4 ms·
Sure, but as a good Bayesian you should be willing to bet based on that expected value, not based on the spread. Re polls: still more complicated than that, ev
by ikeboy 8y ago
Sure, but as a good Bayesian you should be willing to bet based on that expected value, not based on the spread.
Re polls: still more complicated than that, even with 100% polling you'd still have response error and non-voters. Much of the difference between polls is their assumptions about demographics of voters.
- comex 8y agoSure, but that doesn’t mean 538 can’t include information about the spread, in addition to their top-line number which is just a single probability. And yes, my discussion of polling error was oversimplified, but I was mainly just trying to explain what I meant about having to treat something as random if it’s theoretically predictable given enough information. EDIT: Hold on; I don’t think 538 does include error bars for their probabilities. They have error bars for measurables like the vote share, but that’s normal. So I don’t understand what this argument is even about :)
- ikeboy 8y agoSomeone several comments up suggested Silver should include error bars and should bet based on a spread, I said that was not proper Bayesian methods, then we had this back and forth.