Stossel the Fool

Townhall.com ^ | November 16 | John Stossel

[Kaslin]

,/center>

I was so dumb last week.

I wrote my column Tuesday -- before election results were in. I assumed Hillary Clinton would be president-elect.

I looked so stupid.

On Facebook, commenters pounced: You owe Trump an apology! I'm sorry for the lies you continued about him! You were never fair! You're nothing but another left-wing mouthpiece. You're a washed up, anti-American gutless TV host!

I was wrong because I trusted the bettors.

That's usually not dumb. The best predictor of things has been betting markets. They are more accurate because they reflect the wisdom of crowds. Crowds can be an ignorant mob, but crowds do have wisdom. Know the TV show "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire"?

When contestants are stumped, they may ask the audience for help or an expert. The experts are often brilliant specialists. The audience -- well, they are the kind of people who wait in line in the rain to watch a game show. Still, the audience gets the answer right 91 percent of the time, the experts succeed just 65 percent of the time.

With betting markets, the crowd is made up of people willing to put their money where their mouths are. That makes them extra careful.

Most of these "prediction markets" are based overseas because, useful as they are, American law calls them "illegal gambling."

So producer Maxim Lott and I converted European betting into an easy to understand website, Electionbettingodds.com, and I've come to trust it. Again and again, betting is more accurate than pundits and polls -- until this election.

I'm not the only one who got it wrong. The Huffington Post's statistical model gave Clinton a 98 percent chance of winning. The prestigious Princeton Election Consortium gave Clinton a 99 percent chance.

People just lie to pollsters when they think the pollster will sneer at them if they say they're voting for someone smugly described as racist and sexist.

This was the second time this year that betting markets were wrong. Most bettors thought Brexit would never happen -- people in Britain would vote to stay in the European Union. Again, British voters lied to pollsters because they were embarrassed to admit they would vote for Brexit after months of the elite telling them they were xenophobes and racists if they wanted a change.

Relying on the betting markets, I also wrote that it was sad that freedom-loving senators like Wisconsin's Ron Johnson lost to command-and-control bureaucrats like Russ Feingold.

Oops, wrong again.

But the prediction markets are right most of the time.

Consider what happened early in this year's Republican primary. Ben Carson surged to first place in polls, but the bettors knew better. They never gave him more than a 9 percent chance. In 2012, when Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and then Herman Cain surged to first place in polls, prediction markets correctly said Mitt Romney will win. In 2008, bettors correctly predicted results in every state but two. In 2012, it was every state but one.

The markets even predicted when Saddam Hussein would be captured. Right before his hideout was found, the odds on that date tripled in price. Somehow, people with skin in the game pay more attention and intuit the right outcome.

Even last week, when bettors were wrong, the betting odds still adjusted faster than pundits on TV did. The bettors saw what was happening and quickly hedged their bets, while many in the media -- mostly Clinton supporters -- still clung to their failed expectations.

My failure won't make me abandon prediction markets and go back to trusting pundits or opinion polls -- or internet commenters who had fun trashing me:

"Dewey beats Truman ... oh wait."

"I can't laugh enough at this article."

"I liked Stossel ... but he is as clueless as the liberal media."

I sure was! But I will still trust prediction markets over everything else.

There is wisdom in crowds, especially crowds that put their own money on the line.

[catsel]

The ones with “skin in the game” were the voters.

[Tanniker Smith]

That he has a weekly column to fill if he wants to get paid.

[Kaslin]

I did see many references to foreign betting sites.

[jmaroneps37]

I love the smell of NeverTrumps crapping their pants in the morning!

[rey]

But he didn’t scream, “Not my president” call for secession , assassination, or riot. What is wrong with him?

[USS Alaska]

This story is bizarre. What point is he trying to make?

He is a libertarian jerkoff with crow shit on his chin. If he really paid attention to the betting market, he'd know that over the last week leading up to the election, 92% of ALL bets went to Trump.

They were all small bets, just like Brexit.

[DoughtyOne]

Okay, perhaps so.

The Stossel site is the one I was referencing, and it had way lopsided figures on it. I believe it’s this Stossel that was involved in it.

I could be wrong.

[Rebelbase]

[aquila48]

His comparison with “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire”? is faulty.

One is about predicting the future the other is about knowledge of facts.

[uncitizen]

Stossel always did think he was the smartest guy in the room, maybe even the country.

[WVNan]

Dear Mr Stossel, you were watching the wrong crowd. I watched every Trump rally from day one and I KNEW he would win. 100%

[rlmorel]

IMO, leveraging Betting Theory is more in line with the Invisible Hand of capitalism than it is with the “intelligence” of a crowd, which is quite a different thing. The “invisible Hand” uses knowledge held by large numbers of people using their own money to vote for what products in what volume they want to obtain.

The USS Scorpion was lost in 1968, and they had no idea of where to search for the wreck. They utilized a wide variety of methods to narrow the area and locate her, and one of those methods included betting by the various searchers on different scenarios to provide clues and data.

They used the same types of techniques to find the nuclear weapons lost when a B-52 and a KC-135 collided while refueling off Spain, and found those very quickly using betting techniques. They bet on wind conditions, currents, position and direction of the planes, and so on.

Pretty impressive stuff.

[trebb]

Stossel is one of the more benign ones.

[Gargantua]

OY VAY!

Yet another finger-pointing, excuse making Yidiot. Get the EFF out of here you whiney, slimey, hook-beaked, skinflint, Clinton-sucking bastard! Screw your useless excuses for why you're a know-nothing piece of sh*t, just go flush your stink-stained gasser down the toilet!

What a vile chunk of human garbage wasting MY oxygen.

[goat granny]

never believe the polls unless you know what is inside and the numbers inside...100% of polls are loaded with more democrats and independence and light on republicans in the polls. At times up to 20% light on republicans participating vs. democrats.....

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Stossel you nitwit.

I would think someone with your brains would understand that the "Free market betting" sites are just poll sites.

And they are rigged by someone who is willing to dump a couple million into the pool. Do you think that if they are willing to spend millions on their candidate they are not willing to rig the betting odds?

Are you so removed from reality that you have some delusion that it is Joe Six-Packs that are making up the majority of the bets?

This is the problem with people who are enamored with labels rather then reality.

News Flash Stossel, The Democratic Republic of Wherever is neither a democracy or a republic.

Crony Capitalism is still socialism.

And election betting pools are just another propaganda tool.

[catnipman]

“And they were all betting sites from overseas.”

Indeed. I actually simplified the analysis I posted. In reality, there was a bit more to the rigged odds than just crooked money, namely a LOT of stupid money was bet on Hillary, because the libs outside of the U.S. have an even more distorted view of U.S. news than we do, because THEIR media is even more distorted and biased than ours, first picking up the biased and distorted news stories from U.S. news sources, and then distorting and biasing THAT already distorted and biased news EVEN MORE before foisting it off on their own readers.

So I was betting against both crooked AND stupid money, with odds incredibly in my favor.

[Kaslin]

The only referral I could find was on his Facebook page

He posted the odds that were in favor for President elect Trump later on

Notice the times

[Kaslin]

Yes it was and I am not a libertarian fan, but John Stossel is my favorite libertarian.

[Kaslin]

Who says he bet on it? It was other fools who did. Maybe you was one of them, who knows?