8 ms·

PayPal co-founder Max Levchin on Thiel: “He bets contrarian not when he knows he’ll win, but when he knows that his odds of winning are much better than most pe

PayPal co-founder Max Levchin on Thiel: “He bets contrarian not when he knows he’ll win, but when he knows that his odds of winning are much better than most people think.” Makes you wonder with all of Palantir's massive data-mining if Thiel knew something the public didn't.

1457389 10y ago
You don't need the NSA to calculate that a couple million in donations (with added free publicity) is worth a shot at multi-billion-dollar public sector systems integration and analytics projects.
Lordarminius 10y ago
Peter Thiels entire philosophy is based on taking action based on insight/knowledge other people do not have, and avoiding the detrition of marketplace competition at all cost (see Zero to One). I'd wager its not an 'if' but a certainty that he knew something few others did.
jgrahamc 10y ago
Makes you wonder with all of Palantir's massive data-mining if Thiel knew something the public didn't. You didn't need Palantir to see the Trump result coming.
- hellogoodbyeeee 10y ago
  Oh come on. Anyone using a data driven approach to predict the election was putting money on Hillary. If Palantir had data to predict a trump win, then that would be interesting to hear about.
  - jgrahamc 10y ago
    Anyone? I didn't. I put money on Trump long ago.
    - sharemywin 10y ago
      parent said data driven approach.
    - chubot 10y ago
      Care to outline your thought process? I was trying to find unbiased election coverage, and I read Nate Silver's book a few years back and liked it, so I read 538. As I mentioned above, I was disappointed that he couldn't resist inserting petty personal insults about Trump into his articles. He was clearly invested in the outcome of the election, which isn't what you want from an analyst. While he wasn't as bad as the NYTimes, and he hedged his language, he was pretty firm in claiming a likely Clinton victory for the 3 months before the election. So I was honestly a bit surprised when Trump started winning, and then won decisively. I'm always interested in the areas where reality breaks models, where practice differs from theory, and this is an overt example.
      - jgrahamc 10y ago
        Firstly, looking at politics in the UK and France (two countries that I follow closely) it was clear that there were a large group of people disadvantaged by the 2008 financial crisis who were outside the standard discussion seen in the media of politics. Secondly, Trump won the nomination with a huge number of votes. Thirdly, Brexit happened despite opinion polling being the other way. Then I started paying close attention to crowd sizes at Trump rallies and when Hillary appeared in public. The crowds never got smaller for Trump despite the press and stories around him. I looked at Nate Silver's analysis and guessed the firewall could be breached. Yet the betting markets had incredibly long odds on Trump; so I bet. Modestly since I'm no (b|m)illionaire.
        thrill 10y ago
        This was hardly a clear deal. Trump won the election with fewer votes than the last two candidates lost with.
        chubot 10y ago
  - internaut 10y ago
    Interesting to note here that Alex Karp offered to help Hillary.
tedunangst 10y ago
Last week the Times had Trumps chances at about 7%. If you think the odds are more like 35%, that's 5x better. Still a long shot, but not impossible.
- randomgyatwork 10y ago
  I wonder if the media is incompetent or liars...
  - chirau 10y ago
    they could also be both
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    I'd say once you label all Trump voters deplorable racists, it becomes harder to get people to confess their sins to strangers calling them on the phone.
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      Facts are boring I know, but Clinton only labeled half of his supporters as deplorable racists (etc.)
      - tedunangst 10y ago
        Judging by the comments I saw on Facebook and Twitter from Clinton supporters, that's a subtlety that got lost. They were in no particular hurry to clarify it was only half.
  - at-fates-hands 10y ago
    A combination of both really. Sadly, its only going to get worse now.
  - Lordarminius 10y ago
    The media contributed directly to Clintons failure. There was no subtlety in their approach, the message was clearly biased against Trump and collusive with the establishment to push a candidate who was clearly tainted. Had Clinton taken a different more honest approach she would have trounced Trump. As it was, she could not and did not; she is an agent of large corporate interests People dont like being told what to do. They are sick and tired of public servants who have transmogrified into Lord- of-the-Manor type personalities and not just in America. Watch out as more establishment candidates fail across the world in the next couple of years.
randomgyatwork 10y ago
I feel like if you were paying attention, but avoiding mainstream media this result isn't so much of a surprise.
- Kinnard 10y ago
  Why?
  - randomgyatwork 10y ago
    Feels like a lot of middle wealthy left leaning people don't see what the reality is for most everyone else. Also, Trump was offering hope, Clinton was offering nothing but staying the same. I get the sense that the American economy is bad for most people, Trump talked about that, he said it was a problem. If you were watching mainstream news all you heard was about how great everything is and how it should stay the same.... That is simply not what many people think or feel.
at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> when he knows that his odds of winning are much better than most people think. This is the classic gambler's approach to betting. Attempt to reduce the odds to a reasonable level where you can minimize losses and maximize your profits. If you were paying attention to more objective polls, you would've known the mainstream media polls they were using were off. So much so, that Clinton started campaigning in red states and there were reports she wanted to make this a "historic" win. As in, it's not good enough to just win, she wanted to rub it in the faces of the Republicans (you know, because that's always good for bringing the country together - right?) when she did win. - So he knew the polls were off. - Then he probably knew there was a feeling of unrest considering the numbers Trump was getting. Not just in the primaries where he set several records for turnout and delegates. - Then he probably heard about the Allan Lichtman's prediction that Trump would win based on the enthusiasm he saw in the primaries. It was greater for Trump then it was for Clinton. Add in the margin of victory in the primaries was greater for Trump then Clinton and he said because of that, the real voter enthusiasm is with Trump, not Clinton. So here you have three things most people on the Left didn't want to hear. He also could probably see the media had gone 110% to shill for Clinton. Tamping down her email scandals, promoting the polls that say she's way ahead. If you listen to say Rush Limbaugh, or Hannity or Beck, you'd know it wasn't all rainbows and unicorns. So he hedged his bet and put his money on Trump given the above information.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  >So he knew the polls were off. This is my thinking as well. Towards the end Nate Silver kept upping Trump's chances and other pollsters were baffled by Nate's changes. Nate kept arguing that due to curring polling methods, current models, the lack of young turnout, and a lot of disenfranchised voters coming out that Trump was doing better than he seemed. There was no "liberal media conspiracy" but the model changes you needed to make in what was an extremely oddball election year. Note, the pollsters that got Trump wrong got the last few elections right or wrong but within a respectable margin of error, so from a question of bias, the conspiracy theories just don't hold. Same with the Brexit, the pollsters just didn't see that silent majority voting yes. Nate obviously didn't change his model enough but he certainly saw the winds of change here and clearly other people like Thiel did too. Also, being a libertarian there's really no reason for him to support a Democrat anyway, so if he's going to play this game he's going to pick the GOP candidate. >He also could probably see the media had gone 110% to shill for Clinton. I didn't see this. Instead, I certainly saw the media play both sides as being less terrible than they truly were. I think there's a narrative of "oh they're just like each other so it'll be tight" and promoting a moral equivalence of "questionable email server use is just as bad as saying celebrity lets you grab women by their crotches with impunity" that sells ad impressions.

1457389 10y ago

You don't need the NSA to calculate that a couple million in donations (with added free publicity) is worth a shot at multi-billion-dollar public sector systems integration and analytics projects.

Lordarminius 10y ago

Peter Thiels entire philosophy is based on taking action based on insight/knowledge other people do not have, and avoiding the detrition of marketplace competition at all cost (see Zero to One). I'd wager its not an 'if' but a certainty that he knew something few others did.

jgrahamc 10y ago

Makes you wonder with all of Palantir's massive data-mining if Thiel knew something the public didn't. You didn't need Palantir to see the Trump result coming.

hellogoodbyeeee 10y ago
Oh come on. Anyone using a data driven approach to predict the election was putting money on Hillary. If Palantir had data to predict a trump win, then that would be interesting to hear about.
- jgrahamc 10y ago
  Anyone? I didn't. I put money on Trump long ago.
  - sharemywin 10y ago
    parent said data driven approach.
  - chubot 10y ago
    Care to outline your thought process? I was trying to find unbiased election coverage, and I read Nate Silver's book a few years back and liked it, so I read 538. As I mentioned above, I was disappointed that he couldn't resist inserting petty personal insults about Trump into his articles. He was clearly invested in the outcome of the election, which isn't what you want from an analyst. While he wasn't as bad as the NYTimes, and he hedged his language, he was pretty firm in claiming a likely Clinton victory for the 3 months before the election. So I was honestly a bit surprised when Trump started winning, and then won decisively. I'm always interested in the areas where reality breaks models, where practice differs from theory, and this is an overt example.
    - jgrahamc 10y ago
      Firstly, looking at politics in the UK and France (two countries that I follow closely) it was clear that there were a large group of people disadvantaged by the 2008 financial crisis who were outside the standard discussion seen in the media of politics. Secondly, Trump won the nomination with a huge number of votes. Thirdly, Brexit happened despite opinion polling being the other way. Then I started paying close attention to crowd sizes at Trump rallies and when Hillary appeared in public. The crowds never got smaller for Trump despite the press and stories around him. I looked at Nate Silver's analysis and guessed the firewall could be breached. Yet the betting markets had incredibly long odds on Trump; so I bet. Modestly since I'm no (b|m)illionaire.
      - thrill 10y ago
        This was hardly a clear deal. Trump won the election with fewer votes than the last two candidates lost with.
        chubot 10y ago
- internaut 10y ago
  Interesting to note here that Alex Karp offered to help Hillary.

tedunangst 10y ago

Last week the Times had Trumps chances at about 7%. If you think the odds are more like 35%, that's 5x better. Still a long shot, but not impossible.

randomgyatwork 10y ago
I wonder if the media is incompetent or liars...
- chirau 10y ago
  they could also be both
- tedunangst 10y ago
  I'd say once you label all Trump voters deplorable racists, it becomes harder to get people to confess their sins to strangers calling them on the phone.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    Facts are boring I know, but Clinton only labeled half of his supporters as deplorable racists (etc.)
    - tedunangst 10y ago
      Judging by the comments I saw on Facebook and Twitter from Clinton supporters, that's a subtlety that got lost. They were in no particular hurry to clarify it was only half.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  A combination of both really. Sadly, its only going to get worse now.
- Lordarminius 10y ago
  The media contributed directly to Clintons failure. There was no subtlety in their approach, the message was clearly biased against Trump and collusive with the establishment to push a candidate who was clearly tainted. Had Clinton taken a different more honest approach she would have trounced Trump. As it was, she could not and did not; she is an agent of large corporate interests People dont like being told what to do. They are sick and tired of public servants who have transmogrified into Lord- of-the-Manor type personalities and not just in America. Watch out as more establishment candidates fail across the world in the next couple of years.

randomgyatwork 10y ago

I feel like if you were paying attention, but avoiding mainstream media this result isn't so much of a surprise.

Kinnard 10y ago
Why?
- randomgyatwork 10y ago
  Feels like a lot of middle wealthy left leaning people don't see what the reality is for most everyone else. Also, Trump was offering hope, Clinton was offering nothing but staying the same. I get the sense that the American economy is bad for most people, Trump talked about that, he said it was a problem. If you were watching mainstream news all you heard was about how great everything is and how it should stay the same.... That is simply not what many people think or feel.

at-fates-hands 10y ago

>> when he knows that his odds of winning are much better than most people think. This is the classic gambler's approach to betting. Attempt to reduce the odds to a reasonable level where you can minimize losses and maximize your profits. If you were paying attention to more objective polls, you would've known the mainstream media polls they were using were off. So much so, that Clinton started campaigning in red states and there were reports she wanted to make this a "historic" win. As in, it's not good enough to just win, she wanted to rub it in the faces of the Republicans (you know, because that's always good for bringing the country together - right?) when she did win. - So he knew the polls were off. - Then he probably knew there was a feeling of unrest considering the numbers Trump was getting. Not just in the primaries where he set several records for turnout and delegates. - Then he probably heard about the Allan Lichtman's prediction that Trump would win based on the enthusiasm he saw in the primaries. It was greater for Trump then it was for Clinton. Add in the margin of victory in the primaries was greater for Trump then Clinton and he said because of that, the real voter enthusiasm is with Trump, not Clinton. So here you have three things most people on the Left didn't want to hear. He also could probably see the media had gone 110% to shill for Clinton. Tamping down her email scandals, promoting the polls that say she's way ahead. If you listen to say Rush Limbaugh, or Hannity or Beck, you'd know it wasn't all rainbows and unicorns. So he hedged his bet and put his money on Trump given the above information.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>So he knew the polls were off. This is my thinking as well. Towards the end Nate Silver kept upping Trump's chances and other pollsters were baffled by Nate's changes. Nate kept arguing that due to curring polling methods, current models, the lack of young turnout, and a lot of disenfranchised voters coming out that Trump was doing better than he seemed. There was no "liberal media conspiracy" but the model changes you needed to make in what was an extremely oddball election year. Note, the pollsters that got Trump wrong got the last few elections right or wrong but within a respectable margin of error, so from a question of bias, the conspiracy theories just don't hold. Same with the Brexit, the pollsters just didn't see that silent majority voting yes. Nate obviously didn't change his model enough but he certainly saw the winds of change here and clearly other people like Thiel did too. Also, being a libertarian there's really no reason for him to support a Democrat anyway, so if he's going to play this game he's going to pick the GOP candidate. >He also could probably see the media had gone 110% to shill for Clinton. I didn't see this. Instead, I certainly saw the media play both sides as being less terrible than they truly were. I think there's a narrative of "oh they're just like each other so it'll be tight" and promoting a moral equivalence of "questionable email server use is just as bad as saying celebrity lets you grab women by their crotches with impunity" that sells ad impressions.