Presidential Election (2 Viewers)

[soloooooo]

Re: First Presidential Debate

A good ad.

 

[funkshen]

Re: First Presidential Debate

the markets have historically demonstrated an unparalleled prescience in picking the next president, and the money is still on obama by a big margin. that's where my money is.

 

[halapenyo]

Re: First Presidential Debate

romney does well to keep a straight face lol.

 

[soloooooo]

Re: First Presidential Debate

Awkward lol

 

[soloooooo]

Re: First Presidential Debate

http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...rs/story-e6frfmqi-1226502243725#ixzz2ABr6LhRy

Obama and his wife nearly divorced in 2000 apparently with divorce papers drawn up.

 

[SylviaB]

Re: First Presidential Debate

the markets have historically demonstrated an unparalleled prescience in picking the next president, and the money is still on obama by a big margin. that's where my money is.

Really?

"The performance of the seat forecasts that we have produced on the basis of the betting markets did not prove to be very accurate. In fact, the estimates performed less well than those derivable from national-level voting trends using constituency swing projections. We saw that a particular flaw of these data is their proclivity to overestimate the likelihood of long shots winning, and underestimate the chances of favourites … [But] they were rarely dramatically wrong – where favourites did not win their seats they typically came close to winning."

'What are the Odds? Using Constituency-level Betting Markets to Forecast Seat Shares in the 2010 UK General Election' by Matthew Wall, Maria Laura Sudulich and Kevin Cunningham, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, Vol. 22 No.1, 2012.


The Colorado model I based my guess on has predicted every president correctly since Regan.

EDIT: Didn't see the 'picking the next president' part, but I can't seem to find anything on it though. Interesting to note that the markets thought Clinton would win the nomination at the last election by a landslide.

 

[halapenyo]

Re: First Presidential Debate

http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...rs/story-e6frfmqi-1226502243725#ixzz2ABr6LhRy

Obama and his wife nearly divorced in 2000 apparently with divorce papers drawn up.

lol why would it matter what they nearly did 8 years before he became president.

 

[soloooooo]

Re: First Presidential Debate

lol why would it matter what they nearly did 8 years before he became president.

It doesn't really. Just Donald Trump claims to have the divorce papers and will release them tomorrow.

 

[Lentern]

Re: First Presidential Debate

the markets have historically demonstrated an unparalleled prescience in picking the next president, and the money is still on obama by a big margin. that's where my money is.

You didn't just say what I think you said.

 

[a c]

Re: First Presidential Debate

The Colorado model I based my guess on has predicted every president correctly since Regan.

Wasn't that model developed in 2012?

It's kind of a self-fulfilling study, of course the model they developed to predict elections, using the data from past elections, is going to accurately predict the elections that have already happened upon which it's data analysis was sculpted to fit.

 

[soloooooo]

Re: First Presidential Debate

Wasn't that model developed in 2012?

It's kind of a self-fulfilling study, of course the model they developed to predict elections, using the data from past elections, is going to accurately predict the elections that have already happened upon which it's data analysis was sculpted to fit.

I haven't looked at the model in detail or read the paper (I only read that linked too article so far) although surely they wouldn't have done it like that. I construct sporting models as a hobby and using the same dataset to create the model and then also backtest it is a big no-no/beginners error. Surely the Colorado researchers would not have made such a big error.

 

[halapenyo]

Re: First Presidential Debate

the markets have historically demonstrated an unparalleled prescience in picking the next president, and the money is still on obama by a big margin. that's where my money is.

really? a big margin. i would have thought money would have come in for romney in the last week or two.

 

[funkshen]

Re: First Presidential Debate

Really?

"The performance of the seat forecasts that we have produced on the basis of the betting markets did not prove to be very accurate. In fact, the estimates performed less well than those derivable from national-level voting trends using constituency swing projections. We saw that a particular flaw of these data is their proclivity to overestimate the likelihood of long shots winning, and underestimate the chances of favourites … [But] they were rarely dramatically wrong – where favourites did not win their seats they typically came close to winning."

'What are the Odds? Using Constituency-level Betting Markets to Forecast Seat Shares in the 2010 UK General Election' by Matthew Wall, Maria Laura Sudulich and Kevin Cunningham, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, Vol. 22 No.1, 2012.


The Colorado model I based my guess on has predicted every president correctly since Regan.

EDIT: Didn't see the 'picking the next president' part, but I can't seem to find anything on it though. Interesting to note that the markets thought Clinton would win the nomination at the last election by a landslide.

yes, that paper concerns seat shares in the UK general election. any market will be most accurate at predicting binary, qualitative results (i.e. a or b). when it comes to margins, seat shares (in the UK) or electoral college votes, markets will be far less precise. i have no idea about the data but i'd wager the greatest volume of bets would be on the presidential outcome.

there are a cacophony of models around. people dedicate their lives to making and refining them. the colorado model isn't special. more importantly, if you were to go into the markets and asked people "what model are you using to determine your bets on obama or romney" they'd be like "model? wut?". wisdom of the crowd and what not.

You didn't just say what I think you said.

yes, i did. here's a widely cited paper on the matter.

really? a big margin. i would have thought money would have come in for romney in the last week or two.

http://sports.betfair.com/?ex=1&mi=21311313&oldios=safe

1.5:2.96 is huge

250 for ron paul isn't bad.

i can't explain the discrepancy between next president romney (2.96) and next vice president ryan (2.66)... should equal out soon enough i guess.

 

[soloooooo]

Re: First Presidential Debate

I can't be bothered to go find historical odds data from the 2000 election although I would hesitate a guess that Bush was the outsider there.

Don't get your odds from BetFair in the future either. It is good for niche markets although that is it. The US election is hardly a niche market.

 

[funkshen]

Re: First Presidential Debate

I can't be bothered to go find historical odds data from the 2000 election although I would hesitate a guess that Bush was the outsider there.

Don't get your odds from BetFair in the future either. It is good for niche markets although that is it. The US election is hardly a niche market.

what are you talking about. why would the market on betfair be out of whack with any of the others that aren't for 'niche markets'? not to mention that, in fact, it isn't out of whack at all.

i believe gambling on elections is illegal in the U.S. which is why all the markets are overseas, though.

 

[Lentern]

Re: First Presidential Debate

yes, i did. here's a widely cited paper on the matter.

Pigs arse.

 

[funkshen]

Re: First Presidential Debate

Pigs arse.

okay

 

[soloooooo]

Re: First Presidential Debate

The 'widely cited paper' you refer to does not have much substance. The data set they use is nearly 80 years old and the methods, ease of access to and participants of gambling has changed significantly since 1936 which was their most recent data point.

Was the paper published?

 

[funkshen]

Re: First Presidential Debate

The 'widely cited paper' you refer to does not have much substance. The data set they use is nearly 80 years old and the methods, ease of access to and participants of gambling has changed significantly since 1936 which was their most recent data point.

Was the paper published?

eh, i was lazy with the citation, but there are a bunch of other papers and data [1] [2] [3] that suggest that historically, markets have generally been accurate. while we know so little about prediction markets, and even though we know they can be inefficient as an information aggregator, they'll still outperform models.

and yes, it was published in JEP vol. 18, no. 2

 

[Lentern]

Re: First Presidential Debate

Bullshit logic, betting markets are just people speculating based on opinion polls, commentators and idiotic "instinct." Opinion polling is a far better indicator.