• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Romney, Obama, Rasmussen

Brainster said:
So even you sense that there's something wrong with those odds?
Click to expand...
I don't follow you. I think the 2/3 to 1/3 probability is correct. I wouldn't bet money with those odds though (meaning I would risk $3 to win no more than $1) simply because I can't afford to gamble. But if anyone wants to take an even money bet on it, I couldn't afford to pass it up.

I think where Silver goes off the rails is that his computer runs treat each state as an independent event. Thus if you look, say, at Ohio, where he has Romney at 30% to win, and Pennsylvania, where Romney's at 11%, his run will assess Romney's chances of taking both states at 3.3% (30% times 11%). If these were truly independent events, that would make sense.
Click to expand...
I don't follow this. They actually are independent events, aren't they? Ohio's electoral votes won't change based on who takes Pennsylvania's (and vice versa).

In the real world, if Romney wins Ohio, the odds that he wins Pennsylvania go up dramatically;
Click to expand...
Are you one of those who think that a .300 batter who is in a 0-20 slump is "due" for a hit this at bat? How on earth will the outcome of one state be affected by the outcome of the other?

ETA: Reminds me of the rich man who was afraid to fly, specifically because he feared someone would bring a bomb onto the plane. One time when he absolutely couldn't avoid flying, he asked his super smart actuarial guy to calculate the odds against someone bringing a bomb onto the plane. He gave the odds--a kagillion to one against. The rich guy said, that's not good enough. You've got to find a way to make them better. After some thought, the actuarial guy told him that he himself should bring a bomb onto the plane, because the odds against two different un-connected people bringing a bomb onto the plane were a triple-mega-kagillion to one against. Do you believe that? Or aren't the two events in question actually independent--that is one doesn't affect the other?
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
I don't follow you. I think the 2/3 to 1/3 probability is correct. I wouldn't bet money with those odds though (meaning I would risk $3 to win no more than $1) simply because I can't afford to gamble. But if anyone wants to take an even money bet on it, I couldn't afford to pass it up.
Click to expand...

The whole reason why bookies put odds on particular situations is to encourage an even split in betting. If people are unwilling to bet on the Jets against the Patriots, the bookies simply increase the number of points the Patriots are favored by, until the action evens out.

So here we have a situation where you say you're unwilling to bet on Obama based on the (roughly) 2-1 odds (bet $2 to get your bet plus $1 if you win) you are giving based on Silver's site, or the 3-2 odds at InTrade. But you would be happy to bet at a 1-1 odds. This indicates that you think the real odds are somewhere higher than 50% that Obama will win, but not 60% (InTrade) and certainly not 67% (Silver). But if you really bought Silver's analysis, you should be happy to bet giving 3-2 odds. Granted, given your financial condition you shouldn't bet a lot, but a small wager is certainly indicated if you believe Silver's analysis is correct.

I don't follow this. They actually are independent events, aren't they? Ohio's electoral votes won't change based on who takes Pennsylvania's (and vice versa).
Click to expand...

They are independent in the sense that what happens in one won't influence what happens in each other. But they are not truly independent in that what happens externally to both could influence both. Suppose something really dramatic happens in the third debate; Obama says that Al-Qaeda is America's greatest ally, or Romney mistakes Syria for Israel. Suddenly both states see a big swing to or from Romney.
 
Brainster said:
They are independent in the sense that what happens in one won't influence what happens in each other. But they are not truly independent in that what happens externally to both could influence both. Suppose something really dramatic happens in the third debate; Obama says that Al-Qaeda is America's greatest ally, or Romney mistakes Syria for Israel. Suddenly both states see a big swing to or from Romney.
Click to expand...

At the very least we know that Silver uses national polling as a factor in predicting individual state results.
 
Brainster said:
The whole reason why bookies put odds on particular situations is to encourage an even split in betting.
Click to expand...

I think I see the problem. Silver does mathematical analysis of polling data. He isn't a bookie with a monetary agenda.

If you have any gripes with Silver's results, you'd be better off addressing his data or methodology than claiming he has anterior motives or is something he is not. (Good luck with that.)
 
Upchurch said:
I think I see the problem.
Click to expand...

I doubt that very much.

Silver does mathematical analysis of polling data. He isn't a bookie with a monetary agenda.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

If you have any gripes with Silver's results, you'd be better off addressing his data or methodology than claiming he has anterior motives or is something he is not. (Good luck with that.)
Click to expand...

Did I say he has anterior motives? My point, which you completely missed, is that despite much claimed confidence in Silver's system around here among the Obama supporters, nobody seems to be offering better odds than 1-1. Joe the Juggler doesn't even want to offer 1.5 to 1, even though Silver's analysis says that 2-1 represents the real odds. Hence it appears that even the Obama fans sense that the true odds are somewhat less than that.
 
Brainster said:
Hence it appears that even the Obama fans sense that the true odds are somewhat less than that.
Click to expand...
Why do you suppose that people who actually put up real money don't give Romney better than a 36.2% chance of winning? Did you place a bet? I'd LOVE an even money bet as the odds would be in my favor.
 
RandFan said:
Why do you suppose that people who actually put up real money don't give Romney better than a 36.2% chance of winning? Did you place a bet? I'd LOVE an even money bet as the odds would be in my favor.
Click to expand...

I think it's better then 40% myself..... almost 50%.
 
Brainster said:
.....Hence it appears that even the Obama fans sense that the true odds are somewhat less than that.
Click to expand...
Yes, the odds are quite odd. Liars and propagandists are averse to putting money on the table. On the other hand that is quite good. It directly implies that if there is a rigged game coming down, not many know about it.
 
predictwise.jpg
 
Brainster said:
My point, which you completely missed, is that despite much claimed confidence in Silver's system around here among the Obama supporters, nobody seems to be offering better odds than 1-1. Joe the Juggler doesn't even want to offer 1.5 to 1, even though Silver's analysis says that 2-1 represents the real odds. Hence it appears that even the Obama fans sense that the true odds are somewhat less than that.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't have been a fair point even if you had actually listened to what Joe said.
 
Brainster said:
Hence it appears that even the Obama fans sense that the true odds are somewhat less than that.
Click to expand...

RandFan said:
Why do you suppose that people who actually put up real money don't give Romney better than a 36.2% chance of winning? Did you place a bet? I'd LOVE an even money bet as the odds would be in my favor.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall making an open bet of $100 in another thread that Obama would beat Romney. Brainster refused to take that bet. Therefore, if there is anyone in this conversation whom I think is guilty of what Brainster is saying, I think it is Brainster himself.

So who exactly is attempting to project excess confidence here? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Why do you suppose that people who actually put up real money don't give Romney better than a 36.2% chance of winning? Did you place a bet? I'd LOVE an even money bet as the odds would be in my favor.
Click to expand...

I looked into InTrade, but they require a wire transfer of funds to open an account; can't do it with a check or credit card. I should check out the BetFair site; those odds are even more attractive.
 
Brainster said:
I looked into InTrade, but they require a wire transfer of funds to open an account; can't do it with a check or credit card. I should check out the BetFair site; those odds are even more attractive.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point.
 
Brainster said:
The whole reason why bookies put odds on particular situations is to encourage an even split in betting. If people are unwilling to bet on the Jets against the Patriots, the bookies simply increase the number of points the Patriots are favored by, until the action evens out.
Click to expand...
I understand that perfectly well. I'm not willing to bet on a gamble (by taking the 3-2 odds). But I'd be more than happy to take the bet at even money. I would be foolish not to.


But you would be happy to bet at a 1-1 odds. This indicates that you think the real odds are somewhere higher than 50% that Obama will win,
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. I think the odds are much higher that Obama will win (roughly where Silver and Predictwise put them). It indicates just what I said. That I'm not willing to bet on a gamble (where the spread is set to make the bet a coin toss, or where the payout reflects the actual odds). I am willing to bet at even money when the odds favor me by a wide margin.

I really did say just what I meant, and it did not mean that I think Silver's probabilities are off.

I really do know what I think, and I don't need your help trying to figure out what I think. If you'd like to know what I think, I suggest you either read what I've already posted, or ask me what I think.

ETA: To spell out the point I was making earlier: I'm too poor to gamble, so I won't take the Obama bet at accurate odds (where I risk $3 to make $1 if he wins). But I'd take an even money bet because that's not a gamble! The odds favor Obama so much that I'm too poor NOT to take that bet.

I think the way I said it originally was a bit more clever and slightly arch. I said I'm too poor to gamble, but that I'm too poor not to take the even money bet, implying that the even money bet is not a gamble. Get it?
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
My point, which you completely missed, is that despite much claimed confidence in Silver's system around here among the Obama supporters, nobody seems to be offering better odds than 1-1. Joe the Juggler doesn't even want to offer 1.5 to 1, even though Silver's analysis says that 2-1 represents the real odds. Hence it appears that even the Obama fans sense that the true odds are somewhat less than that.
Click to expand...

Your point is based on a misreading of what I said.

Meanwhile, I'll turn your reasoning around on you. Despite claims that it's an even race, Romney supporters won't take even money bets. It appears they recognize that Romney has substantially less than a 50% chance of winning the election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom