You're viewing a single thread.
With billions of dollars potentially at stake and Trump currently at 60% to win the election, I'd be trying to get on these guys' good side too.
Zuck has had staunch republican assets on the board and at the highest levels of the company for ages. They've boosted fascist content and pushed outright lies on behalf of trump for almost 10 years now.
FB doesn't need to get on the good side of the far right, they're already on the same side.
They have to make up for suspending Trump's account for two years.
60% of what? No poll puts him at that level.
You the guy who thinks betting websites decide elections?
Betting odds are like, the most accurate way to determine outcome? Even for sports.
If polls were accurate, anyone with a bit of risk tolerance could make bank betting against Trump. But people doing stats in swing states, campaign finances, etc seem to be in alignment (again, if they weren't in alignment, there would be money to be made)
From my reading, these betting markets have recently tracked as well as 538 long term, so that's a decent outcome. I wonder if they just swing to vendors like 538 to look for "an inside track" to bet against overall, but it's a small system so it's not clear.
The issues they have are being largely illegal or grey market in the US, which limits who will interact with them. There very well could be experts who could "make money" that won't do so because of their current status.
They also appear to be very erratic in the short term, the same way a lot of sports betting and stock gambling is. Single events can send the numbers into tailspins. We've had some pretty intense recent events, so I'm not exactly confident in their choices.
I'd say lastly that they are heavily right wing or right wing adjacent spaces. Some people are just there to make money, but others are tossing it away on ideology, especially in these divisive times. Markets aren't always rational actors, they just tend to be in aggregate.
I do trust people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is more than I trust people who aren't.
So yes, you think gamblers decide elections.
I think I asked you this last time you brought this up and you didn't reply. What were Biden's odds of winning in 2020 on these same websites at 3 months out?
Obviously gamblers don't decide elections but they do a pretty good job predicting election outcomes.
I don't think I'm the same guy you had that discussion with (or if I am, I have no memory of it). Anyway, Polymarket (which I trust more) appears to have no history for resolved markets (as far as I can tell) and PredictIt (which is currently more optimistic about Harris than Polymarket) only shows 9/20/20 at the earliest (at which time it was Biden 57, Trump 46, Harris 4). I'm not sure what you're getting at with this question.
Note: Yes, PredictIt didn't add up to 100%. In theory that means you could have made money off of it risk-free but in practice it has a lot of overhead which prevents it from being an efficient market.
Okay, so you think gamblers are good at predicting elections?
Why do you think this when you can't find data to back up their predictions? What kind of "prediction market" doesn't keep data on past predictions? Seems like an easy way to hide failure to me.
Well, this guy does keep track and the record looks pretty good. The average of several different prediction markets on 8/5/20 had odds of Biden 59.1 Trump 37.8.
Interesting. Good to see data enter the conversation finally. It looks like on average, betting markets are about as good as Nate silver.
I think that's a good assessment of the current state of affairs.
In case you were wondering what kind of person in Nazi Germany turned in their Jewish neighbors to the Gestapo, it's this guy right here.
There's no functional difference between "I will support the Nazis if they win" and "I am a Nazi". Both are an equal threat, and both deserve the same historical solution for beating Nazis.
at 60% to win the election
LOL what? There is barely any polling out on Harris v. Trump, and the one's that have circulated are a dead heat at +/-2 in either direction. I'm personally waiting on Nate Silver's first real forecast tomorrow.
His odds are about the same as Polymarket's.
(Sorry Nate, I know this is paywalled but winning an argument is more important than your livelihood.)
Hey fair enough. That's pretty shocking. Looks like I'm throwing some money down on this one. I think these odds are insane, and I'll gladly take them.
Edit: So far that money is looking well spent. As expected, the odds have completely flipped.
I think you're confused, Nate Silver is famously one of the worst political analysts, and is openly ridiculed for saying stupid shit like you are while making bad calls. Not surprising that you didn't understand that "as reliable as Nate Silver" was an insult.
Wherever you get your polling data from doesn't matter because polls don't actually matter. You're just a wonk who thinks getting polling data from illegal gambling operations makes you special.
Ok, then who do you propose is better at predicting election results?
Nobody is good at it. They shouldnt be used to predict who will win.
How's that looking now?
I think the original predictions were accurate given the information available at the time, but Harris has been unexpectedly successful. I am pleasant surprised.
better get licking on those boots