I absolutely understand the impulse.
But if Nate says 27% and I bet 3:1, my bet looks good now, doesn’t it? 
Cite?
No. That’s not how odds work. If I make a 50/50 bet that you roll a six on a die, it’s a stupid bet whether you roll a six or not.
We’re hearing about touch screen voting problems again, from people who don’t understand how touch screen technology works:
From OMB, taxes as a percentage of GDP are projected at 17.3%. The estimate for 2018 is 19%. We’re about average right now. We’re moving into end of WWII territory.
Thats not how betting works.
If you think the odds of something are 95%, then you take a 3:1 bet (if that’s the best you can get) even if some stats guy that you disagree with thinks the odds are lower.
The only point of comparing to the stats guy is in terms of how it looks. But that has nothing to do with your example of the dice. IOW, you might be smart to take the 3:1 odds because you thought the true odds were 19:1, but you didn’t look good because people believed in the stats guy who claimed it was 3:2. If the odds offered by the stats guy change to be in line with your assessment, then you are not only still smart but now you start to look good too.
[Which is not to say I agree that the initial 3:1 bet was wise at the time. I do agree that it looks good right now. Though that too could change soon.]
But that’s not what happened here.
The direction this election would go was obvious in August. I was betting AGAINST the six, and giving away only 3:1 odds to do so.
I don’t think either side deserves credit. The internet was exploding and many was everywhere.
Spending growth was held down to 3% per year during the Clinton years. It’s hard not to balance the budget with that kind of spending control. The good economy just meant we went from balance to a huge surplus.
No chance of another “Tee hee hee, circuit courts make law, oops I’m not supposed to say that” justice appointed to the Supreme Court.
No chance of another Andre Davis or Pamela Harris appointed to the Fourth Circuit.
That alone is enough.
But of course, there are other awesome outcomes: a chance to weaken or kill Dodd-Frank, for instance.
He did the math, he did the monster math.
Whether you had some special insider knowledge in August that made a 3:1 bet wise is neither proven nor disproven by the direction of events in October. That’s the nature of odds of this magnitude. You’d need a lot of trial to know if it was a smart strategy or not.
If it was a smart bet, it was because you knew something that the polls and state fundamentals weren’t showing yet. I, for one, doubt that Bricker’s gut feelings are a more accurate barometer than August polling and state fundamentals. But perhaps you will repeat this strategy over the next few elections and we will find out whether your partisan sense is better than 538.
At any rate, my radical lefty poker party extends an open invitation. He’s welcome any time.
If it was “obvious” to you but not Nate Silver, then it wasn’t actually obvious.
Not appropriate. Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
That was just a joke! No jab was meant at all.
Results coming in from Kentucky now. Should we have a results thread?
Why not? I’ll start one.
Exit poll in NC shows Dem turnout at 30-year low:
I thought Democrats were enthused because of the MOral Monday thing over there?
Klein also cites exit polls showing GOP turnout in Kansas is at a 20-year low. That’s more understandable given that it’s Pat Roberts.
I would love to continue betting against liberal starry-eyed optimism.