Money? Does this need to be said? Everything is being done for money or power, or both. You don't need a wall sized flow chart to puzzle this out.
And it's not conspiracy level thinking, it's observing the world around me and recognizing exactly how these people work, and how few scruples they have. Plenty of evidence for that, if you care to look. Is Nate one of those? No idea, but Peter is. And being Peter adjacent is at least enough to raise eyebrows. Or should be, anyway.
And Nate left because Peter paid him millions of dollars
he joined polymarket for an undisclosed amount of money...likely a large amount
I'm saying there is some bias and a conflict of interest in his model as he isn't independent.(its not just numbers come on now) This isn't revolutionary stuff. People can follow whatever they like for me he is a sellout causing me not to trust his model. Anyone who thinks his model reflects reality have at it.
__________________
GFG
Last edited by dino7c; 09-17-2024 at 02:19 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
There is more money coming in on Trump...from Trumpers.
odd, its almost like its easier to gift them out of their money.
We can look at demographics of gamblers if you like...
age: Skews older
gender: Skews Male
economics: Skews Poor
Education: Skews no post secondary
Sounds like someone I know's voter demographics
Now if Trumpers are more likely to bet on my betting site do I want it to seem like his is going to win or lose?
If way more money was coming in for Trump, he'd be a huge favorite in the odds. If more money is coming for Trump, and they are letting Kamala be the slight favorite on their books, then you're saying they are willing to take a huge exposure on Trump winning because they are so sure Trump is going to lose?
By extension, Nate's role is to hide the fact that Kamala will surely win?
Bookies make the money on the juice, not by hoping for an outcome.
I mean Peter Thiel who is backing Trump and handpicked his VP candidate owns Nate Silver's employer. If you're going to deny those kind of entanglements I don't know what to tell you.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
Nate Silver might be a dork, and he's definitely balding, but I don't see how you can definitively say he's compromised. The Thiel connection adds some intrigue, but there are more cost effective ways for Thiel to influence the election than this. More than likely he just sees how many degenerate gamblers are out there and that he can make an easy return exploiting that.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Trump: So you have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the north, with the snow caps and Canada, and—all pouring down, and they have a—essentially—a very large faucet, and you turn the faucet and it takes one day to turn it, it’s massive. It’s as big as the wall of that building right there behind you. And you turn that, and all of that water goes into the—aimlessly into the Pacific. And if they turned it back, all of that water would come right down here, and right into Los Angeles.
Yeah honestly the Polymarket thing has even me interested in gambling. I only know enough about one sport to care to gamble on it, and hockey is so variable I don't bother. The odd card game sure. Not interested in any type of racing.
But stuff like whether or not Beyonce will show up at the DNC. I'm here for bets like that. That's like betting on social patterns and mass psychology.
Polymarket wins by taking a Vig off the amount bet. Vegas doesn’t care who wins the Super Bowl.
And in the Polymarket case they don’t even have to set the line.
While I have no idea about this particular case, theoretically you could incentivize betting with polling. If a polling model showed a significant discrepancy from the odds (i.e. if betting odds were 50/50 but a poll model showed Trump at 70/30 to win), then you would likely get additional money into the system because there's a perceived market inefficiency. And if that did happen to the point where it re-set the odds to far, then you may get even more money from more sophisticated parties to correct the odds. Now I doubt Silver has that kind of reach to really push that too much, but in theory it's possible.
Trying to wrap my head around this. Is he talking about dams? We do have lots of those, but none of them redirect water to the Pacific Ocean instead of going south to the U.S. And very few rivers in Canada flow south to the U.S., and I am pretty sure none of them go to California.
I don't know why I am trying to figure this one out. It's just mind boggling stupid. But you just know some MAGA idiots are now turning their hate towards Canada for stealing their water.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Trying to wrap my head around this. Is he talking about dams? We do have lots of those, but none of them redirect water to the Pacific Ocean instead of going south to the U.S. And very few rivers in Canada flow south to the U.S., and I am pretty sure none of them go to California.
I don't know why I am trying to figure this one out. It's just mind boggling stupid. But you just know some MAGA idiots are now turning their hate towards Canada for stealing their water.
He's talking about the Columbia River. He's suggesting that they divert water from it to California which is a dumb idea, though he's certainly not the first to suggest it.
He's talking about the Columbia River. He's suggesting that they divert water from it to California which is a dumb idea, though he's certainly not the first to suggest it.
Oh I see, I just read the quoted part but I'll watch the whole thing later. I do recall that topic coming up before. I also recall learning about a proposal from several decades ago to turn James Bay into a large freshwater later and diverting the water to the U.S. Which is even a dumber idea.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Can anyone tell me where this giant tap is? I would like to go see it
Did trump actually say it was the Columbia river and a diversion of water he was talking about, or did the press sane-wash what he actually said ěnto something that kind of made sense? They do it all the time.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to puffnstuff For This Useful Post:
And Nate left because Peter paid him millions of dollars
he joined polymarket for an undisclosed amount of money...likely a large amount
I'm saying there is some bias and a conflict of interest in his model as he isn't independent.(its not just numbers come on now) This isn't revolutionary stuff. People can follow whatever they like for me he is a sellout causing me not to trust his model. Anyone who thinks his model reflects reality have at it.
It's funny you talk about independence and bias and rail against Silver because he is a sellout yet 538 is owned by ABC/Disney and Disney is behind Harris and there have even been stories about high level people at Disney being under scrutiny for their friendships with Harris.
This is revisionist history. The Dems/Left pull out this tired crap every election. Mitt Romney was vilified but now "he's a decent man".
Can you point me to where Romney ever called the media the enemy of the people? Or where he called his political opponents vermin? Or where he denied his election loss and riled up an angry mob and sent them to the Capitol? Or tried a fake elector scheme? Or piled up classified documents in his home?
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
Can you point me to where Romney ever called the media the enemy of the people? Or where he called his political opponents vermin? Or where he denied his election loss and riled up an angry mob and sent them to the Capitol? Or tried a fake elector scheme? Or piled up classified documents in his home?
That's not really the point though. Since 2004, the Democrats have basically treated every Republican nominee as a looming threat to everything they hold dearly. They weren't necessarily wrong either, but it rings insanely hollow when you start opening the tent to war criminals like Cheney.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
While I have no idea about this particular case, theoretically you could incentivize betting with polling. If a polling model showed a significant discrepancy from the odds (i.e. if betting odds were 50/50 but a poll model showed Trump at 70/30 to win), then you would likely get additional money into the system because there's a perceived market inefficiency. And if that did happen to the point where it re-set the odds to far, then you may get even more money from more sophisticated parties to correct the odds. Now I doubt Silver has that kind of reach to really push that too much, but in theory it's possible.
In a world where people complaining about Nate Silvers model bias were not aware that 538 is a brand new model and not Nate’s old model I am unconvinced that Silver has any ability to fake model data to move the market against 538.
That's not really the point though. Since 2004, the Democrats have basically treated every Republican nominee as a looming threat to everything they hold dearly. They weren't necessarily wrong either, but it rings insanely hollow when you start opening the tent to war criminals like Cheney.
Did they open the tent? It seems like most people are saying "see, even the devil doesn't want you".
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
