Talk:Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction

RobSmith, you added the article: "The 'not much faith in fate or luck' would seemingly contradict the hypothesis that political betting markets are more reliable than opinion polling."

The article is about laymen good at forecasting vs. subject matter experts and who is more accurate at forecasting. The article has nothing to do with polling or betting markets. It's off topic. It is like injecting material on algebra into an article on peaches. It's off topic.

In addition, you didn't source your statement. Conservative (talk) 22:02, February 18, 2024 (EST)

I am endeavoring to be openminded about your addition so I gave it more thought. So here is a valid point, people who are in political betting markets are not playing slot machines where luck enters in. They are making political forecasts based on whatever criteria they believe is valid. Conservative (talk) 23:03, February 18, 2024 (EST)

They are gambling. Period. And the wagers are not based on the principal of one bettor, one vote. Elsewhere, in this encyclopedia, we have from the same author of this article the assertion that gambling odds are more reliable than opinion polling - a direct contradiction of the claims made in this article. RobS^{Zelensky didn't kill himself} 00:53, February 19, 2024 (EST)

The political betting markets have been around a long time. And they are not based on equality/equity, they are based on endeavoring to achieve reliability and as an alternative to polling. And the political betting markets make money on the betting too I am guessing just like the polling firms don't work for free.

And there are two types of gambling. Gambling based on skill such as poker or gambling based on "luck" such as slot machines or lotteries. The political betting markets betters base things on who they believe are going to win so they have some type of criteria. And some betters criteria is better than others.

But it's a moot point because this article is about an entirely different topic of about laymen good at forecasting vs. subject matter experts and who is more accurate at forecasting. The article has nothing to do with polling or betting markets. Conservative (talk) 01:05, February 19, 2024 (EST)

They are related. The same author in several articles spammed across CP on multiple pages (not to mentioned spammed into talk page discussions over months) makes the claim that gambling and luck is more reliable than opinion polling in making election forecasts. RobS^{Zelensky didn't kill himself} 01:08, February 19, 2024 (EST)

Provide statistical arguments based on political betting marketing vs. polling and their actual results in terms of reliability if you don't think the political betting markets are reliable. Use journals, etc.

Lately, the polling has had significant problems with reliability. And there are various articles and journal articles making actual statistical arguments in favor of the political betting markets. Conservative (talk) 01:13, February 19, 2024 (EST)

A candidate with a 20% chance of winning means a better wins $4 for every $1 bet; a candidate with an 80% chance of winning means a bettor wins back 20 cents on his $1 bet (only an idiot would make that bet). 4:1 odds have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with a bettor's political bias, judgement, or favorability toward a candidate. RobS^{Zelensky didn't kill himself} 01:21, February 19, 2024 (EST)

There is a risk/reward ratio when it comes to betting or business ventures. Of course people betting on riskier things are payed more handsomely if they are right.

With that being said, an astute forecaster makes bets when he earns a premium over the risk/reward ratio due to superior judgment. There is an incentive to do research, etc. so he gains a competitive edge. There is no such thing when it comes to well-run lottery tickets which are based on luck/chance. Forecasters and businessmen make calculated risks and the more leg work they do in quality research, the more reward they make. The same applies to the stock market or commodity markets and investors. And there is also an incentive to become a better forecaster.

There is nothing wrong with people with people accepting more risk for greater rewards. People who fish in the turbulent Alaskan seas get payed more due to the risk premium. Conservative (talk) 01:37, February 19, 2024 (EST)

Political betting markets are unreliable for this simple reason: the betting participants have no idea what they are doing. 01:41, February 19, 2024 (EST)

The political betting markets are based on the efficient market hypothesis just like the stock markets/commodity markets. Investors in the stock/commodity markets who educate themselves in terms of becoming a better investor (financial analysis, etc.), being a better forecaster and do more research/analysis of the publicly available information can earn better rewards. That's why some people become wealthier than others via the stock markets or commodity markets.

The same applies to the political betting markets. The more people know about politics, the better their forecasting skills are and the more research and analysis they do, the better results they will achieve.

And the same applies to any forecasting. Sharpening forecasting skills and doing more research, etc means you are a better forecaster.

On the other hand, well-run lotteries offer no such thing. There is no rewards for forecasting astuteness or via doing research. Conservative (talk) 01:59, February 19, 2024 (EST)

RobSmith, you wrote: "Political betting markets are unreliable for this simple reason: the betting participants have no idea what they are doing." You have no evidence for this assertion. You haven't offered any evidence that some participants aren't intensely interested in politics and have a better understanding than others and that some betters don't have better forecasting skills than others.

But the bottom line is that it still comes to what methodology is getting better results. I don't trust most polling because pollsters have been achieving worse results than they previously did. And a lot of the polling is being done by news organizations whose quality of news has deteriorated. So it's no surprise their polling has deteriorated as well. But there are other factors as well such as people being harder to reach due to voicemail, call blockers, etc. Plus, people trust news organizations less so when someone says they are calling from ABC News about a poll, a lot of people are going to hang up. Conservative (talk) 02:34, February 19, 2024 (EST)

RobSmith, you are not addressing my arguments. The truth is that you don't understand things like statistical analysis such as regressional analysis which is commonly used in forecasting because you lack statistical numeracy. You have said that you don't really know much about psychology so you don't understand the psychological profile of forecasters who receive superior results according to the research.

You complain that you want to spend more time monitoring the military conflict in Ukraine and yet here you are engaged in an editing dispute where you don't understand the fundamentals. Conservative (talk) 13:00, February 19, 2024 (EST)

RobSmith, you spent a lot of time updating Conservapedia's civility rules and got me involved, but here you are not engaging in civil discussion where you address the other person's points.

In addition, you recently made an assertion that you did not support.

If you don't understand a subject because you don't understand things like statistical analysis, psychology, etc. then it makes no sense picking a pointless dispute about it. Conservative (talk) 13:40, February 19, 2024 (EST)

4000+ bytes. The rule states discuss before revert. RobS^{Zelensky didn't kill himself} 13:50, February 19, 2024 (EST)

Statistically, this is how it breaks down: bettors between 46% and 54% can double their money; bettors at 93% or 96% win back their own money; bettors below 46% are professional handicappers (all other bettors are "suckers", to use trade jargon), motivated by greed to take the "sucker's" money and not by any particular favoritism toward the candidate. All others (above 46%) are suckers who may win a few pennies on the dollar or lose all.

Overall, virtually all bettors are suckers cause they don't know who or what they are betting against. One big player may own 50% of the betting pool, and will take ALL bettors' money if he wins (conversely, will payout if he loses). This will and does happen in a large city like New York where the idle rich have nothing better to do with their time and money. It has nothing to do with the political viability of a candidate.

Then, we have the problem of corruption and manipulation in advance betting markets, by interested stakeholders, who heavily bet on a candidate to influence public perceptions and opinion. RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 04:36, May 23, 2024 (EDT)