Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (761815)	1/6/2014 5:01:27 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575596

You are truly clueless if you think you can reduce what he did to calling the relatively small number of truly in play states correctly as either for or against Obama. Instead, look at how accurately he called every states results numerically, and then compare to how the others did numerically. Do you really have no idea what is going on?

To: i-node who wrote (761815)	1/6/2014 8:19:11 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575596

Triumph of the Nerds: Nate Silver Wins in 50 States mashable.com "Barack Obama may have comfortably won re-election in the electoral college, and opened up a decisive lead (two million and counting) in the popular vote. But here is the absolute, undoubted winner of this election: Nate Silver and his running mate, big data. The Fivethirtyeight.com analyst, despite being pilloried by the pundits, outdid even his 2008 prediction. In that year, his mathematical model correctly called 49 out of 50 states, missing only Indiana (which went to Obama by 0.1%.)"............... "The great thing about a model like Silver's (and that of similarly winning math nerds, such as Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium) is that it takes all that myopic human bias out of the equation. The ever-present temptation to cherry-pick polls is subverted.You set your parameters at the start, deciding how much weight and accuracy you're going to give to each poll based purely on their historical accuracy. You feed in whatever other conditions you think will matter to the result. Then, you sit back and let the algorithm do the work. Silver may be a registered Democrat, but he learned back when he was doing baseball analysis that he'd never get anywhere if his models weren't absolutely neutral, straight down the line between feuding teams. By 2016, if the networks are paying attention, don't be surprised to see that the talking heads are all Nate Silver clones. Every media organization will now want its own state poll-based algorithm, especially given how much traffic Silver has driven to the New York Times' website. We'll see more about that kind of model, and less stories about individual polls, which are almost always misleading unless you aggregate them. Statistics, big data, neutral mathematical models — this, it turns out, is what people want. Who knew?"