[thepossum]

I disagree
They are usually very reliable predictors as well as being designed to make money

If they were unreliable wouldn't it lose you money

But obviously in any one off event there are many interesting philosophical and statistical arguments as to what a probability or odds even mean

And I'm not an old school bookie but I'm sure there used to be interesting anomalous situations with odds

I was just commenting by way of support for Nate who's work I have followed for years

I still want to know the probability of another attempt at insurrection

[hrothgar]

thepossum, on 2024-September-18, 05:41, said:

I disagree
They are usually very reliable predictors as well as being designed to make money

If they were unreliable wouldn't it lose you money

But obviously in any one off event there are many interesting philosophical and statistical arguments as to what a probability or odds even mean

And I'm not an old school bookie but I'm sure there used to be interesting anomalous situations with odds

I was just commenting by way of support for Nate who's work I have followed for years

I still want to know the probability of another attempt at insurrection

Once again

These markets are very very thin and there are a number of people actively working to manipulate them.

I'll note in passing that Polymarket is currently owned by Peter Thiel (as is Nate Cohen)
Thiel is hardly a disinterested party in this all...

> If they were unreliable wouldn't it lose you money

1. Was Musk interested in making money when he purchase Twitter?
2. Pump and dump schemes are great ways to make money
3. People are often willing to burn money to signal tribal affiliation

The following chart shows the trading price for Trump's SPAC over time

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/DJT

Do you really believe that the share price on any given day signified anything about the fundamentals of the company?

[jillybean]

I am reading Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson.
Musk's purchase of Twitter may have been motivated less by profit and more by his belief that Twitter was a "dark collusion between deep state actors conspiring with big tech and legacy media to preserve power". Musk now controls the content moderators.

But, we are getting off topic.

[Winstonm]

jillybean, on 2024-September-18, 06:27, said:

I am reading Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson.
Musk's purchase of Twitter may have been motivated less by profit and more by his belief that Twitter was a "dark collusion between deep state actors conspiring with big tech and legacy media to preserve power". Musk now controls the content moderators.

But, we are getting off topic.

The oligarchs who are trying hard to use Trump as an American Putin proxi are very much on topic so please continue to post.

[kenberg]

As to predictions, odds, and me:


The Fed is going to announce a change in interest rates today and that will affect stock prices. What should I do? Simple. I ignore it. I should do something only if I have a better understanding of what will happen than do those who have already analyzed things and made their choices. I do not have any such insight.

As to horse racing, the bookies make money. So the average better loses money. So I can make money only if I understand horese racing better than the average better does. I don't, nor do I wish to. So I don't bet.

Thiis all seems both simple and logical to me, but there are large numbers of people going hopelessly in debt by placing bets. I have no idea how to convince them not to do this.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2024-September-18, 07:34, said:

As to predictions, odds, and me:


The Fed is going to announce a change in interest rates today and that will affect stock prices. What should I do? Simple. I ignore it. I should do something only if I have a better understanding of what will happen than do those who have already analyzed things and made their choices. I do not have any such insight.

As to horse racing, the bookies make money. So the average better loses money. So I can make money only if I understand horese racing better than the average better does. I don't, nor do I wish to. So I don't bet.

Thiis all seems both simple and logical to me, but there are large numbers of people going hopelessly in debt by placing bets. I have no idea how to convince them not to do this.

The issue is you cannot. No one can. People have to change their own minds. This becomes increasingly difficult the more vested you are in the beliefs.

The difficulty with Trump followers was explained marvelously by National Security reporter Marcy Wheeler. There are two truth for Trump faithful. 1) What Trump says. 2) That anything said to disprove his lies is ignored as deep state or liberal propaganda, left-wing press bias, or from other Trump haters.

As Ms. Wheeler pointed out, the way to attack Trump is the way Kamala Harris did in the debate, to make him look weak and small,. His schtick only works if he is perceived as a ""strong man", an Orban or a Putin lookalike. When he is explosed as a true weakling, the doubt begins to creep into the righteous believers that just maybe that Kool Aid he is pouring is poison.

In case anyone would like to go to the source rather than rely on my recap of what Marcy Wheeler said. https://www.emptywhe...truths-problem/

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2024-September-17, 08:02, said:

A guy is on a golf course, he has an AK-47 with a scope and a camera. Oh, he is just out for a stroll, exercising his second amendment rights?

Cellphone records show that he was hiding out on the golf course for 12 hours before the SS agent noticed him. So his "stroll" was in the middle of the night, when he was unlikely to be noticed regardless of what he was carrying.

One of the late night comics last night made a good point: his golf course is where he should have built the wall.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2024-September-18, 07:34, said:

As to horse racing, the bookies make money. So the average better loses money. So I can make money only if I understand horese racing better than the average better does. I don't, nor do I wish to. So I don't bet.

There's a big difference between betting and odds on a horse race versus a market or election: Feedback effects.

The horse and jockey aren't aware of the odds, so they can't change how they behave during the race. They're all just trying their hardest to win.

But when you bet on an election, you're not betting on some independent event. The betters influence the outcome, since they're also voters. Also, some voters read the predictions, and it may make them more or less likely to vote ("it's already a foregone conclusion, my vote doesn't matter" or "uh oh, my candidate is behind, I'd better get out and vote").

In sports, we don't allow the players to bet on their own games, even if they're betting on themselves (and it would be really problematic if they bet against themselves). We also don't allow insider trading in financial markets. But there's no similar restriction in election markets.