The War Room Bet Thread

[mcveteran81]

Somehow I don't think a 100% obvious win for you is really going to teach someone like that a lesson. He and others have the ability to twist reality to fit their twisted views. You're just taking virtual candy from a very deranged baby -- if anything, his excuse as to why reality happened instead of his wrapped alternative should be entertaining.

But, no lessons will be learned on his behalf

What lesson is to be learned? Nothing in life is 100% you of all posters should know this, unless you've thrown away your senses?

As un-plausible as the bet may seem, it does not negate the possibility. Are the chance slim, sure and I do recognize that. For a minor Sig bet I could care less. And for the record it is one that I already openly stated I hope I lose. As the ramifications would be disastrous for this nation amendment wise and likely more.

I've seen enough of your posts to know you apply things in a seemingly scientific and mathematical way correct? (if that is what you hope to display) I guess you assume I don't, which is erroneous on your part. You may not give a dang about God, but unlike you I'm able to have it both ways.

Sad to see you throw shade in your comments. The smallness of it is unbecoming of you. /shrug

 

[Lead]

@waiguoren
@m52nickerson

I saw the potential of a bet here if you two are interested in making something. Like whether RCP beats 538 by a certain amount of electoral points in the election results or maybe that waiguoten can create a better map than 538 the day before the election or maybe you both create maps and see who comes closest?

Just throwing ideas out there. I may be interested in doing such a thing as well if only one of you is interested.

 

[m52nickerson]

@waiguoren
@m52nickerson

I saw the potential of a bet here if you two are interested in making something. Like whether RCP beats 538 by a certain amount of electoral points in the election results or maybe that waiguoten can create a better map than 538 the day before the election or maybe you both create maps and see who comes closest?

Just throwing ideas out there. I may be interested in doing such a thing as well if only one of you is interested.

I'd be will to take a bet putting 538's final map against Realclear's or whomever @waiguoren would like. If the maps end up the same we call it a wash.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'd be will to take a bet putting 538's final map against Realclear's or whomever @waiguoren would like. If the maps end up the same we call it a wash.

To be fair to Wai, wouldn't their maps ending up the same be a win for him? The point seems to be that Silver isn't adding value. I also think the idea that he's "right" if he says X has a 55% chance of winning a state and she does or "wrong" if he says that X has a 44% chance of winning and she doesn't to be problematic. To be honest, we don't even know if a 2% estimate of Trump's chances at the beginning of the campaign was wrong. Unlikely stuff does happen.

I don't think that a simple bet along those lines would resolve the issue, though I think that Wai's wrongness is apparent even now.

 

[m52nickerson]

To be fair to Wai, wouldn't their maps ending up the same be a win for him? The point seems to be that Silver isn't adding value. I also think the idea that he's "right" if he says X has a 55% chance of winning a state and she does or "wrong" if he says that X has a 44% chance of winning and she doesn't to be problematic. To be honest, we don't even know if a 2% estimate of Trump's chances at the beginning of the campaign was wrong. Unlikely stuff does happen.

I don't think that a simple bet along those lines would resolve the issue, though I think that Wai's wrongness is apparent even now.

There is the rub. Silver's model is not making outright predictions while others are.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There is the rub. Silver's model is not making outright predictions while others are.

Yeah, that alone is a big improvement.

I remember thinking that it was crazy that baseball analysis was so much more sophisticated and rational than political analysis and being really pleasantly surprised to see not only someone take that approach over to politics but for it to actually be one of the same people who was a top baseball analyst. There's not nearly as much to work with so far, so it's still lagging a lot, but Silver took it forward.

 

[waiguoren]

To be fair to Wai, wouldn't their maps ending up the same be a win for him? The point seems to be that Silver isn't adding value.

This is exactly right.

 

[waiguoren]

If I can find the time to do this, I would love to. One problem is that I do have a job which takes a lot of my time, and my wife and I are traveling to Vietnam for 10 days where we won't have computers/internet.

My argument is that a layperson like me can do almost as well as an "expert" like Silver. Therefore, instead of using a raw RCP average, I'd like to make my own predictions which would inevitably be based on the average but subject to my own adjustments.

I think the most obvious and reasonable way is to compare electoral maps on the day of the election. So I would offer a map and I guess Silver will have his own. If Silver assigns > 50% blue to a state, then we count that state as blue.

 

[Lead]

If I can find the time to do this, I would love to. One problem is that I do have a job which takes a lot of my time, and my wife and I are traveling to Vietnam for 10 days where we won't have computers/internet.

My argument is that a layperson like me can do almost as well as an "expert" like Silver. Therefore, instead of using a raw RCP average, I'd like to make my own predictions which would inevitably be based on the average but subject to my own adjustments.

I think the most obvious and reasonable way is to compare electoral maps on the day of the election. So I would offer a map and I guess Silver will have his own. If Silver assigns > 50% blue to a state, then we count that state as blue.

I get how a tie would go to you if it was 538 v RCP but in the event you are doing it, you kinda have to make a tie a wash since you could just pick his exact map to win. The % obviously would pick his map out and then you could compare the differences in who was closer in electoral points to the results. I guess we could make it also if you forgot to post a map before the election, it's the same as the tie in that neither side wins

 

[m52nickerson]

If I can find the time to do this, I would love to. One problem is that I do have a job which takes a lot of my time, and my wife and I are traveling to Vietnam for 10 days where we won't have computers/internet.

My argument is that a layperson like me can do almost as well as an "expert" like Silver. Therefore, instead of using a raw RCP average, I'd like to make my own predictions which would inevitably be based on the average but subject to my own adjustments.

I think the most obvious and reasonable way is to compare electoral maps on the day of the election. So I would offer a map and I guess Silver will have his own. If Silver assigns > 50% blue to a state, then we count that state as blue.

I hope you have a safe trip!

I would be willing to go for you idea regarding the map, but also add that you must predict the vote % in four swing states as well. Silver does this for each state. So lets say Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. You match or beat Silver's prediction on the map of the states more times then not, you win.

 

[Lead]

Part of that could be a problem since Johnson is taking a decent amount of the vote right now so it isn't just comparing the difference between the two candidates

 

[waiguoren]

I hope you have a safe trip!

I would be willing to go for you idea regarding the map, but also add that you must predict the vote % in four swing states as well. Silver does this for each state. So lets say Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. You match or beat Silver's prediction on the map of the states more times then not, you win.

Thank you.

Sure, we could compare total discrepancies over four swing states, i.e.

where each i indexes one of the states, the p's are the predicted Clinton lead in each state and the a's are the actual Clinton lead in each state. Whoever has the smaller sum wins.

 

[waiguoren]

Part of that could be a problem since Johnson is taking a decent amount of the vote right now so it isn't just comparing the difference between the two candidates

Let's keep it simple and focus on Trump v. Clinton.

 

[waiguoren]

I get how a tie would go to you if it was 538 v RCP but in the event you are doing it, you kinda have to make a tie a wash since you could just pick his exact map to win. The % obviously would pick his map out and then you could compare the differences in who was closer in electoral points to the results. I guess we could make it also if you forgot to post a map before the election, it's the same as the tie in that neither side wins

The method I just posted essentially guarantees there will not be a tie.

 

[waiguoren]

Obviously it also won't prove either side right or wrong---for that you would need to do multiple simulations. But it will be fun and will allow you all to ridicule me if I lose and vice versa!

 

[m52nickerson]

Thank you.

Sure, we could compare total discrepancies over four swing states, i.e.

where each i indexes one of the states, the p's are the predicted Clinton lead in each state and the a's are the actual Clinton lead in each state. Whoever has the smaller sum wins.

I like it! So this and ignore the map, correct? We use the state official final tallies.

Winner get to pick the losers signature until the inauguration. Mod approves the sig if any questions.

 

[Fawlty]

Solid bet.

 

[Lead]

Obviously it also won't prove either side right or wrong---for that you would need to do multiple simulations. But it will be fun and will allow you all to ridicule me if I lose and vice versa!

I'm just desperate to get people making bets in this semi failed thread and thought I found two willing people. I may be correct

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'm just desperate to get people making bets in this semi failed thread and thought I found two willing people. I may be correct

Healthy shaming in the regular posts are the way to go. @cooks1 brought up (in another thread) how people used to duel. I totally disagree with you (@Lead) about taking account bans/suicide off the table. It makes this kinda penny ante. What happened to in for a penny, in for a pound? You gotta let bros bang so us chiders can mock fuckers into recklessness. The we'll maybe see the real action that gets this train a runnin'.

On that note...fuck you if you don't like some Zeke.







Don't like that one? Try this.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Healthy shaming in the regular posts are the way to go. @cooks1 brought up (in another thread) how people used to duel. I totally disagree with you (@Lead) about taking account bans/suicide off the table. It makes this kinda penny ante. What happened to in for a penny, in for a pound? You gotta let bros bang so us chiders can mock fuckers into recklessness. The we'll maybe see the real action that gets this train a runnin'.

It's funny you say that as a welsher.