4 ms·

50-50 forecasts can be massive depending on your priors. If someone (who I trusted) told me there was a 50-50 chance I would get shot tomorrow if I went outside

50-50 forecasts can be massive depending on your priors. If someone (who I trusted) told me there was a 50-50 chance I would get shot tomorrow if I went outside, you couldn’t pay me enough to go leave the house.

skybrian 2y ago
Absolutely! It didn't work that way for recent presidential elections, though. The prior odds weren't always 50:50, but they were well within the range of "both sides could win" and didn't go outside that.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  In the case of an election, a 50:50 forecast is a clear reminder to the wise of the importance of voting, no matter how certain the outcome might seem from the necessarily limited perspective of your acquaintances and your consumption of possibly (or likely) biased news media.
- wenwolf 2y ago
  If a modern US election went far outside that that would just mean some fool was burning a huge amount of money and probably to no purpose as it would cause a response from donors on the other side who would like an outcome but also aren't going to throw money away.
  - skybrian 2y ago
    It's less likely for the presidency, but for other offices, it's often the case that an incumbent has only token competition.
billfor 2y ago
You have a choice to go out or not but the example of the wedding is a given obligation, so the apples-apples comparison would be "if you had to go outside, would a 50-50 chance of being shot change anything"
neogodless 2y ago
This is an interesting hypothetical, and I hope people with better understanding of statistics would weigh in. But lets change the example a bit: - There's a 10% chance of getting shot on any day you leave the house - You are able to get 5 days of food any time you leave the house - There's a 100% chance of starving if you go 8 days without leaving your house How long can you avoid getting shot or starving? Presumably if you don't want to go hungry at all, you have to leave the house every 5 days to get more food. After 50 days, the odds of you having been shot are pretty darn high.
- DiggyJohnson 2y ago
  Respectfully, how is this noteworthy or add to the discussion?
  - neogodless 2y ago
    I guess I was trying to get the parent comment to reconsider their position on 50/50 being useful because they would never leave the house. But I guess it's still "more" useful than 90/10 even, in their example, the chance during one day isn't reflective of long term odds. But an election (particularly presidential) is only once every 4 years. And it's not "50/50" or "90/10" every election - it's typically a different match up of options, and a slightly different mix of percentages. But fair criticism, I didn't successfully make a good point with my attempt.
rickandmortyy 2y ago
[dead]

skybrian 2y ago

Absolutely! It didn't work that way for recent presidential elections, though. The prior odds weren't always 50:50, but they were well within the range of "both sides could win" and didn't go outside that.

mannykannot 2y ago
In the case of an election, a 50:50 forecast is a clear reminder to the wise of the importance of voting, no matter how certain the outcome might seem from the necessarily limited perspective of your acquaintances and your consumption of possibly (or likely) biased news media.
wenwolf 2y ago
If a modern US election went far outside that that would just mean some fool was burning a huge amount of money and probably to no purpose as it would cause a response from donors on the other side who would like an outcome but also aren't going to throw money away.
- skybrian 2y ago
  It's less likely for the presidency, but for other offices, it's often the case that an incumbent has only token competition.

billfor 2y ago

You have a choice to go out or not but the example of the wedding is a given obligation, so the apples-apples comparison would be "if you had to go outside, would a 50-50 chance of being shot change anything"

neogodless 2y ago

This is an interesting hypothetical, and I hope people with better understanding of statistics would weigh in. But lets change the example a bit: - There's a 10% chance of getting shot on any day you leave the house - You are able to get 5 days of food any time you leave the house - There's a 100% chance of starving if you go 8 days without leaving your house How long can you avoid getting shot or starving? Presumably if you don't want to go hungry at all, you have to leave the house every 5 days to get more food. After 50 days, the odds of you having been shot are pretty darn high.

DiggyJohnson 2y ago
Respectfully, how is this noteworthy or add to the discussion?
- neogodless 2y ago
  I guess I was trying to get the parent comment to reconsider their position on 50/50 being useful because they would never leave the house. But I guess it's still "more" useful than 90/10 even, in their example, the chance during one day isn't reflective of long term odds. But an election (particularly presidential) is only once every 4 years. And it's not "50/50" or "90/10" every election - it's typically a different match up of options, and a slightly different mix of percentages. But fair criticism, I didn't successfully make a good point with my attempt.

rickandmortyy 2y ago

[dead]