Chrkeller said:
I feel the need to weigh in, despite not really wanting to do as such, given I am at the crux of the conversation. I think the heart of the matter is simple. It was a joke, mockery and ridicule in the direction of betting firms. Given betting firms were spot on, the original mockery has aged poorly. It would be better if people would just own it and move on, like Zorg. Pretending there wasn't a mockery behind the original intent is creating unnecessary conversations, because we all know what the original intent was. At the end of the day, we all know the betting firm position ended up being a good/accurate call.   |
If you want to insist that it was mockery of betting firms, then you also have to acknowledge that it must have been mockery of pollsters at the same time. After all, I didn't regard polls as accurate.
As far as betting firms go, I wouldn't call them spot on in the end. Shortly before election day, they moved strongly in Harris's direction when we know based on election results that that wasn't warranted at all, if betting firms should be regarded as a prediction tool. What you were correct about all along is that betting firms are about making money - which nobody contested as far as I recall - and that explains this shift in betting odds. It wasn't that Harris's odds at winning got better all of a sudden, rather it was that there was money to be made by adjusting the odds.
On November 4th, Polymarket had Trump's odds at winning at 58%, down from 67% the week before. Kalshi at 53%, down from 65%. PredictIt even put Harris ahead of Trump.
Calling that a good/accurate call is confirmation bias, because the final call of betting firms pretty much matched the final call of pollsters, which is "anything is possible."
Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV will outsell Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I was wrong.
