**** Official Adanthar Tries To Crush The Market Thread ****

[corsakh]

So what is the magic formula and what makes these events dependent?

Just simple words. No analogies and logical tricks. Everyone repeats the same thing to look smart, no one understands wth they are talking about.

[Poofler]

Yeah, enough logical tricks already.

[DVaut1]

Originally Posted by corsakh

Just simple words. No analogies and logical tricks.

[corsakh]

So funny and original, never seen this on 2+2.

[snagglepuss]

id like to issue a challenge to the last 100 posters in this thread to highstakes/midstakes headsup poker. any flop game: nl, plo, lhe, lo8 or 2-7 td, single draw, or horse. pm me pls

[Wynton]

Originally Posted by snagglepuss

id like to issue a challenge to the last 100 posters in this thread to highstakes/midstakes headsup poker. any flop game: nl, plo, lhe, lo8 or 2-7 td, single draw, or horse. pm me pls

Does that include us levelers?

[Poofler]

corsakh, go on 538.

Look at the "scenario analysis" table.

'Obama wins OH when losing PA = 24.97% (1334 of 2423 simulations)'

Individual odds of Obama winning OH and PA are 76% and 92%, respectively.

If you presume the two states are independent, Obama's odds of winning OH should still just be 76% if we presume he loses PA, right?

[miajag]

Nate just uses analogies and logical tricks to come up with those numbers, ldo.

[Poofler]

Actually I think he uses a very fine chorizo.

[corsakh]

I have seen this table. I am confused. I'm not even sure what "when" and "loosing" mean.

[inlemur]

Originally Posted by corsakh

Do you mean the emotional factor? It very small if games are played simultaneously and we already covered this.

wat

The last two pages of this thread must be the most epic level ever.

[The 13th 4postle]

All they are saying is that if McCain wins Ohio, he is more likely to win Florida because the McCain camp has done something better then Obama and more likely then not, they have done the same thing in Florida.

There is nothing connecting Ohio to Florida or Vice Versa except the candidates, what they do, and current events. More likely then not these three things will affect both Florida and Ohio in similar ways.

[Poofler]

Originally Posted by corsakh

I have seen this table. I am confused. I'm not even sure what "when" and "loosing" mean.

From his FAQ:

What is Win % or Win Probability? Simply, the number of times that a candidate wins a given state, or wins the general election, based on 10,000 daily simulation runs.

How is Win Probability determined? By simulating the election 10,000 times each day by means of a Monte Carlo analysis, based on the current Projection in each state. The simulation accounts for the following properties:

(i) That the true margin of error of a poll is much higher than the sampling error, especially when the poll is taken long before the election.

(ii) That polling movement between different states tends to be correlated based on the demographics in those states.

The election is the result of thousands of simulations based on MOE, possible future polling movements, and probably some other things. It just so happens 92% of these simulations (or scenarios, if that helps you think about it) end with Obama receiving more votes in PA.

In simulations where he loses PA, I'd presume you'd find that the simulation much more frequently concluded that there is currently systematic polling bias towards Obama and/or national and regional polling moves against Obama in the next few weeks. These factors would also very negatively effect Obama's OH polling, where if you took those circumstances at true, Obama is actually the underdog there right now.

[Poofler]

I realize you've banned analogies, and I usually hate them, but I don't care right now.

Suppose you have two stocks in the financial sector. Stock A and stock B. You presume both will go up 70% of the time (daily basis), as they have in recent history.

These stocks have systematic market risk.

If stock A goes down, there isn't a 70% chance a nearly identical stock B in the same sector is still 70% to have gone up that day. It probably went down as well. Accordingly, if stock A went up, there's probably more than a 70% chance stock B also went up. However, take the last 3,000 days as a sample size, and each stock was up in 70% of those days.

If what you're saying is true, industry and sector diversification to reduce risk in the stock market is just a shell game.

[corsakh]

Ok, so the new information simply allows him to adjust filters, margins and coefficients with higher precision. And none of this "dependent" and "can not multiply probabiities" bs. Thanks. I thought I was going crazy here for a second.