Trump goes it alone, does not appoint a VP

Created by themusicgod1 on 2016-06-17; known on 2016-10-01; judged wrong by PseudonymousUser on 2016-07-14.

  • themusicgod1 estimated 8% on 2016-06-17
  • two2thehead estimated 1% and said “Less than one percent. I know that this election (for the Republicans at least) has been one surprise after another. But I mark my boundaries and stake my claim here.on 2016-06-17
  • joshcurtis estimated 1% on 2016-06-18
  • PseudonymousUser estimated 1% on 2016-06-18
  • JoshuaZ estimated 1% on 2016-06-19
  • splorridge estimated 0% and said “themusicgod1, your predictions regarding Trump’s VP pick don’t add up. You say 66% it’s a woman, 8% chance there isn’t one and a total of 50% for various named men.on 2016-06-20
  • themusicgod1 said “That’s due to how failures are marked here. Doublebooking one’s self is necessary to move errors from one kind of prediction to another imoon 2016-06-20
  • themusicgod1 said “dutchbooking*on 2016-06-20
  • themusicgod1 said “(also I do not personally update unless information I could not have forseen is gathered, so some old guesses are off by a little).on 2016-06-20
  • elephantower estimated 1% on 2016-06-20
  • elephantower said “Why do you make such unorthodox predictions? Don’t claim it’s because you have some special insight, as your accuracy chart appears almost random. on 2016-06-20
  • elephantower said “(@themusicgod1)on 2016-06-20
  • themusicgod1 said “Depends on the prediction. This one specifically was because of the rumour that he’s having trouble finding anyone who will be his VP due to no one wanting to be associated with him. Seems like the kind of ballsy move that he would make to me.on 2016-06-20
  • themusicgod1 said “regression line:y = 0.114286 p+ 51.0952, r^2 = .012…that’s slightly but not much better than chance. it’s the 90% that’s throwing me off, which this is an example of. Being wrong here would be the kind of error I’ve made thus far.on 2016-06-20
  • splorridge said “I looked up Dutch Book. Perhaps I’m missing something (I do find probability confusing) but I don’t see how it’s relevant here. I would have thought that if you gave probabilities that added up to more than 1 the net result would just be that…on 2016-06-21
  • splorridge said “…predictionbook showed you to be overconfident, forcing the line in your graph downwards on average.Actually, on reflection I realise it’s more complicated than that, but since I’d posted half my comment I thought I’d better finish it.on 2016-06-21
  • ioannes estimated 1% on 2016-06-21
  • themusicgod1 said “suppose you routinely are more accurate in 50% and routinely less accurate in 60%, as I am. obv some of my 50% predictions are too low, so I bump ’em up. Unfortunately doing so leads to > 100% probability, which means i can be dutch-booked. on 2016-06-22
  • Paul.David.Carr estimated 15% on 2016-06-22
  • Reactionaryhistorian estimated 1% on 2016-06-23
  • jasticE estimated 1% on 2016-06-25
  • Michael Dickens estimated 1% and said “Worth noting that “slightly better than chance” is way worse than the average person.on 2016-06-26
  • estimated 20% on 2016-06-26
  • aarongertler estimated 0% on 2016-06-27
  • PseudonymousUser   judged this prediction wrong on 2016-07-14.

Please log in to respond to or judge prediction