That’s how good—and how dangerous—this lie is,
***Yup. What you just posted was either a lie or a mistake. You cc’d Kevkrom, not me. I’ve seen others do that in the hopes that the post would be overlooked.
I will let the readers decide for themselves.
It took you this long to actually start using the data. You said, “highly-predictive Intrade futures contract is valued at .1 “ which means that you consider it highly-predictive and good data. Now, I happen to not like the fact that Hunter is valued so low, but I’m posting Intrade results right & left because they are what they are. But you go around calling me a liar after you’ve posted on the thread where Fred was leading at Intrade and accepting the good news as good data.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1842292/posts
You and I went round & round on that other thread where it was agreed this was an apples-to-oranges comparison (metaphor put forth by me, not you) and I said it was reasonable as long as I called it fruit. Apples are apples, oranges are oranges, both are fruit. Polling data are polls, Intrade is futures contracts, and both are data.
I think our exchanges should prove educational on the efficacy thread so I think I will copy them over to there.
Thanks for bumping the thread.
No, it means I'm a sarcastic SOB.
Polling data are polls, Intrade is futures contracts, and both are data.
But they cannot be compared one to the other. Clearly labeling them.
Comparing Fred at 6% (not a percentage) to Hunter at 4% (a polling percentage) is a lie.
Either compare Intrade futures (.1 for Hunter, 6.x for Fred) or compare poll results (Fred at 11%, Hunter <2%)
Anything else is deceptive, and it has been made abundantly clear to you.
Apples are apples, oranges are oranges, both are fruit.
And in this case, intercomparing them is a lie.
Not a lie or a mistake. I pinged the man I wanted to ping.
Comparing a probability to a poll is truly an apples and oranges comparison.