5 ms·
that is exactly incorrect actually. a literal betting market has historically been the best predictor of outcomes. this cycle was particularly surprising, so ev
by the_cat_kittles 10y ago
that is exactly incorrect actually. a literal betting market has historically been the best predictor of outcomes. this cycle was particularly surprising, so everyone is all up in arms. but the markets that i follow (predictit.com) were more bullish on trump than almost all poll models. if you look at past performance they are excellent.
- sgt101 10y agoDo you have the historic data (run up to 8th Nov) for Predictit? I have this http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner Predictwise was calling ~90% for Hillary and 320ish in the college.
- froogle 10y agoPredictWise is not a prediction market. It's an aggregate of them, with David Rothschild's own personal special sauce added on top - which, in this case, is why it was "wrong". PredictWise's mistake was that it assumed polling errors would not be correlated[1]. (He actually had a fight with Nate Silver over this.) Nate Silver had, in advance, stated that polling errors would be correlated[2] (rightfully, as it turned out), which is part of why 538's model turned out to be closer to reality than PredictWise's. The actual betting markets, which PredictWise was pulling data from, were in the range of 20-30% Trump. Much more bullish. [1] http://predictwise.com/blog/2016/09/poll-aggregation-fight/ http://predictwise.com/blog/2016/09/poll-aggregation-fight/ [2] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-our-model-is-more-bullish-than-others-on-trump/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-our-...