 |
|
11-05-2012, 02:06 PM
|
#46
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,549
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GameTheory
Ok, I tried, but you're committed to some sort of hostility. Nevermind...
|
In all fairness, given the time you dedicated to this posting...is it unfair that some of us might have expected a slightly different title? 
__________________
Live to play another day.
|
|
|
|
11-05-2012, 02:19 PM
|
#47
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,128
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thaskalos
In all fairness, given the time you dedicated to this posting...is it unfair that some of us might have expected a slightly different title? |
I made it clear that it was a joke in the very first line of the post, and then farther down that it was intended as a light-hearted needling of Mr. Jake -- an attempt to soften him up a bit which obviously failed since he is still responding to everything I say like I'm insulting his wife. (I'm sure Mrs. Jake is just lovely if there is such a person.) And then I explicitly stated it really isn't about Nate Silver at all, and that I'm not even much interested in Nate Silver other than as a touchstone and conversation starter. Was this guy the best man at all of your weddings or something? I have not thrown a single bit of actual malice at Nate Silver, or Jake, or anybody. Just working on this puzzle of an election, trying to figure it out, that's all. I've got no stake in being right, or in anybody else being wrong. Just fun & games, which I've said a bunch of times, and after tomorrow it will be over and that will be that. It's not like any of this jabbering on the horse racing board actually determines the election -- we're just watching along, and whatever happens will be more aligned with what one person thought might happen than another. So what. What's to get all upset about?
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2012, 02:30 PM
|
#48
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,549
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GameTheory
I made it clear that it was a joke in the very first line of the post, and then farther down that it was intended as a light-hearted needling of Mr. Jake -- an attempt to soften him up a bit which obviously failed since he is still responding to everything I say like I'm insulting his wife. (I'm sure Mrs. Jake is just lovely if there is such a person.) And then I explicitly stated it really isn't about Nate Silver at all, and that I'm not even much interested in Nate Silver other than as a touchstone and conversation starter. Was this guy the best man at all of your weddings or something? I have not thrown a single bit of actual malice at Nate Silver, or Jake, or anybody. Just working on this puzzle of an election, trying to figure it out, that's all. I've got no stake in being right, or in anybody else being wrong. Just fun & games, which I've said a bunch of times, and after tomorrow it will be over and that will be that. It's not like any of this jabbering on the horse racing board actually determines the election -- we're just watching along, and whatever happens will be more aligned with what one person thought might happen than another. So what. What's to get all upset about?
|
As a dispassionate observer, with only a faint interest in the upcoming election...I can only guess that Jake sensed a certain "seriousness" on your part...and decided to match it with some of his own.
Nothing to get upset about...and I've enjoyed reading the views of you both. 
__________________
Live to play another day.
Last edited by thaskalos; 11-05-2012 at 02:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2012, 02:31 PM
|
#49
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 507
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GameTheory
I made it clear that it was a joke in the very first line of the post, and then farther down that it was intended as a light-hearted needling of Mr. Jake -- an attempt to soften him up a bit which obviously failed since he is still responding to everything I say like I'm insulting his wife. (I'm sure Mrs. Jake is just lovely if there is such a person.) And then I explicitly stated it really isn't about Nate Silver at all, and that I'm not even much interested in Nate Silver other than as a touchstone and conversation starter. Was this guy the best man at all of your weddings or something? I have not thrown a single bit of actual malice at Nate Silver, or Jake, or anybody. Just working on this puzzle of an election, trying to figure it out, that's all. I've got no stake in being right, or in anybody else being wrong. Just fun & games, which I've said a bunch of times, and after tomorrow it will be over and that will be that. It's not like any of this jabbering on the horse racing board actually determines the election -- we're just watching along, and whatever happens will be more aligned with what one person thought might happen than another. So what. What's to get all upset about?
|
No hostility, just a bit hard nosed. I guess I expected a little more here, some concrete numbers or something, anything. Instead it's been pretty weak, at least in my opinion. No straight answers here to questions. This is your thread, and I will leave you to it. It's a sloppy playing field but it's all yours.
Jake
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2012, 02:41 PM
|
#50
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,128
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jake
No hostility, just a bit hard nosed. I guess I expected a little more here, some concrete numbers or something, anything. Instead it's been pretty weak, at least in my opinion. No straight answers here to questions. This is your thread, and I will leave you to it. It's a sloppy playing field but it's all yours.
|
I am sorry you were unimpressed by the several thousand words I posted above and my detailed analysis of Colorado and Ohio, which it seems like was chock full of numbers. Guess they weren't "hard" enough for you, but since the thrust of my argument is that all these turnout estimates are "soft" subjective numbers I don't know what to tell you. I spent like 10 hours going over the polls for just those 2 states from this election and the last one, making spreadsheets, writing programs to do the number-crunching, etc, and then several hours over several days to type it all up. I mean, you did see all that, right? The first three posts in this very thread?
So I'm sorry if that wasn't good enough for you to even make a comment on it, but again, who is paying me exactly to do this? You have been able to get away with "see Nate Silver" for your analysis -- I actually had to do the work and what I posted has way more detail than anything you've offered, so what the hell? If I wanted to do the whole country, it would be a beyond a full time job and I'd need assistants...
Last edited by GameTheory; 11-05-2012 at 02:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2012, 02:46 PM
|
#51
|
|
Just another Facist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Now in Houston
Posts: 52,786
|
How does a guy who is averaging a +15 lead with independents lose?
I guess we will find out tomorrow
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2012, 03:21 PM
|
#52
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,960
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JustRalph
How does a guy who is averaging a +15 lead with independents lose?
|
Fifteen is a good number, but the number that scares me is 47.
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2012, 05:11 PM
|
#53
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,128
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-06-2012, 11:26 PM
|
#54
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,089
|
So Nate Silver was right. Horseracing lesson here - don't let emotions cloud the judgment/analysis of facts and figures.
|
|
|
|
|
11-06-2012, 11:47 PM
|
#55
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 881
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jdhanover
So Nate Silver was right. Horseracing lesson here - don't let emotions cloud the judgment/analysis of facts and figures.
|
It's so odd to see on a HANDICAPPER's forum, people making predictions with their hearts and not their heads. I would think most people aren't playing horses like that.
Or maybe it's a good think to have people like that in the pari-mutuel pools... 
|
|
|
|
|
11-07-2012, 02:01 AM
|
#56
|
|
SoCal Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 147
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nearco
It's so odd to see on a HANDICAPPER's forum, people making predictions with their hearts and not their heads. I would think most people aren't playing horses like that.
|
I'm always amazed by this too. PA General Handicapping and PA Off Topic feel like two completely different places...
|
|
|
|
|
11-07-2012, 02:17 AM
|
#57
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,549
|
When people get emotional about things, they see whatever they want to see...and hear whatever they want to hear.
And they often overlook the obvious...even when it stares them right in the face.
__________________
Live to play another day.
|
|
|
|
|
11-07-2012, 03:15 AM
|
#58
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,194
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-07-2012, 03:27 AM
|
#59
|
|
SoCal Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 147
|
Silver is 50 for 50 on his EC predictions...even FL and VA. A victory for the rationality and objectiveness...
|
|
|
|
|
11-07-2012, 04:06 AM
|
#60
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,194
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Salty
Silver is 50 for 50 on his EC predictions...even FL and VA. A victory for the rationality and objectiveness...
|
A victory for both rationality and objectivity. As his model is a function of the reliability and validity of the aggregate polls and careful attenuation of the Rasmussen bias. He just won the WSOP for pollsters without ever taking a poll.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
