Posted on 12/12/2007 11:31:53 PM PST by Kevmo
I question the accuracy of both at this point in the game.
***Do you have some kind of data that supports your contention? Several posters on this thread have claimed that prediction markets are “pure emotion”, which doesn’t hold water once the data is looked at objectively.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
I’ll let unbiased observers determine who has refuted whom.
***So will I. Here’s the link to where you had the “straw man within a straw man” argument. It’s the only time I have EVER seen that happen. It’s truly a unique exposition of fallacial reasoning.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts?page=305#305
That’s true, but the positions he has held in his years in Congress, and the positions he has consistently taken, do make him more qualified than most of the other candidates of either party.
Michael Frazier
Not exactly. He still has zero combat experience and has less clout than either Hunter or McCain when he asks military members and their families to “be strong” as we stay the course.
Yes I do know. But in the past I’ve been accused of being the cut & paste king.
Like all things of that nature predication markets are based on the most current available data. If all factors stay in check, then they are accurate, if not, well, ask World Com investors, many were planning lavish retirements based on the markets the Friday before all hell broke loose...
Prior performance is not indicative of future results.
As an aside, I would be curious, and you would be the one to find it quicker than I, what the predication markets said about Howard Dean at this point.
But...if Fred does get the nomination, I’ll vote for him in the General.
Now if the nominee is Giuliani or Romney...well... is Pat Buchanan running again?
WOW! This is good news!
It's only a "strawman" because you decided to call it that rather than refute my points directly. Instead, you then go on to miss my entire point, creating your own strawman to knock down.
I'd try to educate you further, but you seem closed to the idea of actually understanding this subject, as opposed to flogging your own opinions as unrefuted fact. That's why I gave up responding before -- you will twist anything I say to make yourself look good, even if you have to change the meaning or ignore the point entirely.
So once again, I'm done with the subject. Of course, you'll likely post a response to get in the last word, but don't expect me to continue to try and reason with someone who dismisses all argument as "fallacy" or "strawman". Believe whatever warped fantasy you wish -- your own arguments prove that Intrade is reactive rather than proactive, and is thus no more reliable than the typical MSM poll.
No, the market was completely WRONG — they were reactive to events, not predictors of events, which is your whole premise.
***That’s cool that you’ve learned how to italicize and use Bold. But your argumentation is still flawed, so it’s like a jalopy that doesn’t run very well but LOOKS REAL SNAZZY. In this argument, you claim that my whole premise is that the markets are predictors of events, which is, again, a straw argument. The argument is that the data is more reliable than poll data once the events have been analyzed with respect to Poll data and Market/trading data. And in this case, the market delta at Intrade showed Huckabee to be the winner of the debates, most freepers said “Huckabee? No way”. But then Huckabee started to rise in the polls, so in this respect the delta at Intrade was a predictor of the delta in the polls. It’s the same analysis that shows Hunter won this particular debate. The time to debate the analysis was when I was saying the Huckster won. That analysis held and was proven correct, and today the same level of analysis shows Hunter to be the winner of the debate.
Kevmo: you used some of the most classic fallacies on the smart money thread
Kevkrom: Yes,
***Is this an acknowledgement that you used classic fallacies? The readers can see for themselves, but it would be interesting to see if you can discern a classic fallacy.
I still see you flogging your laughable “analysis” there, complete to the point where you simply make up your own probabilities, and then analyze them as if they were facts.
***Show that on that thread. None of your other analysis survived. Because you don’t know how to argue from facts. You instinctively rely upon classic fallacies.
And any critique pointing out those flaws immediately labeled as “classic fallacies”. I call that projection, myself.
***Why don’t you read up on some of the classic fallacies and start identifying them, if they’re being used. Things like Ad Hominem, straw argumentation, appeal to the gallery, etc. Projection isn’t one of them as far as I recall. Projection is some kind of psychological thingie.
I stopped posting there because it was pointless arguing with someone who basis his rationale on “I say it is true, therefore it is true”.
***You stopped posting there because you got your hat handed to you when you were using classic fallacies. In your particular case, the amazing use of a “straw man within a straw man “ was so much fun to see, it might actually serve as some kind of textbook example in the future. Keep up the good work. Oh, and by the way, you got my basis wrong, so once again, yeah it’s a straw argument. Keep them coming.
LOL. That’s all your “Intrade” threads have been about — promoting your flawed assumptions as if they were golden reality.
***This isn’t even an argument any more, it’s just a repetition of a past claim which has been proven untrue. You make a good pasquinade, thanks.
The dramatic movements in the market as reactive indicators tell me that they are the results of emotion, not reason. A reasoned market would have pre-priced those probabilities into the contract, not have massive up- and down-swings based on day-to-day events.
***Maybe that’s what they tell you, but it tells political pundits and others that there’s some solid data to be mined. Pre-priced? That’s hillarious. The market determines the price. That’s the point. That’s also what makes it a valuable source of data, because that market aggregation of emotion/data/intuition/hunch/whatever has proven to be more reliable than polls.
The whole premise here is based on Intrade being a predictor — but all of the data shows that they are reactive, not proactive, and basically mirror current MSM sentiment.
***That’s a fascinating statement. If you really want to pursue it, bring it up on the efficacy thread where it would make sense to drill down on it. Bringing up the point here on this thread just shows that you might have a strong bias against Hunter.
The Efficacy Of Prediction Markets http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922961/posts
I could see the same thing in any MSM poll, why would I need Intrade?
***Excellent question. For one thing, Intrade leads the polls, using the huckster rise as an example. For another, SOMEONE COULD MAKE MONEY. They could put their money where their mouth is and make money at the same time. That’s got to be unique in political history, aside from bribery.
Anyone know where Huckabee was at intrade when he started rising?
Interesting way to get someone to go & fetch data for you, by reinforcing the notion that they’re the cut & paste king. Maybe I should just call you the laziness king, trying to get others to fetch for you.
Your question is asked & answered on that Intrade forum. Go fetch it yourself.
.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
Since there is no “looking glass” to the future, I can produce more data.
***If you can produce more data, then do it. Your response is difficult to understand in the light of no data production.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
Thanks for bumping the thread.
.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
A stopped clock....
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
Naw..... Not that interested in a couple of traders that bought a few contract and constitutes a large block. When that Hunter fellars volume gets up there with the front runners let us know, will ya?.....
.
.
20 days and the selection process begins in real time not playing on the futures market. That is the real market.
Anyone know where Huckabee was at intrade when he started rising?
***This might help.
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/misc/charts/
fellars volume gets up there with the front runners let us know, will ya?.....
***That’s part of the analysis. The volume in between the 2 snapshots is heavily focused on Hunter, more than other front runners. So for that snapshot in time, which represents the delta that would spit out the winner of the debate, Hunter beat the other fellars’ volume with the free cash that was available and willing to put down.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
Well, I like your tagline and that you ask all of us to pray for our troops & for W.
As far as a stopped clock, the Intrade data recently predicted the Ron Paul Rise, the Huckabee Rise, the Thompson freefall, among other things. It predicted that Obama took the lead in Iowa over Clinton well before the polls showed it. If this is a stopped clock, then polls are a clock going in reverse — with the appearance of being right more often but in the final analysis, way off.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
They also had Kerry at 90% chance of winning. I like Duncan, but don’t bet more than you can afford to lose. There is still an eternity left.
I have nobody in this and it will be over prior to my vote. My guess is Fred will be a very strong candidate.
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
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.