Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,289,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 406 of 411 FirstFirst ... 306356396404405406407408 ... LastLast
Results 30,376 to 30,450 of 30795
  1. #30376
    Interesting viewing that is, it gets philosophical with regards fairness, which is the entire problem with this debate... it's ultimately philosophical. We can apply all the science in the world, but we can't truly define "fair" because it's not an objective concept. We can perhaps agree that fairness is equality in opportunity, but that's undefinable itself, it's again philosophical and not scientific. What does it mean? "Fairness" usually happens at someone's expense.

    What this comes down to for me is the impact this has on opportunity for natural females. Sabine talks about how some ciswomen are born with higher natural levels of testosterone than even some men. These women already have an advantage over petite women. If we also allow high-testosterone transwomen to compete with ciswomen, the petite women are even more likely to be outcompeted. Ultimately it removes incentive for petite girls to even bother taking sport seriously as children. So while we create opportunity for transwomen, we remove opportunity for petite ciswomen. This is what I mean what I say "fairness" usually happens at someone else's expense. You can't be fair to everyone, which of course makes a complete mockery out of the concept of fairness.

    This debate is more philosophical than scientific for this reason. We're talking about fairness first and foremost.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  2. #30377
    There are six "avian influenza prevention zones" in England. I'm in one of them. Apparently DEFRA officials are going door to door at the village checking if hens are properly housed, and there's a couple of the country roads closed, even to pedestrians. Hope it's not going to go on all summer, there's some pools near me where I like to go for a smoke but it's right in the middle of the exclusion zone, can't walk there.

    flu.jpg
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #30378
    My housemate says he saw a crow commit suicide earlier while he was gardening. Actually commit suicide. It appeared to have a broken wing and walked into the road, where first it missed a car by inches, yet it stayed in the road and got hit by the next car. Another crow let out a loud caw, seemingly in sorrow. Really weird.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  4. #30379
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Crows are weird creatures, indeed.

    I had one terrorize me for a couple weeks when I was living in Seattle back in '99.

    I suppose it had a nest somewhere between my house and the bus stop because it would swoop down and fly right next to my head and caw right next to my ear as I walked in between the evenly spaced trees along the sidewalk.

    After a few days, I just waited for the timing and did a 180 jump spin while flinging my arms out and scared it as I almost punched the thing in flight.

    Stopped messing with me, though.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  5. #30380
    Magpies are bastards like that too.

    Everyone knows crows are smart, but usually that comes with the caveat "for birds". It's not like they're human-level smart. At least, it seems ridiculous to think that are. But suicide? I can't think of a single animal other than humans that would commit suicide. That's a "smart" thing to do, which might seem crazy but it implies a degree of conscious thinking that isn't usually associated with animals, and certainly not birds.

    I think lots of animals will sacrifice themselves, take fatal risks to protect their young, or bees protecting the queen, things like that, but that isn't really suicide, that's not what my friend describes. We're talking about a bird walking into the path of traffic to end its suffering.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicide

    Reading this, it says animal suicide is unproven. There's some interesting cases of insects that explode themselves when threatened, but this is to protect the colony.

    There's anecdotal cases of dogs that refuse to eat when their owner dies, but it's impossible to know if the dog is attempting to end its life, or just depressed to the point it affects natural processes like hunger.

    I can't find anything conclusive, it seems my friend witnessed something that is basically scientifically unproven.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #30381
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I thought whales would beach themselves... for unknown reasons.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  7. #30382
    Yeah whales and dolphins are in the "maybe" group, and at the very least they're smart enough to know that what they're doing will kill them. But nobody really knows why whales do this. It might not be a deliberate attempt to die, they could just be exhausted or confused. There's no real way of knowing the motivation, which of course is why it's so difficult to prove animal suicide.

    In some cases disease plays a role. I don't think self-euthanasia counts as suicide in this context, at least not for the purpose of this conversation. Disease can make animals behave erratically, and if they know their disease puts their colony at risk, then it doesn't seem so strange. It's when animals are depressed or injured and they make a conscious decision to end their life, that's just not something you think an animal is capable of.

    Whales and dolphins, these are the pretty much the most intelligent animals after humans, it wouldn't surprise me to discover they are capable of conscious suicide. Certainly I think they are capable of being depressed, or aware they are going to die a horrible death and so choose a less horrid method. There's not many animals I'd expect to have this degree of intelligence and emotional awareness though, maybe elephants and some dogs, maybe cats, the list is small though. I wouldn't have put crows on that list until recently, and if crows make the list, you can probably add magpies, rooks, ravens and jackdaws.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #30383
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,347
    Location
    Finding my game
    Corvids, just like whales/dolphins, great apes, octopuses and some other critters can do stuff that humans learn at age 2-7.

    Recommended reading: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...rt-animals-are
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  9. #30384
    Dunno, intuitively it seems unlikely animals understand the concept of themselves being dead or what that means, which would seem to be a necessary precursor to committing suicide. Maybe some of the more intelligent ones do, but if so not many. My dog doesn't even know that's him in the mirror.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  10. #30385
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  11. #30386
    Imagine stopping right where the rocks keep falling.

    My dog doesn't even know that's him in the mirror.
    Apparently crows fail the mirror test, the only non-mammals that recognise their own reflection are magpies. It definitely seems weird that an animal that doesn't recognise its own reflection would also have the intelligence to commit suicide, but there you go.

    Let me know when you next see a dead crow at the side of the road. It doesn't happen. In the UK, the most common type of crow is the carrion crow. They're called that because they eat roadkill. Yet they don't become roadkill. That's because they're smart enough to know when to get the fuck out of the way of cars. They understand the danger cars pose. So when a crow walks into a road, misses a car by an inch or so, and then doesn't think "fuck me that was close" and get the fuck out of the way of the next car, it does seem like it made a conscious decision to die.

    I agree it's unbelievable, but there is definitely a flat dead crow on the road outside the house, and my friend isn't a liar. He certainly thinks it was suicide. I didn't witness it but I accept his account of the event.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #30387
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  13. #30388
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  14. #30389
    In retrospect, maybe robot dogs was not such a good idea.

    https://twitter.com/sonicmega/status...51495997476864
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  15. #30390
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  16. #30391
    Just come back from a pub quiz. My moment of glory? How many countries are there in the United Nations?

    Just instantly and casually write 193 down, nothing to see here.

    Only person in the pub to get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #30392
    193 eh? Who's not in?

    Not sure why this made my mind jump here, but sovereignty is a very odd concept. Very slippery.
    You-- yes, you-- you're a cunt.
  18. #30393
    Well for one, the Pitcairn Islands are not in, but the British State has very little influence in their affairs. They're pretty much independent, but the UN considers them part of the UK. There's a handful of microstates that are essentially independent but without international recognition; not sure what current status is but there was a community living on an abandoned oil rig in the North Sea near the Thames Estuary, essentially independent though completely incapable of resisting any act of force by the UK. I suspect there's a few more cases like this dotted around the world. There's Taiwan, which I think is de facto recognised as independent but not de jure, meaning the UN doesn't officially recognise them, nor does USA, UK and most of the world, but most do recognise them in terms of diplomatic relations and, in the case of USA, military support. There's places around Russia like Ossetia that only Russia recognise as independent.

    I think South Sudan was the last new member, probably Kosovo before that. I might have missed something though.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  19. #30394
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    not sure what current status is but there was a community living on an abandoned oil rig in the North Sea near the Thames Estuary, essentially independent though completely incapable of resisting any act of force by the UK.
    Do you mean the Principality of Sealand? It's an abandoned military base, not an oil rig. Was used as deterrence and early warning of air raids during WWII.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  20. #30395
    That's the one. I wasn't certain when I said oil rig but couldn't really think what else would be out there, which is really dumb considering I just did the Portsmouth to St Malo ferry route, which is dotted with many military fort islands near both towns!
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #30396
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  22. #30397
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  23. #30398
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  24. #30399
    Guess what?

    I've got a job.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #30400
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,801
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Guess what?

    I've got a job.
    congrats! Is it a good one?
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  26. #30401
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,801
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I finally started investing my savings. I did the absolute minimum amount of research. Opened a broker account a week ago. Yolo'd some money into the $BBBY memestock. Went up over 200% in a couple of days, crashed hard and I pulled out with hardly any losses! Put most of my money into a world ETF which has been steadily losing a percentage point every day for the past 6 days.
    It's supposed to be long term so I shouldn't even be checking it. Idk how smart it is to invest into the world economy right now, but I convinced myself that since every generation in recorded history thought the world was going to end on their watch, that my perception is probably warped and it will only crash and burn a little but stonks might still go up.
    I think I might actually be better off betting on elections on betfair. Some very special people on there by the looks of it.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  27. #30402
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    congrats! Is it a good one?
    Not really, housekeeper at a budget hotel, but they're the largest budget hotel chain in the UK so once I'm up to their standards I can walk into a job anywhere in the country.

    It's only part time, maybe 15 hours a week, so I'll still need some welfare benefits, buy this will vastly improve my future employability prospects having not worked properly for over ten years. It's also a five minute walk, which is great, given I live in the middle of buttfuck nowhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #30403
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar
    I think I might actually be better off betting on elections on betfair. Some very special people on there by the looks of it.
    Risky game this is. For one, you might be tempted to apply your own political bias, and also you might be influenced by politically biased polls. When Trump and Brexit happened, neither of these outcomes were predicted by polls, and these outcomes were long odds (for a two horse race). There would have been no logical reason to bet on those outcomes.

    Personally I'd stick with stocks, crypto and NFTs, but that's me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  29. #30404
    Congrats Ong on the new job. Work hard and you might be able to afford electricity and gas someday.

    Oskar, I wouldn't yolo my savings if I were you. Diversify between low- and medium-risk options. Don't be an investor degen playing the roulette wheel with your money.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  30. #30405
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,801
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Congrats Ong on the new job. Work hard and you might be able to afford electricity and gas someday.

    Oskar, I wouldn't yolo my savings if I were you. Diversify between low- and medium-risk options. Don't be an investor degen playing the roulette wheel with your money.
    If not even hedgefunds can beat the market by a significant margin, I have no illusion that I can. I just bought a world ETF. It's basically like buying the S&P500. I'm not so sure how smart it is. All the arguments I hear for it are either based on past performance or something along the lines of: if this goes belly up, you're not going to need money... idk how true that is.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  31. #30406
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,801
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Not really, housekeeper at a budget hotel, but they're the largest budget hotel chain in the UK so once I'm up to their standards I can walk into a job anywhere in the country.

    It's only part time, maybe 15 hours a week, so I'll still need some welfare benefits, buy this will vastly improve my future employability prospects having not worked properly for over ten years. It's also a five minute walk, which is great, given I live in the middle of buttfuck nowhere.
    That's not too bad. Plus a decent chance of a hot polish immigrant co-worker with free movement of labor whatnot... oh.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  32. #30407
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    If not even hedgefunds can beat the market by a significant margin, I have no illusion that I can. I just bought a world ETF. It's basically like buying the S&P500. I'm not so sure how smart it is. All the arguments I hear for it are either based on past performance or something along the lines of: if this goes belly up, you're not going to need money... idk how true that is.
    ETF seems like a good idea. Stocks afaik are good overall but trying to pick winners is basically gambling. There was some thing I read once about how all stock brokers' performance as a group basically fits a normal curve, in other words it's basically luck.

    I sometimes wonder if it's worth taking a bank loan and investing it. My bank is currently charging about 4% on loans and I'm assuming with inflation stocks will go up easily by more than that. Don't know if that's true though.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  33. #30408
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    That's not too bad. Plus a decent chance of a hot polish immigrant co-worker with free movement of labor whatnot... oh.
    He probably took her job lol.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  34. #30409
    My manager is young, blonde and beautiful. I can pretend she gave me the job because she likes me. I can get a wank or two out of that.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #30410
    Try to at least wait until your first coffee break.

    I knew a guy who got caught watching pron at work. Not caught in the act, but the uni monitors everyone's usage and apparently pronhub raised a red flag. Wtf dude, you're at work.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  36. #30411
    When I was a projectionist, after the last film went on and we had over an hour of downtime, me and my buddy would browse the internet and look up all sorts of shit. Apparently after we had both left one of my former bosses had a look at the computer and found porn sites we'd visited. Not sure if he thought it was me, my friend, or both of us. It amuses me to imagine the horrors he must have been imagining.

    Obviously we weren't wanking at work, it was pure boys entertainment, we'd also play poker, watch football, listen to music, I played chess if I was alone, but we were young and the internet was relatively new at the time so it was just fun to rate girls and whatnot. Glad that boss didn't check when we were still working there, don't give a fuck about the embarrassment of explaining myself but I don't want to get fired for that kind of thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #30412
    Turns out I'm good at making beds. This is quite a surprise seeing as I never make my own bed.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #30413
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,347
    Location
    Finding my game
    If you want to make some quick bucks, the world etf is a poor choice. If on the other hand you're saving for a rainy day or a pension fund, I don't think there's anything better available. All down to what your goals and timeframe are.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  39. #30414
    wtf is etf

    My current thing is footballer NFTs. The most I've paid is $70 for a goalkeeper (very cheap for a good young GK who gets regular games), and I've paid $25 for an attacker (he was worth around $500 when he was scoring for fun at Sturm Graz FC), but mostly under $5 and a fair few youth internationals for under $1. I put all my crypto into it, around half an ETH, that value went up to around 1 ETH before I sold a lot of players at half price to fund my trip to France. My value is now back over 0.3 ETH and rising.

    I'm quite happy this is better than crypto. Not only do my players generally go up in value but I can play them in competitions to win NFTs and ETH, although I'm yet to win a decent prize.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #30415
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,801
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    wtf is etf

    My current thing is footballer NFTs. The most I've paid is $70 for a goalkeeper (very cheap for a good young GK who gets regular games), and I've paid $25 for an attacker (he was worth around $500 when he was scoring for fun at Sturm Graz FC), but mostly under $5 and a fair few youth internationals for under $1. I put all my crypto into it, around half an ETH, that value went up to around 1 ETH before I sold a lot of players at half price to fund my trip to France. My value is now back over 0.3 ETH and rising.

    I'm quite happy this is better than crypto. Not only do my players generally go up in value but I can play them in competitions to win NFTs and ETH, although I'm yet to win a decent prize.
    Imagine someone reading this in 2020.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  41. #30416
    I wish I read it in 2020, I'd have made quite a lot of money if I got into footballer NFTs then.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #30417
    The knack to making money is to get in at the bottom of a pyramid scheme.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  43. #30418
    I think there's still a lot of growth in this sector of NFTs. And if you are interested in football you can find good young players for a pound or two who will mostly be worth 10x at some point in the future, and some much more like 100x, with a handful of duds. Just buy youth internationals, let the experts do the scouting for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  44. #30419
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    When Trump and Brexit happened, neither of these outcomes were predicted by polls

    The weatherman said there'd be a 20% chance of rain on Wednesday. It rained Wednesday. Was the weatherman wrong?
    You-- yes, you-- you're a cunt.
  45. #30420
    Odds aren't probabilities. Odds are an aggregate of public opinion, plus rake.

    And the 20% is basically a number plucked out of the weatherman's arse. It's not an actual probability in the literal context, it's a measure of their confidence from 1 to 10 (you'll never get 24.3% confidence, always a round number).

    To answer your question, if significantly more than 20% of the area they cover was affected by rain then yeah I'd say they were wrong, but that's based on how I interpret an arbitrary number.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #30421
    "x% chance of rain" means they predict x% of the time it will be raining in any given spot in the given area over the given time period.

    Now that we have that sorted out, just like weather probabilities, polls have a margin of error. It's a mistake to assume experts are predicting an exact outcome like 20% chance of rain or Hillary will beat Trump by 2% or whatever.

    To be "wrong" in the scientific sense, it's generally agreed an outcome has to be outside a 95% confidence interval (usually expressed in layman's terms as a "margin of error"). That would be an outcome so rare had the model been correct as to make one reject the validity of the model. Neither the Trump vs. Hillary election or the Brexit vote fell outside that margin of error, fyi.

    In a US national election, predicting the outcome based on the polls is complicated by the fact that it's 50 separate races for president, with varying numbers of electoral votes for each state. Unless one person is comfortably ahead in a number of key states, it'd actually be quite common for a number of swing states to go against the polls but still be within the margin of error for that state, and with fifty states at play, on average 2.5 states would be expected to go outside the margin of error (1/20 chance per state). And if those states are critical ones (e.g., Florida), that can shift the whole outcome.

    When people like Nate Silver say "54% chance of candidate X winning POTUS," or whatever, and the numbers go up or down as the votes get counted, what they are doing is modelling the outcome for each state as a separate probability, updating that information based on votes counted, and saying "within our model, with its predictions based on polls and modelling of unknown factors (input into the model as random noise), we expect that 54% of the time this candidate will win." The closer that number is to 50% the more they are admitting they don't have enough information to make a clear prediction.

    Meteorologists use models based on current weather patterns to make their predictions, but rather than predicting a binary outcome event (X vs. Y wins an election) they are predicting an overall probability of an event, in a given area, over a given period of time.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  47. #30422
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Odds aren't probabilities.
    Depends on the number of outcomes. In a binary situation, i.e., either X or Y will happen, odds are effectively another way of expressing a probability. In a multiple-outcome situation, and the odds relate to only two of those possibilities (as odds normally do), they are different from probabilities.

    A mathetmatician will say that odds are likelihoods and don't necessarily have to include an exhaustive list of outcomes, whereas probabilities always have to sum to 1 (or 100% if expressed as %).
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  48. #30423
    Why is an expert on statistics disputing my comment there?

    Let me say it again.

    Odds are not probabilities. Odds are an aggregate of public opinion, plus rake.

    In some situations, the odds are very closely related to the probability. For example, roulette. You get 36:1 on a given number when a fair price, based on probability, would be 37:1.

    In most situations where odds are used, it's to bet on an outcome that doesn't really have a probability in the literal sense. If we're talking about Novak vs Federer, what are the odds of Novak winning? 50/50? 60/40? How do you even calculate the probability? There is no formula to do this accurately, so bookmakers basically guess, and let the betting public loose. If more people are betting on outcome 1 than outcome 2, then the odds will change to reflect this.

    A competent bookmaker or casino is obviously going to skew the odds in their favour, so no matter what the outcome, they make a profit. If odds were probabilities, bookmakers break even 100% of the time.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #30424
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Odds are not probabilities. Odds are an aggregate of public opinion, plus rake.
    Boost's point (as I understood it) was a fair rebuttal of your previous argument that oddsmakers were "wrong" on Trump and Brexit, based on the fact that neither betting odds nor forecasts are an exact science. You tried to make it into an argument about odds not being probabilities (which is true, but irrelevant), and now are trying to argue that point further, which suggests you didn't really grasp his point.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If odds were probabilities, bookmakers break even 100% of the time.
    Right, because betting odds do not have to sum to 1 if converted into probabilities.

    But if (say) Candidate A gets odds of 6:5 to win, and B gets 7:5 (longer odds), then B winning does not mean the odds were "wrong."
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  50. #30425
    Boost's point (as I understood it) was a fair rebuttal of your previous argument that oddsmakers were "wrong" on Trump and Brexit
    Where did I say this?

    Quote Originally Posted by ong
    When Trump and Brexit happened, neither of these outcomes were predicted by polls, and these outcomes were long odds (for a two horse race). There would have been no logical reason to bet on those outcomes.
    I didn't use the word "wrong" or even "bookmakers" or "oddsmakers". I used the word "polls", which is clearly a reference to public opinion, not a reference to the bookies.

    You tried to make it into an argument about odds not being probabilities (which is true, but irrelevant)
    It's entirely relevant, as you just demonstrated by assuming I'm talking about oddsmakers rather than public opinion.

    I was making the point that boost's analogy was flawed. He implied the weatherman wasn't wrong when he said 20% chance of rain. Ok. But the public were wrong when they predicted the UK would remain, and that Trump would lose. This in turn suggests that opinion polls are unreliable when it comes to betting on politics. Oskar was talking about betting on elections. What is his source of data if not opinion polls? Betting on politics is risky because there's no reliable source of data to make an informed prediction, you're at the mercy of the political bias of the opinion polls you have available.

    Right, because betting odds do not have to sum to 1 if converted into probabilities.
    Are you playing dumb to troll me? You should understand this.

    If bookmakers offer odds of 1:1 for a coin flip, how are they making money? By getting lucky in a small sample size? In a large sample size they break even, because the odds precisely matched the probability. The bookies make their profit from deviating from actual probability.

    But if (say) Candidate A gets odds of 6:5 to win, and B gets 7:5 (longer odds), then B winning does not mean the odds were "wrong."

    Just to remind you once again, I didn't say the odds were wrong. I implied public opinion was wrong. You're missing this rather important distinction and as a result are arguing about something entirely different to what I'm arguing.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #30426
    If your argument boils down to "more than half the population can be wrong about something," I'll agree. 52% of the population can vote for an act of self-harm so retarded it's unbelievable they can vote for it, for example.

    But, that's not the same as saying "THE public are wrong," which implies the public is some monolithic entity. Moreover, the subset of the public that bets on things like elections and a referendum, or who chooses to respond to a polling request, is only a subset of the general public. The vast majority of the former have disqualified themselves from having good judgment just by the fact they're betting on something so silly.


    neither of these outcomes were predicted by polls
    This was the point I was making. The polls predicted a close race, with one outcome slightly more likely than the other, and it's hard to say they were "wrong," because the outcome of both the US election and Brexit votes in 2016 fell within the margin of error of the polling iirc.

    For example, Yougov on Brexit

    "“Our current headline estimate of the result of the referendum is that Leave will win 51 per cent of the vote. This is close enough that we cannot be very confident of the election result: the model puts a 95% chance of a result between 48 and 53, although this only captures some forms of uncertainty.”
    IOW, they said somewhere between 48-53% will vote Remain, and the outcome was 48.1%. So they were right.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  52. #30427
    But, that's not the same as saying "THE public are wrong,"
    Well it would be more accurate to specify the percentage of people who were wrong, but in a binary choice, when opinion polls suggest that 80% of those polled thought we would remain, then I think it's fair to say "the public were wrong". It's not a particularly controversial statement. It just means the same as "public opinion was wrong".

    The vast majority of the former have disqualified themselves from having good judgment just by the fact they're betting on something so silly.
    You're bringing your own bias into your thinking. I agree that politics isn't a sound bet, I'm making this very point, but if someone insists on doing it anyway, based on what they consider sound reasoning, who am I to say they lack sound judgement? Maybe oskar doesn't plan on using biased polls and has a better source of data. Good luck to him if he does.

    The polls predicted a close race
    I can't remember the odds accurately (they might be buried somewhere on this site from previous conversations). But I can say with very high confidence that the polls did not predict a "close race" in either case. I think Trump was going at around 4:1 at one point, that's because lots more people were betting on Clinton than Trump. The betting public were very wrong (on aggregate), not just a bit wrong. I believe Brexit was at least 2:1 at one point, not quite as "wrong" as the Trump election but still for a binary outcome it's pretty wild.

    If you had reason to be confident these odds were wildly inaccurate, then betting on these outcomes would have been a very good idea. It's just if you're using polls as your source of data, you're not going to have that reason to believe the odds are "wrong".

    That YouGov prediction, when was that relative to the result being announced? Presumably this wasn't before the polls opened.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #30428
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're bringing your own bias into your thinking. I agree that politics isn't a sound bet, I'm making this very point, but if someone insists on doing it anyway, based on what they consider sound reasoning, who am I to say they lack sound judgement? Maybe oskar doesn't plan on using biased polls and has a better source of data. Good luck to him if he does.
    Gambling is -EV. It's the opposite of having good judgment. It's entertainment and that's fine, but to say people doing an inherently -EV act aren't showing poor judgment, at least in aggregate, would be silly imo.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I can't remember the odds accurately (they might be buried somewhere on this site from previous conversations). But I can say with very high confidence that the polls did not predict a "close race" in either case. I think Trump was going at around 4:1 at one point, that's because lots more people were betting on Clinton than Trump. The betting public were very wrong (on aggregate), not just a bit wrong. I believe Brexit was at least 2:1 at one point, not quite as "wrong" as the Trump election but still for a binary outcome it's pretty wild.
    These aren't polls, they're betting odds right? See my point above. People see a poll showing 52-48 and think it's a shoe-in, so they start betting en masse for what is basically a coinflip. People don't grasp this. That's why betting odds are so retarded; even a tiny favourite in the polls gets exaggerated in people's minds.

    All this tells us is that when an outcome is predicted to be close, you should bet on the underdog to take advantage of the mass irrationality of the betting community.

    Polls can be wrong too. They can be poorly conducted or be missing some systematic bias in responses. But they would struggle to be as retarded as the betting public.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That YouGov prediction, when was that relative to the result being announced? Presumably this wasn't before the polls opened.
    This was from day or two before the vote, their last poll.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  54. #30429
    As for the US 2016 POTUS election:

    nationwide polling was not far off from the actual popular vote result, and in fact very few states had results that deviated from the margin of error in the polling average.
    from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ntial_election
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  55. #30430
    Gambling is -EV
    This is up for debate but in a vacuum, in terms of pure money, yes it is. If you have a legit winning strategy then you are no longer gambling.

    It's the opposite of having good judgment.
    Now hang on a minute. You even use the word "entertainment" yourself. If gambling is entertainment, then it has value beyond the expected value of winning. It's no longer just about money.

    And we do -ev things all the time. You want a coffee? -ev mate. A glass of wine? -ev. You prefer Hovis bread to Tesco Value bread? -ev. Any argument you throw at me to justify the "lack of judgement" you're showing by making these -ev decisions can equally be used to justify gambling.

    And we all show a lack of judgement sometimes. Has every decision you've ever made been the correct one? No? Lack of judgement mate.

    These aren't polls, they're betting odds right?
    Correct, but as I said earlier, it's public opinion that shapes the odds bookmakers give. And I'm not talking about them seeing opinion polls and thinking "shit we've got this one wrong", I'm talking about making incremental adjustments to the odds in real time as people make bets, which basically reflects shifting public opinion (either through an increasing sample size or new information).

    People see a poll showing 52-48 and think it's a shoe-in, so they start betting en masse for what is basically a coinflip.
    This actually is probably more of a factor in politics than sport. So many people bet on sport, most of whom do so regularly with some perceived reasoning behind the selections, that a few people making "bad" bets won't have any significant impact on the odds. But when it's something that happens rarely, with very few making experienced informed decisions, and most people using flawed polls, then yeah that can have a huge impact on the odds. This is a good point.

    All this tells us is that when an outcome is predicted to be close, you should bet on the underdog to take advantage of the mass irrationality of the betting community.
    If this formed a betting strategy for you, I wouldn't be suggesting you lack sound judgement. I'd appreciate the non-biased reasoning.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #30431
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    Correct, but as I said earlier, it's public opinion that shapes the odds bookmakers give. And I'm not talking about them seeing opinion polls and thinking "shit we've got this one wrong", I'm talking about making incremental adjustments to the odds in real time as people make bets, which basically reflects shifting public opinion (either through an increasing sample size or new information).
    But their opinions appear to be stupid, or they wouldn't overestimate the probability of a slight favourite winning, to the point of taking a massively -EV bet. That was my whole point.

    The pollsters are much closer to getting at the truth than bettors. Bettors as a whole are a good example of human fallibility in reasoning. There's been a lot of research on that topic (not about betting on elections specficially, but assessing probability more generally), and people are generally pretty bad at it.

    https://www.ukessays.com/essays/phil...ional-4915.php



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If this formed a betting strategy for you, I wouldn't be suggesting you lack sound judgement. I'd appreciate the non-biased reasoning.
    Well, it seems to make sense to me. But for it to be correct, you should see a correlation between polls and betting behavior (which would be reflected in changing odds that can be predicted by whoever happens to be ahead at the time, more or less independent of the extent of their lead).

    There's other possible explanations though. For both Brexit and US POTUS 2016, the bettors also favoured the status quo outcome. That might have something to do with it as well, dunno.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  57. #30432
    But their opinions appear to be stupid
    When it comes to politics, yes this does indeed appear to be the case. When the odds are very close to the probability, this implies an informed betting public. When the odds are far from the probability, this implies the opposite.

    I suspect it's because people are much more biased when it comes to politics. There's bias in sports, obviously, but not to the point I'm betting my team Birmingham will win promotion, because that's setting money on fire. People have a better idea of whether the odds are a fair reflection of the probability when it comes to sports.

    People en masse putting too much stock into opinion polls is certainly a likely factor too. Both of these factors together means that if the opinion polls slightly favour your preferred outcome, you're much more likely to bet on it, than if the polls slightly favour the alternative, in which case you probably don't make a bet at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  58. #30433
    There's been a lot of research on that topic (not about betting on elections specficially, but assessing probability more generally), and people are generally pretty bad at it.
    I think individuals are bad at it, but people as a large sample size are not.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  59. #30434
    Sometimes the odds are clearly not a reflection of the probability. When Leicester won the league, there were bookies famously giving odds of 5000-1 at the start of the season. But it's not ridiculous to think any team can win the league if they have 5000 years to try. In fact it seems pretty obvious these odds are far too generous and it's +ev to take the bet, with the only caveat being you might not make a profit because you might die before you can realise your equity.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  60. #30435
    Hey Ong, sorry, I read polling as odds.

    I think your claims about weathermen's methods are inaccurate, and I believe the data backs this, but that's a tangent.

    In the end I responded because I misread you to be making an argument that I think is common, but was shocked to see come from you.
    You-- yes, you-- you're a cunt.
  61. #30436
    Ong, if you're working at Premier Inn, you'll have to apologise to your colleagues in Durham for the ominous looking brown stain I left on the bed this morning. Room 327. It's chocolate, but looks much worse.
  62. #30437
    I don't know how the weatherman comes up with these percentages so I can only speculate. It all seems arbitrary to me though. There's obviously some real science happening, they're not just looking at the sky and making guesses, but they're clearly not literal percentages because like I pointed out, they are always round numbers. You don't get 23% confidence.

    Presumably they will look at the size of clouds, the density, the pressure, the temperature, etc, and make guesses based on historical data.

    And of course they can't be accurate probabilities because the probability of rain is always 0% or 100%, it's either going to rain or it isn't. It isn't a random event. The weatherman is giving confidence, not probability.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  63. #30438
    Quote Originally Posted by The Bean Counter View Post
    Ong, if you're working at Premier Inn, you'll have to apologise to your colleagues in Durham for the ominous looking brown stain I left on the bed this morning. Room 327. It's chocolate, but looks much worse.
    lol no I happen to be working for the other one (Travelodge). I'm yet to find suspicious brown stains on bedding but that day is surely coming.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  64. #30439
    Room 327, fuck me that's big for a Premier Inn. We have 32 rooms.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #30440
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    And of course they can't be accurate probabilities because the probability of rain is always 0% or 100%, it's either going to rain or it isn't. It isn't a random event. The weatherman is giving confidence, not probability.
    The numbers are the % of an area that will be raining at any given moment over a given time period. Alternately, it's the probability of rain happening at any one spot in a given area over a given time period (the two are mathematically the same thing). If you look at it that way, it makes sense to express it as a %.

    It can be raining in 20% of Hampshire, on average, during the hour from 9-10 am, for example.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  66. #30441
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think individuals are bad at it, but people as a large sample size are not.
    The odds from POTUS and Brexit suggest they are.

    Maybe with sports betting you just get a more informed bettor.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  67. #30442
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The odds from POTUS and Brexit suggest they are.

    Maybe with sports betting you just get a more informed bettor.
    This is what I think. Less bias and more experience. Politics is weird to bet on.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #30443
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't know how the weatherman comes up with these percentages so I can only speculate. It all seems arbitrary to me though. There's obviously some real science happening, they're not just looking at the sky and making guesses, but they're clearly not literal percentages because like I pointed out, they are always round numbers. You don't get 23% confidence.
    Given a complex enough model, 23% would most likely be a rounded number.

    23.876% would most likely be a rounded number.

    And of course they can't be accurate probabilities because the probability of rain is always 0% or 100%, it's either going to rain or it isn't. It isn't a random event. The weatherman is giving confidence, not probability.
    I don't understand this argument.

    It's either going to be an ace on the river or it's not, the outcome is determined, yet you wouldn't apply this reasoning to poker.
    You-- yes, you-- you're a cunt.
  69. #30444
    Given a complex enough model, 23% would most likely be a rounded number.
    Yeah but it's still rounded to the nearest 10%

    It's either going to be an ace on the river or it's not, the outcome is determined, yet you wouldn't apply this reasoning to poker.
    The deck has been shuffled, it's a random event. I mean if you want to be pedantic it's not a random event because the shuffle is determined, it is indeed either an ace or it isn't, there's no superposition of it being both an ace and not an ace. But the difference is that the weather isn't remotely random. Nobody is shuffling the deck. We're not guessing if the ace is the next card, we're applying a probability based on how many aces are in the deck (to our knowledge), and how many cards are in the deck. That isn't how weather forecasting works. If we're not giving a % of either 0% or 100%, then that demonstrates a lack of predictive knowledge for the weatherman.

    Poker is a game of imperfect information. All the information we need to make a perfect weather forecast is there for us to measure, we just don't know how to.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  70. #30445
    I for one wish weather forecasters could tell me with absolute certainty every second for the coming two weeks whether it will be raining in my back garden or not. Would make it much easier to plan when to cut the grass.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  71. #30446
    In theory the information is there for us to decode, unlike poker.

    I'd say it's probably way too complex for us to ever know with certainty precisely where and when and how much it will rain, but we can obviously do a great deal better than what we currently manage. That's not to say the weatherman is doing a bad job, on the contrary we've come a long way in my life, but it's a million miles from perfect, as opposed ten million miles lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  72. #30447
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Another issue with weather forecasting is that they're forecasting for a wide area, not just their back garden.
    It may rain on half of the city, but not the whole thing. A weatherman may call that 50% chance of rain.
    Not because there's a 50% chance it will rain on the city, but because on average the rain will affect 50% of the audience.


    Clearly I made up numbers, there, but that is part of the prediction. It's not just will it rain? It's where will it rain, for how long, how much will accumulate, who will be affected, etc.


    For a system with as many variables and as chaotic as the weather... I'm impressed that weather forecasters can even be correct for the next 48 hours, but that is often the case. It's just that making projections beyond a few dozen hours is beyond our current ability.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  73. #30448
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,940
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    He got me again.
    I've listened to this like 50 times in the past week.

    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  74. #30449
    https://www.timeshighereducation.com...urbation-paper

    Some cutting edge research going on at Manchester uni, which made it through the peer review process.
  75. #30450
    Quote Originally Posted by The Bean Counter View Post
    https://www.timeshighereducation.com...urbation-paper

    Some cutting edge research going on at Manchester uni, which made it through the peer review process.

    That story was on twitter a month or so ago. Caused quite the kerfuffle, and with good reason.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •