hahaha
Maybe Nate Silver should be cleaning his closet instead of making all these erroneous predictions. He keeps shooting himself in the foot.
Between this and Hillary Clonton’s ninety-however many percent chance of winning the election, Nate Silver doesn’t appear to be having a very good year.
heh heh
Since going to the 16-game schedule, the NFL has played more than 20,000 games. That one-half of one percent leads one to expect over 100 of those games with such an improbable outcome.
Did anybody find out who that guy was with the #12 jersey in the first half?
Granted, the New England Patriots did win the Super Bowl but the Falcons scored more points during the regular season. We can’t forget that. We can’t consider this Patriots win a mandate in any shape or form....
Silver generally goes where probability and historical experience tell him.
Unfortunately for him, numbers and historical experience are only part of the equation. In sports, like in politics and war, human emotion, random chance, and other intangible, un-quantifiable factors occur in reality. However it is impossible to factor them into any algorithm.
Natie Silver a fake “expert” and Shaun King fake Negro make fake statements about a fake outcome of a real game what could go wrong?
As much as I like to see Nate Silver squirm, there is nothing inaccurate as to what he posted. Those truly were the Falcons’ chance of winning at that time in the game. Now the election is a different story. All predictions relied on false and misleading polls.(Garbage in and Garbage out) The Super Bowl percentages, however, relied on actual real-time data.
Nate’s popular website FiveThirthEight needs some more numbers crunching. Nate’s correct prediction stats are going down the tubes fast.
Thought Nate should stay stick to sports odds making....but now not sure he should be in any kind of odds making.
Mates been having a bad run of it
Actually, he was right...everyone with years of watching Super Bowls know how hard it is to come back from even 10 points. They scored on the drive, but even I looked at the time it took off the clock and realized that the window was closing too fast.
Being wrong in that situation is nothing to feel bad about.
Let’s be fair here and try to understand what Silver actually does. He technically does not make any predictions, he merely calculates probabilities based on currently available data and past applications of such data.
As such, it is incorrect to call Silver wrong if the most probable outcome fails to occur. For example, if you flip a coun that to the best of my knowledge is a fair one three times, I would tell you that there’s an 87.5% chance it will come up heads at least once. If you go ahead and flip the coin three times and get three tails, I was not wrong. I didn’t predict anything, I merely gave a probability.
I am really only wrong if I miscalculated the probability. In fact, if I told you that you had a 75% chance of gettting at least one head and you did, my statement would be wrong - the true probability is 87.5%. The correctness of a statement of probability is independent of the actual outcome (except if the stated probability is either 0 or 100% of course).
In the specific cases discussed here, it is logical to credit Silver with at least a reasonable accuracy in his probabilities. Be honest, when the Falcon’s took a 28-3 lead in the third quarter, how many of you would have agreed to bet a significant sum of money that NE would come back and win the game? I suspect that the grand total of people reading this who would have bet say $1000 on NE at evev up odds at that point is zero. That comports rather well with Silver’s probability estimate, doesn’t it? The reality is that Silver’s low estimate of NE’s chance of winning was spot on; that WAS a very improbable comeback.
As for the election prediction, he used his only available data, poll results, to come up with an estimate of Trump’s chances. That poll data showed Hilary with a 4-5 percent lead over Trump. Assuming that data to be correct, it was perfectly reasonable to believe Hilary was more likely to win than Trump. Whether those chances were 70%, 60% or some other value is a debatable question. What is not debatable is that Hilary was certainly a favorite. The pre-election betting markets reflected that - most of the money went toward Hilary.
It should also be noted that Silver did not use bad information in his model. Despite the outcome, the polls were not wrong. The results were within the margin of error of the polls. Trump lost the popular vote by about 2%, which is within the margin of error of most polls.
What was wrong was the interpretaion of polling data by most media outlets, not the data itself. The media assumed that the polls reflected voter preference PERFECTLY rather than approximately. If Hilary actually had won by 4-5 points in the popular vote, she likely would have won. They also forgot the fact that while the popular vote usually is a good predictor, the electoral vote is determinative. The polling companies share some of the blame here as well; they assumed that states like MI and WI were not in play and therefore polling data was limited in these states.
Of course Silver’s model is not beyond criticsm, but to just write him off as wrong is overly simplistic. For what he does, he is pretty good at it. The NE comeback was a VERY unlikely event. Trump’s win was far less improbable, but Silver’s model told us that.
Has this guy ever gotten any prediction right? Ever?! If he predicts the sun will rise tomorrow, we’re all doomed.