4 ms·
You don't know for that event. If you predict 100s of events, then use a method like Brier scores, you can get a good idea of how good you are. Even then it's
by danielmarkbruce 3y ago
You don't know for that event.
If you predict 100s of events, then use a method like Brier scores, you can get a good idea of how good you are. Even then it's probabilistic, but with enough samples it becomes incredibly unlikely you are just the worlds luckiest guesser.
- dotancohen 3y ago> it becomes incredibly unlikely you are just the worlds luckiest guesser And yet that is still more likely than the idea that you can predict the future. In any case, we are not talking about _you_ becoming the world's best guesser, we are talking about _somebody_ becoming the world's best guesser. That is going to be someone, so no need to be surprised when they emerge.
- omeze 3y agoyou're right, but people predict the future all the time, if there's a pre-established model for that prediction. I just threw a ball in the air and predicted how long it'd stay there </akshually> so I think this comes down to how the predictions were arrived. One way to do this is to ask individuals who both have similarly high predictive scores and bet on the same types of events to explain some of their past predictions, and if their methods are similar then you've learned a new predictive tool.
- valval 3y agoHow is the difficulty of a certain prediction scored and weighted?
- danielmarkbruce 3y agoIn these competitions it generally isn't. So, you can't compare, for example, my brier scores for predicting events a, b, c and yours for events x, y, z.
- danielmarkbruce 3y agoThere aren't actually that many people sitting around predicting things and keeping track of it. The whole monkeys tossing coins argument sounds clever, except that there aren't many monkeys in the real world.