>How accurate the "best models" were isn't really relevant to the accuracy of the predictions of experts as a whole. Only if you include random talking heads a

>How accurate the "best models" were isn't really relevant to the accuracy of the predictions of experts as a whole. Only if you include random talking heads as experts. Then you get that 98% chance of Clinton winning result. But you can select actual experts to rely on before the outcome happens. The 538 forecast was extremely accurate the previous election and had the 30% outcome the day before. That's actually comparable to a poll of economists on bitcoin. And to make it even more useful the polling of economists should ask them to give a probability instead of yes/no. It may be true that 96% say "yes it's in a bubble" and the average probability between them of Bitcoin going to 1M$ is actually 20% or more.