Thread: Elections 538
View Single Post
Old 10-12-2012, 09:22 PM   #337
WoodDraw WoodDraw is offline
Veteran
 
WoodDraw's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Casino cash: $42077
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
You may want to read my entire post and try to understand it before you spout off like a ****ing idiot. Nothing in my post is bullshit, and if you think I don't understand statistics or modeling than I'd love to see what you base that on. Certainly nothing in my post could lead you to that conclusion.

I state very clearly in my post that I have no problem with Silver. My problem is with the people who try to beat you over the head with his model as if it's a proven predictor of results. It's not. That's pure malarkey. You go on in the next few posts to state many of the reasons why this is the case... so I'm not sure why you think my original post is "bullshit". There simply isn't enough data and (at this point in time) his model is no better than my guesses. I am not saying his model is no better than random guessing nor am I saying his model won't prove it's worth over time and with more data.. I'm talking about why it is mostly "entertainment" at this point and should be viewed as such. If you disagree, are you willing to bet a large amount of money using his model as your sole guide?
But spouting off like a ****ing idiot is what I do best.


Perhaps I'm a bit biased, because I followed Nate Silver back when he was just a baseball guy. Back in the early 2000s, when a lot of these guys started to enter the mainstream, you couldn't read a forum or watch a game without people ridiculing their work. And a lot of that early stuff ended up not being terribly accurate. But in baseball, you have tons of data, and people built on prior research, refined it, and continue to do so. And it has really revolutionized the sport. Many people continue to fundamentally not understand what it's about.

So I do have a lot of respect for him. I like people that see problems and are intellectually curious enough to take a stab at them. That doesn't mean they're right; but it doesn't mean they're soothsayers either.

I did read your entire post, and I thought it was bullshit. You're right, I did follow up with a couple posts talking about some of the issues with election modeling. Hopefully someone found it interesting. I'm interested in the subject, so that's why I follow this thread. If you want me to say why I thought your post was bullshit I will.

Quote:
What Nate Silver does is numerical entertainment. That's it. It has ZERO value when correlated to reality. It's so funny... people judge his results based on his FINAL projection ONLY... yet they try to prop up his work RIGHT NOW at this stage as if it is predictive and meaningful. OK, fine if it is predictive and meaningful, let's see metrics and judgements based on his assessments 30 days out, or 28 or whatever.
Honestly, I don't know what a lot of this means. Zero correlation to reality? It's not numerical entertainment. You're saying people judge his results based on the final result, and again, I don't know what that means.

538 expects their predictions to change...that's what they do. So this idea that you should judge them based on what they predict three months before the election is nonsense. If you want a model that does that, you need to look towards one based on fundamentals. His openly takes into account the changing dynamics.

What it does is try to correct for noise.

Quote:
I have zero problem with Nate Silver, but it is pretty clear there are quite a few here who don't understand that at this point, my "guesses" have as much credibility as his "work." His is just far more entertaining and looks oh so scientific!
Again, this is nonsense. Your guesses do not have the same credibility as his. His "work", as you put it, actually has a basis to it. If course it changes.


You're trying to come back and say you made some reasonable post when you did not.
Posts: 3,784
WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.
  Reply With Quote