Is @metaculus or @GJ_Open better?
Evidently, conditional probabilities are hard.
These prediction markets are not worth trusting, especially for low probabilities or precise estimates. (via @HowieLempel)
Also, the Yang number is far less egregious than Hillary at... 6%?!?
cc: @superforecaster, @PTetlockpic.twitter.com/dx5ho65SsY
-
-
-
Yes, if only in that they don't have a house edge and the probabilities will sum to 1. They also arguably have larger incentives. That is, to most people involved the reputation is worth more than the paltry amounts these markets let you trade.
- Još 4 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Both markets have sum > $1 so it doesn't work even without conditioning
-
Yes, because there is a house edge - finding implied probabilities means prices must be renormalized to account for the difference.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
The way existing political prediction markets are setup makes them unreliable for dealing with probabilities above .9 or below .1 because you have to tie up a relatively large amount of money relative to your expected gains.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
There's just not enough money and liquidity in predictit for it to be in any way a reliable source of information. It's not worth it for investors with more knowledge and discipline to correct the market
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
I bought no on Clinton a while back. Folks - she's not even running. . .
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Yang has a high implied conditional odds on BetFair, not 1 though.pic.twitter.com/ggtsLjvvTW
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.