
Foxy Nate Silver and why old-media hedgehogs could soon be old news  - wglb
http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/02/foxy-nate-silver-and-why-old-media-hedgehogs-could-soon-be-old-news/
======
guscost
I don't get the effort to lionize (foxitize?) Nate Silver just before this
election. The "other side" says: [http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/is-nate-
silvers-value-at-r...](http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/is-nate-silvers-
value-at-risk/)

"In 2008, the RealClearPolitics polling average was incorrect in two states —
Indiana and North Carolina. Silver botched Indiana but correctly called North
Carolina. In 2010, it was much worse. State polling averages were wrong in
Alaska (they said Joe Miller would be elected), wrong in Colorado (they said
Ken Buck would be elected), and embarrassingly wrong in Nevada (they said
Harry Reid would be involuntarily retired). FiveThirtyEight incorrectly
forecast the winner in each of those states, perfectly reflecting the
inaccurate information contained in the state polls. Thus, of the five major
state races in which polls were wrong over the last four years, Silver only
got one right."

Why don't people wait and see what happens?

~~~
btilly
Duh. Base a model on polling data and you are only as good as your polling
data. If the election is swung by cheating this time (as evidence suggests has
happened plenty of times in the past), polls will be spectacularly wrong.
Incorporate everything else you can think of and you get only a bit more
accurate.

However the question is this. Do you have anything more accurate? I've had the
experience on NPR of hearing pundits going on at length about what states
matter. And it was less informative than a glance at <http://www.electoral-
vote.com/> is.

So no, it is not perfect. Nobody, particularly Nate, says that it is. But we
don't have anything better.

~~~
jtfairbank
Check out <http://electionanalytics.cs.illinois.edu/> for an alternative to
Nate Silver. It uses bayesian analysis and dynamic program to come up with a
deterministic snapshot of the election.

It is based on the polling data, so if the data is off the snapshot will be
off, but otherwise it seems to provide a great snapshot of the Election.

~~~
mkr-hn
I think that's the same method Nate Silver uses.

edit: I just looked at your comment history. Repeating the same comment over
and over is going to cause problems.

------
mynameishere
Normally reporters are supposed to be unbiased, and so making a call one way
or the other is inappropriate. In OP/ED mode, probabilities are completely
beside the point. No one is going to say, "You should vote for XYZ because he
is currently the most likely to win."

I really am not sure what the point of predicting is _unless_ you're betting,
or unless you're a high-level campaign manager who needs to allocate resources
in various districts/states.

~~~
nmcfarl
I can give you another reason with a much bigger population base.

You have a candidate you are backing, with your time and/or money. But you are
not made of time and money. What are you doing this weekend, working in the
yard, or at the phone-bank? Signing checks to your candidate, or putting that
money back into your business? Predictions help a lot here - they're useful
for time and money allocations other than just at the "high-level campaign
manager" level.

~~~
tspike
Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

I agree that disinterested parties have a lot to gain from a probabilistic
analysis, but someone who's working at the phone bank likely cares deeply
about the cause and is convinced that their efforts can make a difference. At
a macro scale, they do make a difference.

It's precisely those kinds of actions which shift the overall probabilities
regarding the outcome.

------
dietrichepp
The hilarious part of this article is how it's so clearly a "hedgehog"
article.

> Hedgehogs are “type A personalities who believe in Big Ideas – in governing
> principles about the world ... Hedgehogs are more easily seduced by clear
> narratives. Foxes are more data-driven, less willing to stake out strong
> positions.

Wouldn't you say this article is definitely a "clear narrative" and a "strong
position" that is not backed up by data, nor does this categorization of
people seem to show "nuance, uncertainty, complexity, and dissenting opinion"?

It's an article for hedgehogs.

------
sxp
>“If you think it’s a toss-up, let’s bet,” Silver Tweeted at Scarborough. “If
Obama wins, you donate $1,000 to the American Red Cross. If Romney wins, I do.
Deal?”

Wouldn't a better bet be something like $800 to Scarborough's charity if
Romney wins or $200 to Silver's charity if Obama wins given that Silver has
Obama at 80%? That makes Silver's confidence more visible than by using an
even bet.

~~~
MaysonL
Scarborough's the one saying it's a toss-up, so Silver's proposing a bet at
Joe's odds. If Joe really believes his own odds, the bet would be fair.

~~~
btilly
Any competent gambler knows that a fair bet is not worth taking.

See the Kelly criterion if you don't know what I am talking about.

~~~
SkyMarshal
That's also the point, Nate is implying Joe is not a competent gambler, or at
least not a competent odds-calculator.

------
qeorge
Saying Nate Silver is "wrong" is like saying the weatherman is wrong. Neither
is taking a position, just reporting an aggregated statistic.

~~~
waterlesscloud
That's true of his model, but in his writing he's definitely taken a position.

~~~
albedoa
In what way? How has he taken more of a position on the election outcome than
a weather forecaster does on weather outcome?

------
lmg643
i like to keep in mind that intrade had 80% odds on the supreme court ruling
obamacare unconstitutional, right before it was declared constitutional:

[http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=74535...](http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=745353)

the idea that bookies and betting sites have something to teach us about real
outcomes is a little rich. the optimal outcome for a sports book is to have
heavy betting in the wrong direction.

~~~
btilly
If you believe that bookies are consistently giving the odds wrong, then you
should start consistently taking their money.

Yes, I'm aware that this way of thinking is odd to people who do not
understand markets, gambling, and so on. But it is still true. Bookies try
really, really hard to give correct odds. And if you look at 20 bets which had
80% odds, you would expect to find several examples where the expected winner
lost. That's why the odds were set at 80% and not 99%.

~~~
lmg643
i am only inspired to mention this because nate silver mentioned oddsmakers as
evidence supporting his prediction.

[https://twitter.com/fivethirtyeight/status/26394803410527846...](https://twitter.com/fivethirtyeight/status/263948034105278464)

i'm mixing examples here. intrade is a betting market, no line is set by a
bookie - it measures public opinion. one way to look at it is that intrade is
efficient and there was truly a "20% chance it will occur." the other way to
look at it is "the odds were never 80/20" because most people betting on it
were uninformed or misinformed (clearly watching WAY too much Fox news). this
is unknowable, because it's not a repeatable event. prediction markets were
originally based on the idea that folks with inside information would bet
heavily and clearly justice roberts had other stuff to do.

understanding how sports books work is not the same as saying "i know enough
about sports to bet profitably." that said, bets set by a casino or sports
book are different than intrade. a bookie is trying to maximize house profit,
whereas intrade is pure sentiment. a sports spread can be -2 with 80% of
people betting one side. the house might think the real spread is -4, and they
expect the line to pay off. here's an example of how lopsided bets can be:

[http://www.thespread.com/ncaa-college-football-public-
bettin...](http://www.thespread.com/ncaa-college-football-public-betting-
chart#.UJWDjKg0V8E)

I'm reading "sharp sports betting" by sanford wong right now. good quote:

"I had the opportunity to ask Robert Walker, race and sportsbook director at
MGM mirage, whether his company's action is balanced on football games...it
appeared to me that sportsbooks might be taking lopsided action on about half
of all NFL games. Mr Walker answered that what I hypothesized was indeed the
case....then i asked him why he did not make more line moves to try and
balance the action. his answer was that to move the line to try to balance the
action would result in less profit for the sportsbook."

~~~
btilly
If you know the odds that you think are right, and the odds that they are
providing, you can read <http://www.elem.com/~btilly/kelly-criterion/> to
figure out what your most profitable strategy is. (I include calculators, and
explanations of how to modify the strategy if you are somewhat risk-adverse.)

Seriously, if someone is offering wrong odds and you're sure of it, you can
consistently make money. Go for it!

------
ChristianMarks
I welcome the demise of the non-mathematical political pundit.

------
malkia
I therefore propose Fox News to change it's name to Hedgehog News - "News
straight from the guts!"

