APOLOGIZE TO NATE SILVER RIGHT NOW

Imagine dedicating your life to predicting the outcome of children’s games being played by grown men

How does he do it?

He was the only one trying to objectively predict it brainlets

And he was still unjustifiably wrong

He kind of said the opposite, hilariously enough. A lot of outlets were predicting a "A modest but clear Clinton win", whereas 538 gave much better odds to the "Narrow Trump win" or "Clinton Blowout" events.

30% is not even close to 0% (or 2% or 5%). If you think 2 to 1 odds is a sure thing then I have some sports bets to make with you.

Why can't poltards understand how probability works?

t. Nathan Aluminum

Reminder you faggots keep making excuses for this kike despite him having Trump at

Legitimate quants who handle 9 figure accounts laugh at this guy. He has a BA in economics, he's a data journalist.

Attached: Nate Plastcuck Clown Show.jpg (690x6602, 1.78M)

>wrong
he was not wrong. he said it was unlikely. it WAS unlikely. that doesn't mean impossible.

kwab

Attached: 2019 UCL.jpg (1109x810, 120K)

He wasnt wrong, most of us stayed home. Of those that voted, most of us voted against him. Our govt ain't representing shit

Most people can't.

>Actual winners not even in the top 5
>Runners up dead last
Damn, Nate Cobalt's predictions look like that?!

1/4 to lose is not comfortably
would you do russian roulette if you had 1/4 chance to kill yourself?

kek

>Our emphatic prediction is simply that Trump will not win the nomination. It's not even clear that he's trying to do so.

Attached: oddspic-e1438804785711.jpg (942x625, 113K)

I dont know if his probabilities are decent, but you're a retard

Probabilities are my go-to brainlet check.

>ahah Netherlands England ended 1-1 even though this “””expert””” said 1-1 only had a 14% chance of happening

Go dilate

I wonder how those people think betting works if experts are right 100% of the time

to be fair, you need a pretty high IQ to understand Nate Silver

>tottenham
>make final: 1%

My young lad, do you ask a dolphin how it swims? Or an eagle how it flys? That's right you don't. That's what they were made to do

Brainlet spotted

>assert something is a 99.9% chance of happening
>it doesn't happen
>that was just the 0.1% goy
probability is easy as fuck

>predict X will win
>if it wins you take credit for your amazing prediction
>if it loses you accuse others of being ignorant

Attached: 1550105921374.gif (511x512, 106K)

Is he related to Adam Silver?

Im joking about them being jews and having 1% odds retard

Brainlet detected.

He never said Tottenham had a ZERO percent chance of reaching the final, so he was right.

>57% chance City make the semis.
>.................
>1% chance Spurs make the final
>'Another mathematical masterclass from that imperious analyser, Nate Silver!'
>'He's really yanked the iron out of the fire, no doubt about it Martin! While everyone else were writing Spurs off, this guy had the bravery and belief to stand up, be counted and offer up that earthshattering 1%! And it's paid dividends!

>polish humor
Yeah you’re just a brainlet

Nigga you dont need a phd in statistics to know that a team still in the competition still has a chance of winning

This was at some point in the groupstage when they had 1 points after 3 games, I'm sure bookies had similar odds

>He never said Tottenham had a ZERO percent chance of reaching the final, so he was right
but they had zero percent chance so he was wrong

>miss the joke
>y-your a retard1!1

>he was getting shit on by huffpost readers because he gave trump a 25 percent shot to win on the day of the election
He actually predicted a 33% chance for Trump to win. Far more than any other outlet or person did at the time. Yes, still "wrong", but he was the only one in the polling department that was closest to "right".

People seem to forget that % chance is not a guarantee of result. For example, if Nate Silver made a full year of predictions of 66% chance vs 33% chance to win for teams, his predictions should still be wrong 33% of the time if his data is working correctly. He's not a soothsayer who is predicting outcome, his model is meant to reflect probability, which it does. If his 2/3 vs 1/3 model is right 100% of the time, it means he is actually OVERESTIMATING the odds of the 1/3 guys, and if it's wrong more than 33%, he's overestimating the 2/3rd guys.

I really wish most people could understand something this basic, but they'd rather just spout memes because they're legitimate idiots that can't wrap their heads around basic probability.

All that text and you still understand voting and percentiles at an undergraduate level
yikes

>He actually predicted a 33% chance for Trump to win

So he was wrong, then.

Didn’t read lol

I understand it better than your retarded ass making one liners and saying nothing. You can't even say I was wrong, just "lol dats basic". Well, if it's basic, then stop being a a fucking retard about it.

You clearly can't read, just like the retard below you. It's frustrating that the world has so many retards.

>go to a casino
>bet 33% on black
>it's red
>I still win

bunch of brainlets, silver doesn't make predictions, just gives probable odds

>go to a casino
>play roulette
>33% are black and 67% are red
>"i'll bet red then"
>lands on black
>"hey wtf, i thought red was guaranteed to win!"

>go to a casino
>develop multi million dollar computer model to predict where the ball will land
>my prediction is worth the same as the guy who bets at random

Be a Jewish (((statistics journalist)))
>Have two statistical algorithms
>One algo picks Raptors to win
>One algo picks Warriors to win
>Can't lose b/c Jewing
OP is a fag, can't spot a Jew being a Jew.

Attached: Spertus Institute calendar coverjpg.jpg (525x800, 74K)

>americans talking about probability

Attached: 1550371948499.jpg (540x600, 22K)

>fins talking

how was it unlikely if it happened
it happened meaning that there was a 100% chance of it happening

I have a BS in Economics. does that make me smarter than Nate Silver?

This is fucking stupid
Before game 1 he gave the warriors about a 60% chance to win
After game 1 he gave the raptors about a 60 percent chance to win
Then he flipped it again after game 2
And now this after game 3.
"Our Model was correct" hahaha go fuck yourself nate.

isn't he the one behind that map that gave hillary a 99% chance to win

>Before game 1 he gave the warriors about a 60% chance to win
Not true. I checked before game 1 and the Warriors had a 45% chance to win. It's natural their odds of winning the entire series would change with wins and losses you idiot. If someone is up 3-1, they have better odds of winning than if the series were 0-0.

>Legitimate quants who handle 9 figure accounts laugh at this guy.
No, they don't. Uneducated /pol/tards laugh at him and pretend they handle 9 figure accounts.

t. took one class of stats in college

Even if that were true, he'd know more about probability than the majority of this board, as evidenced by this thread.