> 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

> 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?