recession at 10% at the beginning of September ’08? After the Bear Stearns collapse and the IMF issuing warnings about a global depression? What does that tell you? Gamblers, like stock investors, can be complete and total idiots if they are working with bad data.
What are the odds of a Depression? Is there an index for that, esmith? I have to create an account ASAP and start making some bank. I may not be able to naked short financials, but I can still take advantage of some fools on Intrade :-)[/quote]
partypup:
Two issues with your logic; first the “bad data” is what Intrade futures contracts are based on (the underlying), so the “real data” is irrelevant.
Second, to win the bet you will need two consecutive quarters of negative gdp growth (as compiled by the govt, the same ones supplying the bad data). As of May, with a positive quarter in the books, plus stimulus checks to affect 2nd quarter growth, the chances of a technical recession were receding, so odds went down. As of September their were two known quarters of positive growth in the books, with another two + months of “relative calm” before the financial meltdown. If the meltdown had occurred later, consumers may have spent enough in the 3rd qtr. to have flat to slightly positive gdp (vs. the barely negative .3% decline for Q3), and the chances of technical recession in 2008 would be zero.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.