5 ms·

If every one was betting on Clinton 10 to 1. But you know it closer to 2 to 1. That is a good bet.

wpasc 9y ago
Odds like that are meaningless (imo) for singular events. It's a good bet in repeatable scenarios, far less so in elections.
- eloff 9y ago
  When you take a bet, you play the odds. You evaluate your expected return should you take many such bets, and if it's positive and you can afford to lose, the smart money is in taking the bet. In fact this is true of most anything you do in life - when you drove to work this morning you played the odds and the wager was your life against your salary. I'm sure you didn't think about it that way, but you took the bet
- saalweachter 9y ago
  Both insurance companies and bookmakers are comfortable aggregating over many unique events.
creaghpatr 9y ago
On election night, the odds were roughly 5 to 1 on PredictIt
- Tempest1981 9y ago
  On Huffington Post, the odds were 98% Clinton, iirc. I suspect this led some people to not vote. Here it is: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/high-probability-clinton-winning_us_581d0399e4b0e80b02ca2498 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/high-probability-clinto...
  - corpMaverick 9y ago
    In 538 the odds were 70% for Clinton. I think the result was spot on.
sjwright 9y ago
There's no logical conflict between saying Clinton had a 10 to 1 chance of winning and Trump actually winning. 10 to 1 still means Trump wins 10% of the time.
- corpMaverick 9y ago
  I don't know why you were down voted. It should be obvious, but people still interpret odds like that as it was a sure thing.
  - sjwright 9y ago
    Part of the problem is a confusion between raw poll results—where 59-41 means almost certain victory to one side—and statistical likelihood. On election night, Fivethirtyeight gave Trump a 29 percent chance of winning the electoral college. Not a 71-29 poll result, a nearly three-in-ten chance of winning. Let that sink in for a second, and reevaluate the media narrative that the pollsters got it wrong.

Odds like that are meaningless (imo) for singular events. It's a good bet in repeatable scenarios, far less so in elections.

eloff 9y ago
When you take a bet, you play the odds. You evaluate your expected return should you take many such bets, and if it's positive and you can afford to lose, the smart money is in taking the bet. In fact this is true of most anything you do in life - when you drove to work this morning you played the odds and the wager was your life against your salary. I'm sure you didn't think about it that way, but you took the bet
saalweachter 9y ago
Both insurance companies and bookmakers are comfortable aggregating over many unique events.

creaghpatr 9y ago

On election night, the odds were roughly 5 to 1 on PredictIt

Tempest1981 9y ago
On Huffington Post, the odds were 98% Clinton, iirc. I suspect this led some people to not vote. Here it is: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/high-probability-clinton-winning_us_581d0399e4b0e80b02ca2498 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/high-probability-clinto...
- corpMaverick 9y ago
  In 538 the odds were 70% for Clinton. I think the result was spot on.

sjwright 9y ago

There's no logical conflict between saying Clinton had a 10 to 1 chance of winning and Trump actually winning. 10 to 1 still means Trump wins 10% of the time.

corpMaverick 9y ago
I don't know why you were down voted. It should be obvious, but people still interpret odds like that as it was a sure thing.
- sjwright 9y ago
  Part of the problem is a confusion between raw poll results—where 59-41 means almost certain victory to one side—and statistical likelihood. On election night, Fivethirtyeight gave Trump a 29 percent chance of winning the electoral college. Not a 71-29 poll result, a nearly three-in-ten chance of winning. Let that sink in for a second, and reevaluate the media narrative that the pollsters got it wrong.