give us your opinion about these posters

[Trotskilicious]

fuzzy probably doesn't realize how much statistical analysis goes into oddsmaking because he thinks the nba is the wwe

[redbreegull]

So what would you say on average that a poll will correctly predict an outcome that will end in a 1-10% difference might be?

after I read this 5 times it became really funny to me and now I can't stop laughing

[Trotskilicious]

its just a bunch of words it means nothing lmfao

[redbreegull]

bleep bleep bloop gabba gabba hey

[Trotskilicious]

what would you say the odds of 10% of a polling questions to change the observed rate of the success of the issue would be, smart guy?

[Trotskilicious]

IF YOU'RE SO SMART JUST ANSWER THAT COMMON SENSE QUESTION

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

fuzzy probably doesn't realize how much statistical analysis goes into oddsmaking because he thinks the nba is the wwe

Not that far off. It's looking like Phoenix is easily gonna cover against Washington Wizards tonight.

The Wiz should be able to beat that team by 30 points. More easy money in my trouser pockets

It's either rigged or the guys who set the lines are geniuses. Either way, it's good to bet with Vegas. But some of the stuff I see I just gotta wonder.

[Trotskilicious]

i don't care

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

So what would you say on average that a poll will correctly predict an outcome that will end in a 1-10% difference might be?

That's a good question.

In short, the answer is B.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

the first sentence doesn't even make sense like wtf are you asking

Yeah that is a bit of a word-salad.

How often can polling correctly predict a result that ends within a 1-10% difference?

Probably not very spectacularly is what I'm saying.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

Yeah that is a bit of a word-salad.

How often can polling correctly predict a result that ends within a 1-10% difference?

Probably not very spectacularly is what I'm saying.

if the margin of error is 10% at 90% confidence, the poll will not be more than that amount off in nine out of ten iterations. dude you don't even know literally the most ba


you know what fuck it you'll never learn

[fuzzyroes]

So in other words, polling's only really accurate when it's representing what everyone already knows anyways.

If polling is useless in a political race that is somewhat close, why even bother with it?

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

hey remember how we could solve the Israeli occupation by forcefully removing all 7 million Jews and housing them with their American relatives

I mean, it would solve it.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

So in other words, polling's only really accurate when it's representing what everyone already knows anyways.

If polling is useless in a political race that is somewhat close, why even bother with it?

I want a crystal ball and I don't understand why this is not that

.

[FoolofaTook]

Originally Posted by toase

this is me.

when I'm at the bar with some friends and we need to split the bill, sometimes even the waiter looks at me expecting a quick answer since I'm half asian

What part of asia unless you rather not tell.

[fuzzyroes]

So we agree. Polling is an exercise in futility.

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

& vixnix much prefers the most sensational narrative

eh, I don't give a shit tbh I was a bernie or bust-er

but it certainly seemed to surprise most people I know, and a lot of people here, and partly because (I had thought) they trusted the polls.

[fuzzyroes]

I mean, I guess polling could be useful if you're just an alien and you have no finger on the pulse of what is going on in a nation or if you're doing it for general market-research.

But political polling is garbage.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by vixnix

eh, I don't give a shit tbh I was a bernie or bust-er

but it certainly seemed to surprise most people I know, and a lot of people here, and partly because (I had thought) they trusted the polls.

For my part, the contrary. The polls had me very worried the last few months and it became very apparent the race was competitive. What caused me to be shocked was the constant inundating chorus of "he can't win" which gets into your head after awhile. But the polls were not far off and in fact they were better than any POTUS election polls ever before (not surprising since they get better every election)

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

I mean, I guess polling could be useful if you're just an alien and you have no finger on the pulse of what is going on in a nation or if you're doing it for general market-research.

But political polling is garbage.

finger on the pulse? you are literally defending the attitude that made liberals think they would win easily. the polls showed a competitive race near the end. the polls were right, the pundits and the "pulse takers" were wrong, just as they were in 2012 and 2004

[redbreegull]

I know you like to believe you are somehow spiritually in tune with the spirit of America or something though because you are a weak minded magical thinker

[fuzzyroes]

My point is that the only purpose polls are good for is validating what most people already know.

And a week or so out a lot of the polls did have Clinton trouncing Trump... So much so that Hillary and Kaine ended up rallying for the seats in the senate as if the election was all but over.

Their campaign putting so much faith in the polls was a tremendous misstep.

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by vixnix

Try explaining why it's dumb, and then we'll all get to see who is talking about shit beyond their area of knowledge

You're literally asking me to explain to you why statistics are a thing. That's kinda a dumb request, but maybe I'll try it tomorrow. I've got to get to work on an essay right now. But I might just do one of those long-ass boring Disco posts nobody likes to read eventually.

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

My point is that the only purpose polls are good for is validating what most people already know.

Fuzzy, before you say something, it might be beneficial to reflect on the fact that you're pretty clueless and then not say that thing.

[Disco King]

I can't handle this thread anymore. Unless people wanna start talking about BDSM fantasies again, I'm out.

Peace.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

My point is that the only purpose polls are good for is validating what most people already know.

And a week or so out a lot of the polls did have Clinton trouncing Trump... So much so that Hillary and Kaine ended up rallying for the seats in the senate as if the election was all but over.

Their campaign putting so much faith in the polls was a tremendous misstep.

...they didn't you fool. they put faith in pundits and idiots holding their whetted fingers into the wind. Trump had already shown an ability to pass her in the polls several times. it wasn't faith in the polls that caused her miscalculations. but keep making up more shit.

[redbreegull]

fuzzy is the kind of person who will say he can't trust science because scientists change their opinions with new information

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

fuzzy probably doesn't realize how much statistical analysis goes into oddsmaking because he thinks the nba is the wwe

Told you the Phoenix game was rigged

Date Matchup Selection Odds
Mar 7 WAS vs. PHO
PHO
Over

PHO +5.0
Over 229.0

$$$$$$$

[fuzzyroes]

Double whammy, cashed on the OVER too.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

...they didn't you fool. they put faith in pundits and idiots holding their whetted fingers into the wind. Trump had already shown an ability to pass her in the polls several times. it wasn't faith in the polls that caused her miscalculations. but keep making up more shit.

S'all good dude. But we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

Cheers