3 ms·
Nate Silver has been criticized a lot by Mish (http://mishtalk.com/ http://mishtalk.com/) and Mish was more often correct with his predictions than Nate. (What
by tiatia 10y ago
Nate Silver has been criticized a lot by Mish (http://mishtalk.com/ http://mishtalk.com/) and Mish was more often correct with his predictions than Nate. (What was Nate's prediction of Trump becoming the candidate? "Trump's chance of becoming the GOP nominee at 2 percent.")
Nate is strongly biased in favor of Hillary. That is fine but that is not scientific. Nassim Taleb said about Nate:
"55% "probability" for Trump then 20% 10 d later, not realizing their "probability" is too stochastic to be probability."
and
"So @FiveThirtyEight is showing us a textbook case on how to be totally clueless about probability yet make a business in it."
Proceed with caution.
- matt4077 10y ago538 didn't give any predictions on the primaries. Yes, they wrote articles saying that he had no chance, but those are separate from their statistical predictions. And, regarding the volatility: the probabilities reported by 538 are closely linked to betting/prediction markets. Anyone with a better model could parlay into money quite easily.
- tiatia 10y ago"538 didn't give any predictions on the primaries." They gave predictions for every state during the primaries. Also see: https://mishtalk.com/2016/05/19/nate-silvers-self-serving-confession-reflections-on-being-wrong/ https://mishtalk.com/2016/05/19/nate-silvers-self-serving-co...
- corin_ 10y agoSomething happening after being given a statistically low chance of happening doesn't automatically mean the statistical model was wrong. If we are standing at a roulette table and I tell you there is a 2.7% chance the ball will land on 4 and it lands on 4, it doesn't mean my low % was incorrect.