In other words, the market was completely wrong then, but they’re right now?
***I posted before & after snapshots at Intrade for a few debates, and most of those were won by Huckabee. Then, viola!, Huckabee sees a rise in the polls. So, the market was completely RIGHT.
Using the failure of Intrade to predict the Huckabee “bump” doesn’t help your sell anyone else on your Intrade obsession,
***Actually, I used the same level of data that I use today to show that Huckabee had won the debates. And I’m a Hunter supporter. So, you got that one wrong. Which is about what I expect, when I see your responses, after all you used some of the most classic fallacies on the smart money thread, and even, IIRC the first time in my life I’ve ever seen a “straw man within a straw man”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
complete with all of the assumptions you try to pass off as facts (such as your laughable “extrapolation” of the Paul and Hunter numbers).
***Assumptions are assumptions and I do not try to pass them off as facts. Again (no surprise here) a straw argument from you.
Let’s face it, the Intrade market may be fairly reliable at addressing a nominally 50/50 proposition, such as a two-person race. But the current GOP is so muddled that there’s no bass other than emotion for the current trading values.
***Wrong. The emotion we are seeing on this thread is mostly from Fred supporters who have fear in their veins. If you have issues with the efficacy of Prediction markets, maybe you should bring that up on the efficacy thread. In the absence of that, your points have been easily refuted.
.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
No, the market was completely WRONG -- they were reactive to events, not predictors of events, which is your whole premise.
you used some of the most classic fallacies on the smart money thread
Yes, 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. And any critique pointing out those flaws immediately labeled as "classic fallacies". I call that projection, myself.
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".
Assumptions are assumptions and I do not try to pass them off as facts.
LOL. That's all your "Intrade" threads have been about -- promoting your flawed assumptions as if they were golden reality.
Wrong. The emotion we are seeing on this thread is mostly from Fred supporters who have fear in their veins. If you have issues with the efficacy of Prediction markets, maybe you should bring that up on the efficacy thread.
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.
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.
I could see the same thing in any MSM poll, why would I need Intrade?
your points have been easily refuted
I'll let unbiased observers determine who has refuted whom.