4 ms·

Dude, that guy who was supposed to lose by 90% chance actually DID win. And you're telling me to prove this by showing you some research result? It's not misle

Dude, that guy who was supposed to lose by 90% chance actually DID win. And you're telling me to prove this by showing you some research result? It's not misleading to say your odds of winning the lottery is one in a million because it IS one in a million, mathematically. NYT saying Hillary would win by 90% chance is NOT mathematics. Do you really think your analogy was adequate? My point was that people believe statistics, just like you believe that because NYT did it, it would be scientific and you should believe it. But that's where the danger lies. And an influential publication such as NYT should be ashamed of themselves for misleading people by trivializing things down to just a percentage and feeding it to the world, in realtime. I'm sure a lot of Trump fans who saw that poll on NYT that morning who didn't care for voting decided to go vote.

untog 9y ago
> Dude, that guy who was supposed to lose by 90% chance actually DID win. Again, that's how probabilities work. Unless the prediction was 100% Hillary win then a Trump win is possible. This isn't a new concept, it happens in sports all the time. Odds are offered for betting, and every now and then there are upsets. That doesn't mean the odds are nonsense. What's the alternative? News organisations never even attempt to gauge whose campaign is more popular? I don't think that's realistic.
tqi 9y ago
> Dude, that guy who was supposed to lose by 90% chance actually DID win. And you're telling me to prove this by showing you some research result? Actually yes, that is exactly what I'd like to find out more about. I'm asking why you are so sure that the NYT and other media publication odds were so wrong? Is it just that he won, therefore his odds must have been better than 10%? Most betting markets (which the HN set seems to put a lot of faith in) had Clinton as a 80ish % favorite (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/betting-sites-see-record-wagering-on-us-presidential-election.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/betting-sites-see-record-wage...), do you think they were a product of a misled public?

untog 9y ago

> Dude, that guy who was supposed to lose by 90% chance actually DID win. Again, that's how probabilities work. Unless the prediction was 100% Hillary win then a Trump win is possible. This isn't a new concept, it happens in sports all the time. Odds are offered for betting, and every now and then there are upsets. That doesn't mean the odds are nonsense. What's the alternative? News organisations never even attempt to gauge whose campaign is more popular? I don't think that's realistic.

tqi 9y ago

> Dude, that guy who was supposed to lose by 90% chance actually DID win. And you're telling me to prove this by showing you some research result? Actually yes, that is exactly what I'd like to find out more about. I'm asking why you are so sure that the NYT and other media publication odds were so wrong? Is it just that he won, therefore his odds must have been better than 10%? Most betting markets (which the HN set seems to put a lot of faith in) had Clinton as a 80ish % favorite (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/betting-sites-see-record-wagering-on-us-presidential-election.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/betting-sites-see-record-wage...), do you think they were a product of a misled public?