Posted on 09/26/2019 10:29:47 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Go ahead libs.
I wouldn’t mind President Pence.
I was wondering same thing. I think so.
He is right. All the Angelinos I was with yesterday do see it as Trump asking favors and implying rewards. Sorry to say, that is how in the Districts of Trump Hate this is seen.
Even I wince a bit. I’d rather he had just tweeted his awareness of the Biden corruption instead of seemingly “making a deal” with another country. I see it as a bit thoughtless of him not see how it would look, Biden being his political opponent. And this country being taken over by Russia, thought to be a secret ally of Trump. Facepalm.
If it had been hillary or Obama, the powers that be couldn’t have used the “to influence an election” motivation. That is key. Trump and his advisors should have known not to go there. Now we have to deal with this impeachment sh** again.
“30 Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump if they could vote secretly.”
Why secretly? Why not just man up and vote how you feel. Pussies.
Which were a lot better than almost everyone else who was doing oddsmaking on the election.
Most of those people were imitating Nate's method: poll weighting, poll averaging, Monte Carlo simmulations, etc.
What's 70 / 30 odd look like in more familiar NFL football odds?
70% works out to -235 in a moneyline bet.
For those not that familiar with legal gambling on sports as can be done at Nevada casinos the moneyline for the favorite represents the amount you have to bet to win $100 if that team wins. It is expressed as a negative number. So a money line favorite of -200 means that you have to wager $200 to win $100. (And, of course as the winner your original wager is returned to you.)
Here is the list of NFL teams that have a 70% chance or more of winning their week #4 matchup based on the moneyline odds.
| Favorite Team | Moneyline | Predicted Loser |
|---|---|---|
| Ravens | -310 | Browns |
| Cheifs | -305 | Lions |
| Chargers | -1100 | Dolphins |
| Patriots | -340 | Bills |
| Colts | -315 | Raiders |
| Seahawks | -240 | Cardinals |
| Rams | -450 | Buccaneers |
That's seven teams, or about 1/2 of the 15 games being played. Which says in the NFL it's not at all uncommon for a team to have a 70% chance of winning, and it's not at all uncommon for them to lose.
Let's come back and visit thie post next week and see how good the odds makers are.
By the way I got these moneylines is from bet.365,com which is an online casino servicing people living in New Jersey, where on-line book making is now legal
The conversion from moneyline to % odds are available at several places, I used this one.
My point is that odds makers get a lot of contests wrong, a 30% chance means if they game was played 10 times you'd expect the underdog to win 3 of those. Not never win.
Nate's background is in sports, and sports betting and sports oddsmaking, which he is quite respected in. (And why ESPN became his owner/publisher). People (like giant casinos in Las Vegas) care a lot about having very good oddsmakers because they are going to take millions and millions of dollars in bets every week.
It's always going to be harder to odds make on an election than on a series sporting event with a 17 week season.
By the way: The Dolphins really suck. The Chargers have a 92% chance of beating this. But it's not a sure thing. Is it worth $1100 to harvest $100 from the State of New Jersey on this wager? (Assuming you lived in N.J. and were able to do so.) Even a lot of people who bet moneyline and bet on favorites don't go for these huge odds, it's just too expensive to lose.
“a lot of people who bet moneyline and bet on favorites don’t go for these huge odds, it’s just too expensive to lose.” Bet 100 on the dolphins. That’s not too expensive to loose. Upside should be good.
He sounds like he looks.
Which is why I prefer moneyline betting, because you are using their knowledge against the house (betting favorites).
But, on these giant spreads, yeah, I agree. Betting Miami and taking the 16 points starts to look interesting (and kinda fun).
Agreed. But you’ll get yours for even mentioning a doubt.
No, he had HRC at 72% chance. NYT, HuffPo, etc were 95%+
Here is a nice site that rounds most of the major orgs that were in the prediction game in 2016. Here are their categories and call outs:
Aggregated Maps: Poll-Based | Poll-Based (no toss-ups) | Consensus
Statistical Models: FiveThirtyEight | Princeton | PredictWise | NYT Upshot
Full-time Analysts: Sabato’s Crystal Ball | Cook Political | Rothenberg & Gonzales
Media Analysis: ABC | AP | CNN | FOX | NBC | NPR | The Fix | Governing
This isn’t even fake news.
It is pure BS from an overdose of Trump Derangement Syndrome from a mentally deranged idiot.
Natie Natie Natie go away you were always a dope and a hack; but now you have added liar to your resume.
A new week, and a new fake Trump scandal. It’s like groundhog day. Every week the same idiocy from the left.
What’s truly amazing to me is that the left can take a lot of action on any hangnail concern with Trump that exists almost immediately, but yet Barr/Durham/Horowitz/etc. can’t even file a simple parking complaint against the conspirators months into this whole charade.
I stopped reading at “Nate Silver.”
Bingo
He's still mad about his Hillary! election call "Mitting the bed"...
You are correct but someone at 4% and dropping would not have a high probability in any forecast at this point
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.