[tenderman100]

(11-03-2012 11:52 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

All right, here's the deal then: what you can extract from me is 2-1, take it or leave it. If you think Romney's chances are greater than 1 in 3, you're leaving money on the table if you don't take the bet (I suppose I am too, but I don't really want to put 60 bucks or whatever on the line just to win a measly book, even if I'm very likely to keep it--plus this is more for my own amusement than anything else at this point).

If you don't think it's in your interest to bet me at 2-1 then that's cool. I wouldn't take it either if I were you.

Really? So you are so non-confident is Silver's odds that you WON'T take, say, 4-1? After all, you seemed to suggest that you agreed with those odds right?

So, why don't you offer me 4-1?

[gringochileno]

(11-03-2012 11:58 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(11-03-2012 11:52 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

All right, here's the deal then: what you can extract from me is 2-1, take it or leave it. If you think Romney's chances are greater than 1 in 3, you're leaving money on the table if you don't take the bet (I suppose I am too, but I don't really want to put 60 bucks or whatever on the line just to win a measly book, even if I'm very likely to keep it--plus this is more for my own amusement than anything else at this point).

If you don't think it's in your interest to bet me at 2-1 then that's cool. I wouldn't take it either if I were you.

Really? So you are so non-confident is Silver's odds that you WON'T take, say, 4-1? After all, you seemed to suggest that you agreed with those odds right?

So, why don't you offer me 4-1?

Nope, not gonna do 4-1 for reasons that I already explained, sorry. The real question is why you aren't jumping at the chance to bet at 2-1 odds. Are you that non-confident in Romney's chances?

[ElJefe]

(11-04-2012 12:02 AM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(11-03-2012 11:58 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Really? So you are so non-confident is Silver's odds that you WON'T take, say, 4-1?
So, why don't you offer me 4-1?

why aren't jumping at the chance to bet at 2-1 odds. Are you that non-confident in Romney's chances?

Ah... prediction markets!

And this, my friends, is where the market is at. Somewhere between 20-33% for Romney.

Why don't you settle at 3-1? That would give Romney a 25% chance. better than Silver, but worse than InTrades.

[thegmanifesto]

(11-03-2012 06:18 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(11-03-2012 05:21 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

All made possible because he dodged the draft and went to France will others died.

Let me guess, being a draft dodger (while being a warmonger) is "alpha" too?

Also, are you saying you like male cheerleaders?

Yes, the exact point of my post which you so expertly pointed out was that I'm a huge fan of male cheerleaders

I knew it.

A lot of male cheerleader lovers on here.

I just can't relate to that kind of thinking.

But I am sure it worked great where you grew up.

[Deluge]

(11-03-2012 02:42 PM)Brian Wrote:  

Silvers numbers are a joke. He's got VA as a 66% Obama favorite. That alone is a joke. Romney will win VA. Silver has spent too much time in his liberal mecca of Manhattan to have any idea whats going on in the rest of the country.

So I looked up this guys 538 site. His current state-by-state probability map lines up exactly with the map I put up three days ago.

This guy must be onto something.

[Farmageddon]

Quote:

Well you should have PM'd me. Didn't see this until now.

If you're so confident, give me 4-1 odds for $100 and I MIGHT consider it.

The title of this thread is "Romney is a bullshitter" but I think a fair subtitle could definitely be: Tenderman is also a bullshitter.

You said you wanted 3 to 1, I countered with 2 to 1 on 500; you say your work involves negotiation so let me cue you on a basic tenet of negotiations, you should counter offer with something more towards my line or stay firm in your original offer, not offer me worse odds than your opening salvo. From 3 to 1 to 4 to 1? That doesn't even make sense…

Quote:

Or let me put it this way -- if the ex-professional gambler is so sure about the outcome, given such percentages, he wouldn't HESITATE to give me those odds, now would he?

Let me put it this way: As a gambler you look for odds that give you an edge. You have offered me what is essentially an even money proposition considering the latest poll and bookmaker projections. Obama is a 4 to 1 favorite to win and you offered me 4 to 1 on my money. That is even money. The reason is offered 2 to 1 is because that gives me an edge. You apparently need a refresher on your statistical training.

Quote:

there is a reason he's an ex-professional gambler not a current one

Yeah, because the game I play (online multi-table cash holdem/omaha) is now illegal in the United States. Were it still legal, I would most likely still be playing.

Quote:

Here's the deal -- in my work I am involved in a lot of negotiations. The ex gambler offered 3-1. I countered with the possibility of 4-1 --

Um, no. You said you wanted 3 to 1 and I countered with 2 to 1 then YOU countered with 4 to 1, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

And I quote (from your earlier offer):

Quote:

Oh, by the way...ex-professional gambler, will you give odds? Say 3-1? That might be interesting.

You clearly suck at negotiating. Just saying'…

Quote:

2-1 in unacceptable to me. Come back with another offer.

I said I wanted the bet that weekend an you crawdadded out of it. But I'll still offer you 2.5 to 1 on 500.

[Brian]

Why take 2-1 from some yahoo where there is more counterparty risk then on the internet when he can get higher at a legitimate online gambling site?

[tenderman100]

(11-04-2012 09:40 AM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

The title of this thread is "Romney is a bullshitter" but I think a fair subtitle could definitely be: Tenderman is also a bullshitter.

You said you wanted 3 to 1, I countered with 2 to 1 on 500; you say your work involves negotiation so let me cue you on a basic tenet of negotiations, you should counter offer with something more towards my line or stay firm in your original offer, not offer me worse odds than your opening salvo. From 3 to 1 to 4 to 1? That doesn't even make sense…

Let me put it this way: As a gambler you look for odds that give you an edge. You have offered me what is essentially an even money proposition considering the latest poll and bookmaker projections. Obama is a 4 to 1 favorite to win and you offered me 4 to 1 on my money. That is even money. The reason is offered 2 to 1 is because that gives me an edge. You apparently need a refresher on your statistical training.

Yeah, because the game I play (online multi-table cash holdem/omaha) is now illegal in the United States. Were it still legal, I would most likely still be playing.

Um, no. You said you wanted 3 to 1 and I countered with 2 to 1 then YOU countered with 4 to 1, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

And I quote (from your earlier offer):

You clearly suck at negotiating. Just saying'…

I said I wanted the bet that weekend an you crawdadded out of it. But I'll still offer you 2.5 to 1 on 500.

Well, there's no question that as an ex-professional gambler -- oh, I am sorry let's be more precise, an ex_LEGAL gambler -- you have a hard time reading. Maybe your overall visual field is weak -- you know the difference between a club and a spade, do you?

Hmmm...didn't think so.

I didn't OFFER 3-1 odds. I said I MIGHT consider it. I didn't say I would ACCEPT it.

Interested in 5-1?

By the way, "crawdad" is not a verb.

[thegmanifesto]

(11-03-2012 06:08 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(11-03-2012 05:21 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

All made possible because he dodged the draft and went to France will others died.

Let me guess, being a draft dodger (while being a warmonger) is "alpha" too?

Also, are you saying you like male cheerleaders?

OK, so let me get this straight.

If you didn't serve in Vietnam, and could have, you can't be president and exercise military power...is that right?

Does that mean Barack Obama, who didn't serve in Desert Storm, shouldn't be using drones to splatter terrorists all over the desert like some road kill...is that right?

And Bill Clinton, who also didn't serve in Vietnam due to draft deferments, is a hypocrite for bombing Slobodan Milosevic? Is that right?

OK, so let me get this straight.

Two wrongs make a right?

Or in this case, 4 wrongs make a right?

Got it.

By the way Tenderman, I found a picture from your 1928 yearbook.

I didn't realize you were a male cheerleader too, although it now all makes sense:

[painter]

So anyone who was a male cheerleader is a fag? Guess I'll quit watching Samuel L. Jackson movies...

[LoveBug]

Although I tangibly would prefer Obama to win, there is that part of me that roots for the underdog, and that will feel sorry for conservatives and Romney/Ryan themselves should they lose Tuesday.

It does seem as if Obama has opened things up once again, and that it won't be as close as the dead heat it appeared to be just a week or two ago. we'll see

[Excelsior]

[Capitán Peligroso]

Quote:

This was evident in Silver's predictions for the 2010 elections. While he acknowledged that the GOP was favored to win control of the House, he pegged their chances of picking up more than 60 seats at only 25%. In other words, there was a 75% probability that they would pick up less than 60 seats. They picked up 64.

The reason confidence intervals are a lot harder to predict in midterm elections is because it's hard to tell who is going to turn out to vote. In the case of 2010, a really large portion of the electorate that supported Obama in 2008 didn't vote in 2010. Voter behavior is much easier to predict during a presidential election, and Silver is being pretty conservative in his estimates. Sam Wang over at Princeton Election Consortium is working with very similar data and has much higher odds of Obama winning. If Romney is going to win, they will have to disenfranchise a lot of people in Florida and Ohio, because he sure as hell isn't going to run the table of swing states. We're already seeing this with people spending hours in line at early voting sites in Ohio and Florida, in heavily democratic areas, of course. You never see lines at the polling places in the predominantly republican areas that I live in. Never. And you never will.

[ElJefe]

(11-05-2012 01:03 AM)Capitán Peligroso Wrote:  

The reason confidence intervals are a lot harder to predict in midterm elections is because it's hard to tell who is going to turn out to vote. In the case of 2010, a really large portion of the electorate that supported Obama in 2008 didn't vote in 2010. Voter behavior is much easier to predict during a presidential election, and Silver is being pretty conservative in his estimates. Sam Wang over at Princeton Election Consortium is working with very similar data and has much higher odds of Obama winning. If Romney is going to win, they will have to disenfranchise a lot of people in Florida and Ohio, because he sure as hell isn't going to run the table of swing states. We're already seeing this with people spending hours in line at early voting sites in Ohio and Florida, in heavily democratic areas, of course. You never see lines at the polling places in the predominantly republican areas that I live in. Never. And you never will.

Dear God, I hope you're wrong. But I have a hard time imagining RealClear is so off the mark, so I'm expecting Obama to pull it off tomorrow. I find it mind-boggling that there will be a +5D affiliation though, after such a shitty economic performance. If Obama wins, then GWB was probably the worst President ever, seeing how he enabled 8 years of Barry.

[Ramon Zarate]

(11-03-2012 05:06 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(11-03-2012 02:42 PM)Brian Wrote:  

Silvers numbers are a joke. He's got VA as a 66% Obama favorite. That alone is a joke. Romney will win VA. Silver has spent too much time in his liberal mecca of Manhattan to have any idea whats going on in the rest of the country.

And here I see a brilliantly structured and logically sound argument completely devoid of logical fallacies. I think this discussion is settled.

lol. Yep, can't see anything wrong with this one. Wait, let's have a look at what Brian's using to support his argument...

I don't see anything controversial in Obama's calling Romney a "bullshitter". That's basically like saying grass is green. It was pretty evident, for example, when Romney tried to avoid drawing attention to him not being able to explain which loopholes that he would close in his tax policy by saying "trust me, I'm a businessman" in the second debate. Obama is by far the lesser of the two evils and hopefully there will be some stimulus programs passed in his second term in order to increase demand and get the US back to full employment.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I only wish that GOP had chosen some really loony presidential candidate like Rick Perry, so that come Tuesday they could be defeated because of honest extremism rather than veiled (or bullshit, as Obama has put it) extremism. This way, some 40% of the country will still be able to continue fantasizing that Republicans actually have serious ideas for fixing any of the current problems, and that they've lost because of a fluke, hurricane, or whatnot, rather than just having poor ideas.

There are many things about Obama (including his love affair with feminism and similar assortments of modern evils) that give me pause, but you'd have to amplify them a hundred times to make me consider Romney a viable option.

p.s. who cares if any candidate is Alpha or Beta? It only matters how well their proposals would work out for the country and its population.