Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
We are down to 32% now
YellowSnow
Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,267 
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-a-weekend-of-upsets-changed-the-college-football-playoff/
The season is definitely not over, but our statistical odds to make the CFP per Nate Silver's super computer have decreased from 47% pre USC to 32% post said game. In my view, Nate's stock is not diminished post Trump win. He gave him a 29% chance as of Monday, 11/7 and indicated an electoral college win was well within the polling margin for error.
Yes, it's FS that I even looked this up - just win El Norte and worry about the other crap when we get there.
The season is definitely not over, but our statistical odds to make the CFP per Nate Silver's super computer have decreased from 47% pre USC to 32% post said game. In my view, Nate's stock is not diminished post Trump win. He gave him a 29% chance as of Monday, 11/7 and indicated an electoral college win was well within the polling margin for error.
Yes, it's FS that I even looked this up - just win El Norte and worry about the other crap when we get there.
Comments
-
-
I'm surprised it's still that high. I'm not sure they control their own destiny even if they do win out.
I hope I'm wrong and UW squeaks in -
That's bullshit along with most of the crap that comes out of there
I had Trump winning in June of 2015. Fuck Silver.
What were his odds on my Cavs down 3-1?
We win we are in and we have 2 cupcakes and a likely rematch with Utah to do so
81% chance -
Pass the bluntRaceBannon said:That's bullshit along with most of the crap that comes out of there
I had Trump winning in June of 2015. Fuck Silver.
What were his odds on my Cavs down 3-1?
We win we are in and we have 2 cupcakes and a likely rematch with Utah to do so
81% chance
-
Pretty sure the disagreement is on UW's odds of winning out. I doubt Silver (and it's probably not even him, just his team) is dumb enough to project us out of the tourney in that scenario.RaceBannon said:That's bullshit along with most of the crap that comes out of there
I had Trump winning in June of 2015. Fuck Silver.
What were his odds on my Cavs down 3-1?
We win we are in and we have 2 cupcakes and a likely rematch with Utah to do so
81% chance
That Wazzu game is going to be TUFF though. -
Also we are all Houston cougars fans now
-
Fivethirtyeight is a damn joke. I sometimes laugh at their predictions before I even read them. Now I just ignore everything they say.
-
silver had the election nailed so im sure he's right on this one.YellowSnow said:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-a-weekend-of-upsets-changed-the-college-football-playoff/
The season is definitely not over, but our statistical odds to make the CFP per Nate Silver's super computer have decreased from 47% pre USC to 32% post said game. In my view, Nate's stock is not diminished post Trump win. He gave him a 29% chance as of Monday, 11/7 and indicated an electoral college win was well within the polling margin for error.
Yes, it's FS that I even looked this up - just win El Norte and worry about the other crap when we get there. -
Race, you had Trump in June 2015? I hope you wagered some serious coin on this. That would buy a hell of a lot of fresh bowls and cigars.RaceBannon said:That's bullshit along with most of the crap that comes out of there
I had Trump winning in June of 2015. Fuck Silver.
What were his odds on my Cavs down 3-1?
We win we are in and we have 2 cupcakes and a likely rematch with Utah to do so
81% chance
-
The evidence is on the TugYellowSnow said:
Race, you had Trump in June 2015? I hope you wagered some serious coin on this. That would buy a hell of a lot of fresh bowls and cigars.RaceBannon said:That's bullshit along with most of the crap that comes out of there
I had Trump winning in June of 2015. Fuck Silver.
What were his odds on my Cavs down 3-1?
We win we are in and we have 2 cupcakes and a likely rematch with Utah to do so
81% chance -
I hardly think he had it "nailed" as was the case in 2008 and 12, but he gave him a lot better chance at victory than most predictors.rodmansrage said:
silver had the election nailed so im sure he's right on this one.YellowSnow said:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-a-weekend-of-upsets-changed-the-college-football-playoff/
The season is definitely not over, but our statistical odds to make the CFP per Nate Silver's super computer have decreased from 47% pre USC to 32% post said game. In my view, Nate's stock is not diminished post Trump win. He gave him a 29% chance as of Monday, 11/7 and indicated an electoral college win was well within the polling margin for error.
Yes, it's FS that I even looked this up - just win El Norte and worry about the other crap when we get there. -
Louisville sucks. Clemson sucks. Michigan sucks
-
This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
-
Yeah. What's the problem?doogie said:This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
Even Trump's camp didn't think they were favorites to win. 538 gave Trump a better chance of winning than pretty much every polls-based website out there and also better than the betting market. People who think Trump's win is a reason to ignore 538 are clueless. -
Trump knew he was going to win.BuffBuffPass said:
Yeah. What's the problem?doogie said:This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
Even Trump's camp didn't think they were favorites to win. 538 gave Trump a better chance of winning than pretty much every polls-based website out there and also better than the betting market. People who think Trump's win is a reason to ignore 538 are clueless. -
I'm not sure that giving the guy who won an electoral landslide 33% is reason to celebrateBuffBuffPass said:
Yeah. What's the problem?doogie said:This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
Even Trump's camp didn't think they were favorites to win. 538 gave Trump a better chance of winning than pretty much every polls-based website out there and also better than the betting market. People who think Trump's win is a reason to ignore 538 are clueless.
As someone else pointed out Silver never changed his models to reflect the Trump voters and the lack of carry over of Obama voters for Hillary. He missed on Trump on the primaries too
It doesn't make him a bad person or bad at what he does but if we wanted stupid percentage metric bullshit we'd move to Friday Harbor with Chest
He was as bad as everyone else -
Silver should have found a new career last Wednesday morning. Lost all credibility. LOSER.
-
You probably don't have a very good grasp of probability.jecornel said:Silver should have found a new career last Wednesday morning. Lost all credibility. LOSER.
-
BLACK POWERRaceBannon said:That's bullshit along with most of the crap that comes out of there
I had Trump winning in June of 2015. Fuck Silver.
What were his odds on my Cavs down 3-1?
We win we are in and we have 2 cupcakes and a likely rematch with Utah to do so
81% chance -
You have a really poor grasp on how probabilities work, particularly when it comes to events that have a high degree of correlation, i.e. non-independent events.RaceBannon said:
I'm not sure that giving the guy who won an electoral landslide 33% is reason to celebrateBuffBuffPass said:
Yeah. What's the problem?doogie said:This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
Even Trump's camp didn't think they were favorites to win. 538 gave Trump a better chance of winning than pretty much every polls-based website out there and also better than the betting market. People who think Trump's win is a reason to ignore 538 are clueless.
As someone else pointed out Silver never changed his models to reflect the Trump voters and the lack of carry over of Obama voters for Hillary. He missed on Trump on the primaries too
It doesn't make him a bad person or bad at what he does but if we wanted stupid percentage metric bullshit we'd move to Friday Harbor with Chest
He was as bad as everyone else
And he did change his model to reflect the uncertainty in this election, which is why his model gave Trump a better chance of winning than virtually every poll-based model out there.
Many of the arguments used about turnout were used back in 2008 and 2012 and were categorically wrong back then. There is such a thing as polling error and polls have become less reliable in recent years by the look of things (Brexit, Israeli election, British election, etc.) which, again, is why he gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models out there.
-
So he was better than Ty. Got it. I have a grasp of the very high probability that I'm smarter and more handsome than you.BuffBuffPass said:
You have a really poor grasp on how probabilities work, particularly when it comes to events that have a high degree of correlation, i.e. non-independent events.RaceBannon said:
I'm not sure that giving the guy who won an electoral landslide 33% is reason to celebrateBuffBuffPass said:
Yeah. What's the problem?doogie said:This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
Even Trump's camp didn't think they were favorites to win. 538 gave Trump a better chance of winning than pretty much every polls-based website out there and also better than the betting market. People who think Trump's win is a reason to ignore 538 are clueless.
As someone else pointed out Silver never changed his models to reflect the Trump voters and the lack of carry over of Obama voters for Hillary. He missed on Trump on the primaries too
It doesn't make him a bad person or bad at what he does but if we wanted stupid percentage metric bullshit we'd move to Friday Harbor with Chest
He was as bad as everyone else
And he did change his model to reflect the uncertainty in this election, which is why his model gave Trump a better chance of winning than virtually every poll-based model out there.
Many of the arguments used about turnout were used back in 2008 and 2012 and were categorically wrong back then. There is such a thing as polling error and polls have become less reliable in recent years by the look of things (Brexit, Israeli election, British election, etc.) which, again, is why he gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models out there.
33% is not a good job. Trump never had less than a 50 50 chance -
I have an unbiased 6-sided die. I say there's a 33% chance that a 1 or a 2 comes up when I roll it. A 1 or a 2 comes up. You: "durrrrrrrrrrrrr"RaceBannon said:
So he was better than Ty. Got it. I have a grasp of the very high probability that I'm smarter and more handsome than you.BuffBuffPass said:
You have a really poor grasp on how probabilities work, particularly when it comes to events that have a high degree of correlation, i.e. non-independent events.RaceBannon said:
I'm not sure that giving the guy who won an electoral landslide 33% is reason to celebrateBuffBuffPass said:
Yeah. What's the problem?doogie said:This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
Even Trump's camp didn't think they were favorites to win. 538 gave Trump a better chance of winning than pretty much every polls-based website out there and also better than the betting market. People who think Trump's win is a reason to ignore 538 are clueless.
As someone else pointed out Silver never changed his models to reflect the Trump voters and the lack of carry over of Obama voters for Hillary. He missed on Trump on the primaries too
It doesn't make him a bad person or bad at what he does but if we wanted stupid percentage metric bullshit we'd move to Friday Harbor with Chest
He was as bad as everyone else
And he did change his model to reflect the uncertainty in this election, which is why his model gave Trump a better chance of winning than virtually every poll-based model out there.
Many of the arguments used about turnout were used back in 2008 and 2012 and were categorically wrong back then. There is such a thing as polling error and polls have become less reliable in recent years by the look of things (Brexit, Israeli election, British election, etc.) which, again, is why he gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models out there.
33% is not a good job. Trump never had less than a 50 50 chance -
Right. Your fucking brilliantBuffBuffPass said:
I have an unbiased 6-sided die. I say there's a 33% chance that a 1 or a 2 comes up when I roll it. A 1 or a 2 comes up. You: "durrrrrrrrrrrrr"RaceBannon said:
So he was better than Ty. Got it. I have a grasp of the very high probability that I'm smarter and more handsome than you.BuffBuffPass said:
You have a really poor grasp on how probabilities work, particularly when it comes to events that have a high degree of correlation, i.e. non-independent events.RaceBannon said:
I'm not sure that giving the guy who won an electoral landslide 33% is reason to celebrateBuffBuffPass said:
Yeah. What's the problem?doogie said:This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
Even Trump's camp didn't think they were favorites to win. 538 gave Trump a better chance of winning than pretty much every polls-based website out there and also better than the betting market. People who think Trump's win is a reason to ignore 538 are clueless.
As someone else pointed out Silver never changed his models to reflect the Trump voters and the lack of carry over of Obama voters for Hillary. He missed on Trump on the primaries too
It doesn't make him a bad person or bad at what he does but if we wanted stupid percentage metric bullshit we'd move to Friday Harbor with Chest
He was as bad as everyone else
And he did change his model to reflect the uncertainty in this election, which is why his model gave Trump a better chance of winning than virtually every poll-based model out there.
Many of the arguments used about turnout were used back in 2008 and 2012 and were categorically wrong back then. There is such a thing as polling error and polls have become less reliable in recent years by the look of things (Brexit, Israeli election, British election, etc.) which, again, is why he gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models out there.
33% is not a good job. Trump never had less than a 50 50 chance
But I had Trump
I know numbers. -
the probability of someone winning the EC in a landslide with a million vote loss in the PV is not good. I don't know how you can have a problem with 30%.RaceBannon said:
I'm not sure that giving the guy who won an electoral landslide 33% is reason to celebrateBuffBuffPass said:
Yeah. What's the problem?doogie said:This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
Even Trump's camp didn't think they were favorites to win. 538 gave Trump a better chance of winning than pretty much every polls-based website out there and also better than the betting market. People who think Trump's win is a reason to ignore 538 are clueless.
As someone else pointed out Silver never changed his models to reflect the Trump voters and the lack of carry over of Obama voters for Hillary. He missed on Trump on the primaries too
It doesn't make him a bad person or bad at what he does but if we wanted stupid percentage metric bullshit we'd move to Friday Harbor with Chest
He was as bad as everyone else
Huff post had it at 98%, NYT at 90%+
-
Most of the time Silver had it 80 20 or worse. I love trolling his disciples.
Not sure why he has a cult since you can get the same bullshit from Chest.
The whole website is worthless. -
This is funny shit.RaceBannon said:
So he was better than Ty. Got it. I have a grasp of the very high probability that I'm smarter and more handsome than you.BuffBuffPass said:
You have a really poor grasp on how probabilities work, particularly when it comes to events that have a high degree of correlation, i.e. non-independent events.RaceBannon said:
I'm not sure that giving the guy who won an electoral landslide 33% is reason to celebrateBuffBuffPass said:
Yeah. What's the problem?doogie said:This is the guy who gave a 67% chance to Hillary day before the election, right?
Even Trump's camp didn't think they were favorites to win. 538 gave Trump a better chance of winning than pretty much every polls-based website out there and also better than the betting market. People who think Trump's win is a reason to ignore 538 are clueless.
As someone else pointed out Silver never changed his models to reflect the Trump voters and the lack of carry over of Obama voters for Hillary. He missed on Trump on the primaries too
It doesn't make him a bad person or bad at what he does but if we wanted stupid percentage metric bullshit we'd move to Friday Harbor with Chest
He was as bad as everyone else
And he did change his model to reflect the uncertainty in this election, which is why his model gave Trump a better chance of winning than virtually every poll-based model out there.
Many of the arguments used about turnout were used back in 2008 and 2012 and were categorically wrong back then. There is such a thing as polling error and polls have become less reliable in recent years by the look of things (Brexit, Israeli election, British election, etc.) which, again, is why he gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models out there.
33% is not a good job. Trump never had less than a 50 50 chance
