Yes, and my argument is that some of the numbers are utter nonsense, logically. The math and margin of error merely obfuscate this logical fallacy of assigning numerical probability - a notion of frequency statistics - to non-repeatable events.The Cid wrote:The number you're pointing at is one of many numbers the site in question runs. They run these on the right edge of the site. To the left of them is an extensive blog that explains the logic, math, and margin of error behind those numbers.collegestudent22 wrote:The accuracy of the numbers is not in question here - the prediction that Obama would get X electoral votes is a separate issue, and relies on - mainly - an assumption of continuity that tends to (but does not always) hold. The idea that a candidate has a certain percentage of winning the election, however, is nonsense.

Did Obama win 85% of the repeated 2012 elections? Because these kinds of numbers are the ones I am disputing - the "chance of winning" and such things. It is one thing to analyze the polls and say something like "I guess that out of the total amount of electors 45 millions will exercise their franchise, 25 millions of whom will vote for Roosevelt." It is wholly another to then say "I estimate Roosevelt's chances as 9 to 1."I don't see what there is to argue about. The sabermetrician got it right. His electoral college projection was pretty much dead on.

"For the comparison is based on a conception which is in itself faulty in the very frame of the calculus of probability, namely the gambler's fallacy. In asserting that Roosevelt's chances are 9:1, the idea is that Roosevelt is in regard to the impending election in the position of a man who owns 90 per cent of all tickets of a lottery in regard to the first prize. It is implied that this ratio 9:1 tells us something substantial about the outcome of the unique case in which we are interested. There is no need to repeat that this is a mistaken idea." And yet, I keep having to repeat it.

Right. Sorry. I was thinking the prediction market system instead. I contend, however, that the analysis of the handicappers is subjective, inherently non-numerical in the sense of "chance of winning", and based upon their own reasoning, which could be wrong. Further, if their opinion differs significantly from that of the gamblers, the oddsUm, no. That's not how Vegas determines their odds. The original odds are always determined by analysis by professional handicappers who, were they not extremely good at this, would not be professionals anymore.collegestudent22 wrote:(Or Vegas odds, as it were, which are not determined by analysis, but what people are willing to bet.)

*would*shift significantly by the interactions of the bets.

The information I obtained was direct from NOAA. It isn't so muchSo you're arguing with ampersand about meteorology

*me*arguing with amp about it, but the (other) professionals.

To quote: "the correct way to interpret the forecast is: there is a 40 percent chance that rain will occur at any given point in the area." This is basically an estimate based on the frequency of rain coming with the expected pattern, combined with the frequency estimate of the area. It is, however, not a unique combination of factors that is being analyzed - it differs in form from the "chance of winning" idea, as it is class probability of a similar manner to insurance classification.