Post: #76

(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.

Yes, of course, on the other hand, a guy who wears magic underwear and believes that god lives on some planet called Kolob has a much firmer grip on reality.

Post: #77

(11-03-2012 03:02 PM)ManAbout 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.

Yes, of course, on the other hand, a guy who wears magic underwear and believes that god lives on some planet called Kolob has a much firmer grip on reality.

Don't forget he was a male cheerleader too.

Post: #78

(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.

Well, you've convinced me.

Post: #79

(11-03-2012 03:48 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  [quote='ManAbout' pid='300453' dateline='1351972921']
Don't forget he was a male cheerleader too.

To be fair:

Two graduate degrees from Harvard: alpha

One of the most ought-after management consultants in his day, ie. top of his food-chain, hierachy, you name it: alpha

Amassed a huge fortune even after giving his inheritance away: alpha

Let me say that again: I don't think you can call a guy who made several hundred million dollars before he was fifty anything but: alpha.

He could be swimming in more pussy than every member in this forum combined. Unlike most guys in this forum, he was successful enough to have the choice: alpha

Somehow managed to raise 5 boys, be a religious leader in his local community for 10 years, and get his wife through multiple sclerosis and whatever the other affliction she had: alpha

Countless other stories of incredible personal generosity, but then again - he had the cash. No matter how you look at it: alpha

So...

Bear that stuff in mind when you harp over the significance of male-cheerleading. We can't all be alphas 24*7. If you are/can... more power to you.

PS. None of this changes he will probably lose on Tuesday.

Post: #80

(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.

Post: #81

(11-03-2012 04:51 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(11-03-2012 03:48 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  [quote='ManAbout' pid='300453' dateline='1351972921']
Don't forget he was a male cheerleader too.

To be fair:

Two graduate degrees from Harvard: alpha

One of the most ought-after management consultants in his day, ie. top of his food-chain, hierachy, you name it: alpha

Amassed a huge fortune even after giving his inheritance away: alpha

Let me say that again: I don't think you can call a guy who made several hundred million dollars before he was fifty anything but: alpha.

He could be swimming in more pussy than every member in this forum combined. Unlike most guys in this forum, he was successful enough to have the choice: alpha

Somehow managed to raise 5 boys, be a religious leader in his local community for 10 years, and get his wife through multiple sclerosis and whatever the other affliction she had: alpha

Countless other stories of incredible personal generosity, but then again - he had the cash. No matter how you look at it: alpha

So...

Bear that stuff in mind when you harp over the significance of male-cheerleading. We can't all be alphas 24*7. If you are/can... more power to you.

PS. None of this changes he will probably lose on Tuesday.

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?

Post: #82

(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.

It will be settled clearly on Tuesday.

Post: #83

(11-03-2012 01:26 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  If you think Silver's model is inaccurate then why are you demanding 4-1 odds? The implied probability of that bet (80%) is pretty close to the current 538 projection (83% today).

Uh, duh, you answered your own question!

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?

Post: #84

(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?

See, here's the thing. When people use sloppy arguments like these, they simply do not understand the implications. Simple thoughts for simple people, as my sainted mother used to say.

Post: #85

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

(11-03-2012 01:26 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  If you think Silver's model is inaccurate then why are you demanding 4-1 odds? The implied probability of that bet (80%) is pretty close to the current 538 projection (83% today).

Uh, duh, you answered your own question!

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?

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

Post: #86

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

(11-03-2012 01:26 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  If you think Silver's model is inaccurate then why are you demanding 4-1 odds? The implied probability of that bet (80%) is pretty close to the current 538 projection (83% today).

Uh, duh, you answered your own question!

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?

Post: #87

Post: #88

(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.

Brian I'll bet another book on Virginia. You down?

Post: #89

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

(11-03-2012 01:26 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  If you think Silver's model is inaccurate then why are you demanding 4-1 odds? The implied probability of that bet (80%) is pretty close to the current 538 projection (83% today).

Uh, duh, you answered your own question!

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?

Well if you believe 538 then 4-1 is pretty close to being fair odds and you could reasonably be indifferent to taking that bet. If you think Romney's chances of victory are considerably higher than 538 thinks they are, you shouldn't have to demand odds that high in order to think you're getting a good bet.

Do you think Romney has a greater than 33.3% chance of victory? If so, why did you decline to take the bet at 2-1?

Was it the fact that he was asking you to put down $500? Was it the fact that he wanted you to agree to it the same day? I'll bet you a book on Amazon up to $20 at 2-1 (you buy me a book up to $20 if Obama wins, I buy you 2 books up to $40 total if Romney wins). No time pressure, I'm down for it at any point through the end of the weekend as long as we both agree and document it on this forum.

Post: #90

(11-03-2012 06:12 PM)Sonsowey 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.

Brian I'll bet another book on Virginia. You down?

sure, why not

Post: #91

(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

Post: #92

(11-03-2012 06:14 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  Well if you believe 538 then 4-1 is pretty close to being fair odds and you could reasonably be indifferent to taking that bet. If you think Romney's chances of victory are considerably higher than 538 thinks they are, you shouldn't have to demand odds that high in order to think you're getting a good bet.

Do you think Romney has a greater than 33.3% chance of victory? If so, why did you decline to take the bet at 2-1?

Was it the fact that he was asking you to put down $500? Was it the fact that he wanted you to agree to it the same day? I'll bet you a book on Amazon up to $20 at 2-1 (you buy me a book up to $20 if Obama wins, I buy you 2 books up to $40 total if Romney wins). No time pressure, I'm down for it at any point through the end of the weekend as long as we both agree and document it on this forum.

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 -- note I didn't commit one way or another. 4-1 is what he should jump at if he truly believes Nate Silver is the next coming of Nostradamus. But then again, I might not take those odds. It was, as they say in the negotiation business, a "probe."

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

Post: #93

(11-03-2012 06:12 PM)soup Wrote:  

heh, this was the first funny and worthwhile Barack Obama celebrity endorsement I've seen.

Post: #94

(11-03-2012 04:51 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  To be fair:

Two graduate degrees from Harvard: alpha

I know of plenty of folks with multiple Ivy League degrees, and attend an Ivy League school. I can tell you that this does not automatically equate to "alpha".
Not saying that there aren't legitimate alphas in these environments, just that they're not a majority.

Quote:One of the most ought-after management consultants in his day, ie. top of his food-chain, hierachy, you name it: alpha

So any beta CEO/white collar professional is automatically alpha by virtue of being at the top of his profession?

How often have we presented examples on this forum that illustrate the fallacy of that assumption by showing wealthy betas who fail to get girls and have no game?
They're at the top of their food chain too. Are they "alpha"?

Quote:Amassed a huge fortune even after giving his inheritance away: alpha

So do many of the betas I mentioned above. Is Mark Zuckerberg an "alpha"?

Quote:Let me say that again: I don't think you can call a guy who made several hundred million dollars before he was fifty anything but: alpha.

...so Mark Zuckerberg and the young Bill Gates were "alphas".

Quote:He could be swimming in more pussy than every member in this forum combined.

...assuming he's actually an alpha and not what has been labelled by some a "paper alpha" (wealthy, successful, top-of-the-hill careers but no game/girl skills) like the guys I alluded to above.

Quote:Somehow managed to raise 5 boys, be a religious leader in his local community for 10 years, and get his wife through multiple sclerosis and whatever the other affliction she had: alpha

So any traditional conservative who manages to have many children and pick up a conservative wife is an "alpha"? Even if we know that many of these same men have no game at all (they never learned, never had to)?

Mitt Romney is a highly accomplished individual and I respect that. He's done more than most of us ever will financially and politically.

I'm not going to call him an alpha male, at least not in the sense that the manosphere generally knows that term. There are MANY highly accomplished beta males out there*, and I haven't seen evidence that Romney isn't one of them.

Granted, I'll concede that being a male cheerleader, though highly questionable, does not necessarily preclude one from being "alpha". I know of at least one individual in my personal life who helps to display this. Maybe he's an exception, but he's there.


*: I don't use the term "beta male" in this case as an insult, just a statement of fact.

Post: #95

(11-03-2012 10:44 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(11-03-2012 06:14 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  Well if you believe 538 then 4-1 is pretty close to being fair odds and you could reasonably be indifferent to taking that bet. If you think Romney's chances of victory are considerably higher than 538 thinks they are, you shouldn't have to demand odds that high in order to think you're getting a good bet.

Do you think Romney has a greater than 33.3% chance of victory? If so, why did you decline to take the bet at 2-1?

Was it the fact that he was asking you to put down $500? Was it the fact that he wanted you to agree to it the same day? I'll bet you a book on Amazon up to $20 at 2-1 (you buy me a book up to $20 if Obama wins, I buy you 2 books up to $40 total if Romney wins). No time pressure, I'm down for it at any point through the end of the weekend as long as we both agree and document it on this forum.

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 -- note I didn't commit one way or another. 4-1 is what he should jump at if he truly believes Nate Silver is the next coming of Nostradamus. But then again, I might not take those odds. It was, as they say in the negotiation business, a "probe."

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

All right, so if 2-1 is unacceptable to you then that implies that you think Romney has a less than 1 in 3 chance of winning (and you refused another offer of 3-1 which would imply that you think his chances are less than 1 in 4). That's cool, so do I--I just thought you might feel differently since you've been criticizing 538 for predicting an ~80% chance of Obama victory (which is the same thing as 4-1 odds).

Glad we got that cleared up. I think it's admirable that you're able to make a somewhat realistic assessment of Romney's chances even though you'd obviously strongly prefer him to be elected. The only thing I don't understand now is your criticism of 538. Why are you so skeptical of Silver when his assessment is similar to your own?

Post: #96

(11-03-2012 11:29 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  All right, so if 2-1 is unacceptable to you then that implies that you think Romney has a less than 1 in 3 chance of winning (and you refused another offer of 3-1 which would imply that you think his chances are less than 1 in 4). That's cool, so do I--I just thought you might feel differently since you've been criticizing 538 for predicting an ~80% chance of Obama victory (which is the same thing as 4-1 odds).

Glad we got that cleared up. I think it's admirable that you're able to make a somewhat realistic assessment of Romney's chances even though you'd obviously strongly prefer him to be elected. The only thing I don't understand now is your criticism of 538. Why are you so skeptical of Silver when his assessment is similar to your own?

Post: #97

But he knows everything....


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.

Post: #98

(11-03-2012 11:40 PM)Brian Wrote:  But he knows everything....


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.

Any chance I can get in on the gambling here? I'll bet you a book at even money that Obama wins Ohio.

Post: #99

(11-03-2012 11:29 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  All right, so if 2-1 is unacceptable to you then that implies that you think Romney has a less than 1 in 3 chance of winning (and you refused another offer of 3-1 which would imply that you think his chances are less than 1 in 4). That's cool, so do I--I just thought you might feel differently since you've been criticizing 538 for predicting an ~80% chance of Obama victory (which is the same thing as 4-1 odds).

Glad we got that cleared up. I think it's admirable that you're able to make a somewhat realistic assessment of Romney's chances even though you'd obviously strongly prefer him to be elected. The only thing I don't understand now is your criticism of 538. Why are you so skeptical of Silver when his assessment is similar to your own?

Ok, here is the one of the key lessons in Negotiation 101.

What I believe about the reality is, for purposes of the negotiation, irrelevant.

What I believe I CAN get from the other side is, in contrast, the REAL reality. At least as far as the negotiation is concerned.

In other words, don't assume a counteroffer is, somehow, an implicit agreement with with the other side's view ABOUT the odds!!. The other side's view, as a realistic or non-realistic assessment, is not the issue here.

The issue is what I can extract vis a vis the risk I am willing to take.

These are subtle points, but essential to understand if you are in a negotiation.

Anyway, two books to 1 is not acceptable odds. Come back with another offer.

Post: #100

(11-03-2012 11:43 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(11-03-2012 11:29 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  All right, so if 2-1 is unacceptable to you then that implies that you think Romney has a less than 1 in 3 chance of winning (and you refused another offer of 3-1 which would imply that you think his chances are less than 1 in 4). That's cool, so do I--I just thought you might feel differently since you've been criticizing 538 for predicting an ~80% chance of Obama victory (which is the same thing as 4-1 odds).

Glad we got that cleared up. I think it's admirable that you're able to make a somewhat realistic assessment of Romney's chances even though you'd obviously strongly prefer him to be elected. The only thing I don't understand now is your criticism of 538. Why are you so skeptical of Silver when his assessment is similar to your own?

Ok, here is the one of the key lessons in Negotiation 101.

What I believe about the reality is, for purposes of the negotiation, irrelevant.

What I believe I CAN get from the other side is, in contrast, the REAL reality. At least as far as the negotiation is concerned.

In other words, don't assume a counteroffer is, somehow, an implicit agreement with with the other side's view ABOUT the odds!!. The other side's view, as a realistic or non-realistic assessment, is not the issue here.

The issue is what I can extract vis a vis the risk I am willing to take.

These are subtle points, but essential to understand if you are in a negotiation.

Anyway, two books to 1 is not acceptable odds. Come back with another offer.

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.