It might be that you just don't know what English words mean (which is probably your best defense at this point)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5918362&forum_id=2#50229518)

Yes they do. I'm going to leave you with a rhetorical question: "Are you fucking stupid?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5918362&forum_id=2#50229540)

Wait a sec, can you remind me what thread that was?

gg loser.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5918362&forum_id=2#50229608)

Author: ferengi

nope don't care that much. but do you really want to commit to them being reliable measures of probability? because if your final answer is that it IS just sensationalism - more dramatic pwning of shitcons to link a fast-moving, volatile graph - and you don't actually think the prediction markets are magical probability machines, then i respect that. we love drama here.

( http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5918072&forum_id=2#50228173 )

Date: November 3rd, 2026 8:40 PM

Author: Emotionally + Physically Abusive Ex-Husband

Yes, that's my final answer.

( http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?t hread_id=5918072&forum_id=2#50228175 )

Date: November 3rd, 2026 8:46 PM

Author: Emotionally + Physically Abusive Ex-Husband

The first one, I didn't read all the way to the end

( http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5918072&forum_id=2#50228212 )

that was after i gave the example of retards thinking that 65% D vs. 35% R on a prediction market is an accurate indicator of the probability of the D candidate winning, and you quoted it and said yes it is. technically you only said that it's "HIGHLY predictive", which is why i asked you to clarify whether you actually thought it was a statistical indicator of the candidate's probability of winning, and you said yes. sounds like you committed to a position you didn't bother to try to understand.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5918362&forum_id=2#50229625)

What is the point of contention here?

Edit: Wait, what? Explain the distinction between "accuracy at predicting outcome" and "measures of probability of the outcome"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5918362&forum_id=2#50229523)

on election day, my criticism is that linking to Polymarket is not as useful as linking results and projections, since it's downstream of those things. it's just a dramatic, volatile reaction to those. it's defensible to find it INTERESTING but i don't think it's as useful as those other sources for following the race.

before election day, my criticism is that it's tainted by the fact that sufficiently rich people can pour money into a candidate to astroturf them. they can FAKE public opinion.

the first point only applies on election day and the second only before.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5918362&forum_id=2#50229552)

So you look at the SC race for example and think: "Lindsey's sister is up by 10K votes with 8% of the total, so it's impossible to predict who will win." But they are looking at individual precinct reports, and have roughly 100x the ability to predict the outcome compared to you looking at statewide totals.

Does that make sense?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5918362&forum_id=2#50229567)

(tbtp)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5918362&forum_id=2#50229580)

it's possible there are enough WHALES with SCHOLARLY STATISTICAL MODELS making bang-on predictions that well-informed predictions account for most of the movement. reasonable minds can disagree about how much faith to have in the markets. but again, you committed to the batshit insane claim that i could sense underlies your understanding of prediction markets. you seriously think that X% chance on a betting market = X% chance the candidate will win, which is mind-bogglingly stupid but not uncommon in the mathematically illiterate hellscape that is 2026.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5918362&forum_id=2#50229584)

You coulda stopped there sis. Or you could have summarized "I don't know anything about this topic, but HERE'S WHAT I THINK!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5918362&forum_id=2#50229599)

I think you're getting hung up on the idea that there are no intrinsic odds in the universe, right. like of course there is a 100% chance that the vote total will match the votes counted in the end, and that a 66/34 Kalshi spread at any point is mathematically less than 100. But that odds are just our 'best approximation.'

It's kind of like Calculus. We can't *really* calculate the curvature of a planetary orbit right? But someone (Newton) figured out you could draw a line and fill it in with ever tinier triangles and you could approximate it REALLY closely, to the point of like, actually being able to calculate it accurately. Calculus shouldn't exist, right? It's one of those "batshit insane" ideas that would never occur to most people. And yet, it works. It's counter-intuitive. And yet our entire civilization depends on it. If Tucker thinks algebra is Jewish magic (at worst wouldn't it be Islamic magic?), then Calculus is some really out there shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5918362&forum_id=2#50229619)

me - a right wing nutjob with "horrible" views per your own assessment

gunner - a thoughtful moderate with Reddit tier opinions on everything

EPAH - a left wing extremist who fully trooned half his kids

You're literally going up against the full political spectrum who all agree on the wisdom of betting markets.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5918362&forum_id=2#50229601)