|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 4, 2020 21:30:35 GMT
The use of dexamethasone is odd however. Not drawing conclusions, just noting the deviation. "Dexamethasone is a corticosteroid that prevents the release of substances in the body that cause inflammation.. Dexamethasone is used to treat many different inflammatory conditions such as allergic disorders and skin conditions. Dexamethasone is also used to treat ulcerative colitis, arthritis, lupus, psoriasis, and breathing disorders.. Dexamethasone may also be used for purposes not listed .."Possibly attempting to pre-empt a cytokine storm by reducing inflammation ahead of the game. One would hope that one of the group of white coats is working on the cross-impact of this cocktail of drugs and treatments.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 5, 2020 3:55:34 GMT
I hear the argument about Vegas vs. Other predictors quute a bit, but underdogs win more often than one might think. For example: www.oddsshark.com/sports-betting/which-sport-do-betting-underdogs-win-most-oftenI had an interesting conversation with the Mrs. This evening. We had not had a discussion like my last post. She is an immigrant from Korea. When we came across a few young people holding Biden and Inslee signs, she declared quite conclusively, "I don't like Biden. He's not strong enough for the job. I like Trump because he doesn't care that people always attack him, he focuses on upgrading the US. The US has upgraded with him." She'll vote, and that's her attitude on it. I think it's a mistake to project one's take on something like a debate onto the majority of others. What I'm seeing with non-European immigrants doesn't line up with what we're always told. What I think might be a bigger concern for Trump might be if he really has to quarantine because if his rallies stop, his ground game stops, or at least it stops in the form it has been. It seems Trump is registering many new voters at these events. There are huge differences in betting on underdogs in sports and on events in what they call the Predictions Market. In the last 20 years the predictions market has an accuracy much higher than polling. The following quote is from the link below. "We compare market predictions to 964 polls over the five Presidential elections since 1988. The market is closer to the eventual outcome 74% of the time. Further, the market significantly outperforms the polls in every election when forecasting more than 100 days in advance." www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169207008000320That's interesting metadata, but if what you say holds true, then the percentage of the favorite matching the outcome is actually pretty close to the favorite in sports matching the outcome, is it not? However; the metadata on that doesn't tell the story I would be looking for. Let's start with what they have in common: In neither case is the oddsmaker a diviner nor a seer in any form. You may also remember the lyrics of "If I were a Rich Man" from the musical "Fiddler on the roof" where he says "When you're rich they think you really know?" I think we need to be careful of that here, and examine WHAT they know, and WHAT they are actually trying to predict. The oddsmakers are not pulling numbers out of their hats. This is the outcome of a predictive model. But what is the data set that is being featurized and used in the model run? I'm not sure exactly what that is since it will be proprietary, but I imagine polls are a big part of the data set that is used. But what are they trying to predict? It's simple: They're trying to predict what people will bet on - not what the actual outcome will be. Their objective is to make money off of what people think - not the actual outcome. What are they using to define what people think. If I take your original quote: Then betting either direction is a losing bet unless you happen to be the house. In this case, I have trouble seeing ANY "smart" money in the bet other than the house. So why does anybody even place a bet in this? (I'm thinking of those numbers like a slot machine, which must be the wrong way to think of it.) What is in the model input that the handicappers are looking at that makes them think people will vote one side vs. the other? But since we're looking at indicators, let's look at another interesting one: thevirginiastar.com/2020/10/02/gallup-majority-of-americans-think-trump-will-win-election/ (purposely selected an article from a non-pro-Trump source). From that, we can get this meta-data: That was taken prior to the COVID news, but it is interesting in that it would be much more difficult to see a scenario where Trump might win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote than the other way around. This has only been around since 1996, but has been right every time so far. So why would people answer one way vs. the other to the question, especially since the results of the question of who they intend to vote for was not the same? In this case, my guess is that people have built their perception by what they know about their immediate sphere of 16 or so people. When they look at their immediate sphere, are they in a majority, or a minority? My guess is that their perception of who will win is derived from this group more than any other. We shall see. I don't think gamblers nor gambling handicappers are going to be a good indicator of the outcome of the election, to be honest, and I don't think handicappers are even trying to predict that, to be honest. I think there may be something to perceptions of people regardless of who they plan to vote for, but I don't know how strong of an indicator that really is, especially since, according to my understanding, especially by the time the polls finish adjusting the percentages of democrats vs. republicans vs. independents. Interestingly, I actually got a call from a pollster two days ago. they were honest in telling me what they were polling for. I didn't do what I've heard some say they would do, and I don't even know if they are being honest when they say they'd tell the pollster what they thought he/she wanted to hear. In my case, I just told the pollster I wasn't interested in participating. The pollster was polite and ended the conversation cordially there by wishing me a good rest of the evening. That's the only time I've been contacted by anybody on a political survey since I've returned to the US.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 5, 2020 4:23:44 GMT
With Trump in the hospital the name of the this thread takes on a new meaning. It wasn't what I was thinking when I started it .... although some wit said, after the election in 2016, that Trump would be so popular that snipers would get killed in the crossfire.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 5, 2020 9:42:03 GMT
With Trump in the hospital the name of the this thread takes on a new meaning. It wasn't what I was thinking when I started it .... although some wit said, after the election in 2016, that Trump would be so popular that snipers would get killed in the crossfire. Actually that was close to what happened. It is just that the sniping was paid for by the DNC and was from the politicized senior levels of the intelligence services and the DoD. And they were using Russian ammunition.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Oct 5, 2020 19:44:31 GMT
slh1234 I do not know how much "predictive modeling" Vegas does on this before they set the line but like all bets it is fluid and ever changing. Vegas is not in the "gambling" business. They simply adjust the line in an effort to keep the action as close to even as they can in an effort to collect what is know as "the juice". For example todays odds at most gambling websites are listed as OTB. Which means due to President Trumps bout with Covid they are Off The Board and not taking any action. But on October 2nd Joe Biden was -190 and President Trump was +160. Which simply put means you have to put 190.00 down to win 100.00 on Joe Biden. And a 100 dollar bet on President Trump will earn 160.00 if he is re-elected. Long story short Vegas is going to pocket the 30.00 difference between what they have to pay out and what they have collected. I am sure some of that money wagered is just your average Joe betting on a Red team vs. a Blue team. But there are also incredibly intelligent, highly sophisticated betters out there who are pouring over the data in an attempt to make money on the market. That is why the predictive market can boast such a high degree of accuracy in Presidential elections since 1988. It is not polling people over the phone who can answer in any fickle manner they please. It is people and or institutions armed with as much data as they can risking their hard earned money in an effort to profit. www.oddsshark.com/politics/2020-usa-presidential-odds-futures
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Oct 5, 2020 20:37:38 GMT
The betting odds reflect more closely the outcome.
People don't fib when its their money so I would say Trump to win.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 5, 2020 21:03:06 GMT
The predictive modeling is on what people will bet, not what they will vote. That's my point. The favorite wins about 72-74% of the time whether it is a ball game or a presidential election.
To make the argument that "The betting odds reflect more closely the outcome," then you have to be able to tell us what those people are looking at that drives them to bet. (You also have to have actual comparisons.) None of them are diviners, so what are they seeing? I'm not buying off on the "they just know because they're risking their hard earned money" argument. They have to be evaluating something if they are sophisticated and picking good bets. So what is it?
As for the odds makers, the people they want to bet in the presidential election are not even the same as "likely voters." For example, you do not need to be a US citizen to place a bet in Vegas. So some are betting that will not be eligible to vote. It's also unlikely Vegas is targeting the membership of conservative churches, but they will have a direct play in the outcome of the election. It's not even close to being the same as a poll, and the "science" behind it is around where people will bet, and NOT what the actual outcome of the contest is. They are wrong about the outcome of the contest about 1/4 of the time. That works when you're playing the odds in a repeated process like Vegas does, but it is not exactly a skilled process to pick the outcome of any particular contest.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 5, 2020 21:21:13 GMT
Honestly, almost everything you hear about Vegas is a myth. The biggest myth there is how its odds are closer to reality. You want the proof that those things are a myth: Look at Vegas. It's not built up like that by paying out more than it takes in. Smart people don't go there to make a fortune. The odds are set to encourage betting with a payout of about 75% on some games, or maybe 85% on slots. The payout rate is heavily regulated, and it is set because it keeps people interested so they will bet more. If it is lower, they quickly become discouraged, but with the payout set at those levels, people play longer and end up spending more. However; the smart money in Vegas is the odds makers setting the lines so that people will bet both sides. They're looking at statistics and doing modeling based on the behaviors of gamblers. Although the game, and what is happening in the game may factor into what they think people will bet, their aim is not to predict the outcome of the contest itself. their game is to play the players, and even there, it is set to get as close to the same dollars on each side as possible - not the same number of gamblers. There is no separation we have of who is betting on what - just a line that says people will bet both sides of it.
I've worked on short engagements in Vegas several times. My wife plays penny slots when we go, and I sit beside her to get beer from the cocktail waitresses, and I may push the button on the slot sometimes just so my wife feels like I'm having fun with her. There is no "smart money" being put down on contests in Vegas. The "smart money" goes to buy beer, or maybe see a show.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Oct 6, 2020 1:05:05 GMT
With Trump in the hospital the name of the this thread takes on a new meaning. It wasn't what I was thinking when I started it .... although some wit said, after the election in 2016, that Trump would be so popular that snipers would get killed in the crossfire. Thus Crossfire Hurricane.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Oct 6, 2020 13:19:31 GMT
The predictive modeling is on what people will bet, not what they will vote. That's my point. The favorite wins about 72-74% of the time whether it is a ball game or a presidential election. To make the argument that "The betting odds reflect more closely the outcome," then you have to be able to tell us what those people are looking at that drives them to bet. (You also have to have actual comparisons.) None of them are diviners, so what are they seeing? I'm not buying off on the "they just know because they're risking their hard earned money" argument. They have to be evaluating something if they are sophisticated and picking good bets. So what is it? As for the odds makers, the people they want to bet in the presidential election are not even the same as "likely voters." For example, you do not need to be a US citizen to place a bet in Vegas. So some are betting that will not be eligible to vote. It's also unlikely Vegas is targeting the membership of conservative churches, but they will have a direct play in the outcome of the election. It's not even close to being the same as a poll, and the "science" behind it is around where people will bet, and NOT what the actual outcome of the contest is. They are wrong about the outcome of the contest about 1/4 of the time. That works when you're playing the odds in a repeated process like Vegas does, but it is not exactly a skilled process to pick the outcome of any particular contest. Most sporting bets are handicapped by a point spread in an effort to balance the action so the underdogs "cover" about 50% of the time. It's essentially a coin toss with vegas taking 10% juice from the losing side. Prediction markets operate a little differently and is more of a money line. The point of this is if you really think President Trump is going to win there is a financial incentive to do so. He is an underdog for a reason. With that being said human behavior can be counterintuitive and difficult to predict. Then there is the media and their uncanny ability to influence the masses. Clearly the mainstream media is effecting some of the people and their bets on this market. Personally I think Trump is a value at +160. If I can find an online betting service that does not charge a fortune to cash out I am willing to risk a little of my hard earned income in this predictions market. Because I think the odds are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 7, 2020 10:21:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Oct 7, 2020 12:17:53 GMT
I don't do Facebook. Would you mind summarizing for me?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 7, 2020 12:28:28 GMT
I don't do Facebook. Would you mind summarizing for me? Gridley, the commentator is Rowan Dean who predicted a Trump victory in 2016. He also predicted a Scott Morrison victory in our most recent federal election when every poll said otherwise, said that Labor would form government with a sizeable majority. The polls had been consistently against the conservatives for all of the term of the previous (conservative) government. The gist is that Trump will rally the people to fight back against the virus - using himself as an example - and get the country moving again. I do hope Trump stays fit ...... and that Rowan Dean is correct. Rowan Dean: I predicted all along that Morrison would winThe majority of the mainstream media have for months predicted either a Labor (socialists) landslide, or a comfortable Labor win, with only a handful of pundits brave enough to suggest that the Liberals (condervatives) could or might win – but I repeatedly and consistently said on Sky News for the last six months that the Liberals would win and I never deviated from that prediction. None of the polls or prominent experts picked it, although of course writers at The Spectator Australia such as David Flint and John Rudthingy most certainly did.
(While I’m skiting, I may as well mention that I also predicted Donald Trump would win, that Leave would win Brexit, that Netanyahu would win and that Gladys Berejiklian would win in New South Wales.)
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Oct 8, 2020 5:29:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Oct 8, 2020 11:32:35 GMT
I have a hard time taking seriously the analysis of any group that ends said analysis with the recommendation that 'Congress should appoint a committee.' Yeah, that'll take care of it.
|
|