Result A has a ~16% chance of happening

>Result A has a ~16% chance of happening
>Result A happens
>"Analytics are dead."

Morons. All of you.

>more autism from Canada
>saged
Stay mad, faggot

yeah but theres a 90% chance i wont get these digits

Result B has a 99/100 chance... Doesn't hAppen

>Everybody says Result A won't happen
>Result A happens
>Analytics need to be better

You're the moron.

>This weapon has a 1% chance to crit.
>It crits all the fucking time.
>Weapon stats are dead.

>>Everybody says Result A won't happen
>Everybody

Take a fucking statistics class once in a while, retard.

There is such a fucking huge difference between 1% and 16%, you retard. 16% can't reject any null hypothesis. 1% can.

first off
>A FUCKING LEAF
second
No one said analytics was dead moron, we said that Nate Copperfield who used analytics to shill his retarded lib bias got BTFO as did all other retards who screwed with the way results were gotten and showed to the public, because everyone can understand analytics being "wrong" about shit, but when it's so obviously manipulated in favor of someone it's not analytics anymore it's fucking covert propaganda.
Now go fucking die!

Alright.

>Majority of people say Result A won't happen
>Result A happens
>Analytics need to be better

You idiot.

>who screwed with the way results were gotten
>gotten
I'm drunk, sorry, you still need to die though.

>Majority of people isn't the population
>Result A happens, although it isn't unlikely for any result that's ~16% to happen to actually happen.
>Analytics are always improving regardless of whether they were right this time or not.

You stupid fucking tard.

Day of the rake when?

>16%
lmao

Clinton won the popular vote. You win the Electoral Vote about 95% of the time when you win the popular vote. She got unlucky. End of story.

Follow the gambling market. It was roughly 6 to 1 that Trump would win on the day.

Trump winning by a landslide was probably sub 1%. Silver himself says the odds were hilary landslide, hilary win or trump barely winning. A trump landslide was so low it wasn't even worth mentioning. It's pretty obvious that the polls were wrong.

Trump didn't win by a landslide you cuckold.

>Result A has a ~16% chance of happening
>Result B has a ~80% chance of happening
>Either Result A or Result B happens
>Result A happens
>Analytics are dead

>>Result A has a ~16% chance of happening
>>Result A happens
>>"Analingus are dead."
*fixed

>didn't win by a landslide
>easily got over 300EV
Fuck, no more replying to leaf posters from now on.

In the real world, when you say something is 95% likely to happen and it doesn't, you're more likely to be considered incompetent instead of being unlucky. Your customers will bail ship and this is why nate was so stressed out.

Everything that happens has a 100 percent chance of happening

>She got unlucky. End of story.
yeah sure, that's agreeable, but the polls weren't about just the popular vote, and in Plutoniums case, he took data on every state alone, and then based on that data, and the chances of the candidates winning the ELECTORAL VOTE, he made they're overall chances, so he got 5 states wrong, and the overall chance WAY WRONG, and using the same methodology so did a shitload of pollsters, so as I said the issue isn't analytics being dead, it's the fucking people making them being totally fucking biased, and in some cases probably even payed to screw with public perception.

It wasn't even close, though

landslide would suggest he actually got more votes, and a lot more

He put Trump at 30% on election night. Retard.

No one predicted a trump landslide. Everyone thought that if he won, it would be barely. This is enough evidence to say that the polls were bad instead of unlucky.

>the overall chance WAY WRONG
Another clueless idiot who thinks the actual probability was wrong because the underdog result happened.

>he hedged his bet at the last moment to salvage some shred of his credibility should it not turn out the way he thought

really makes u think

Not if all the polling was focused on the electoral college. It was an electoral landslide.

At a bare win, you double leaf.

>Polls XYZ say 99,99% are in favour of A
>Polls XYZ also claim to be representative of a general majority and the population
>Turns out it was more like 50/50 all along and the polls XYZ lied to you

>Polls XYZ are nearly every poll that has been made
>"Polls are worthless and fake"

A. Fucking. Leaf.

>he made they're
their*, fuck I ought to go to bed

>Another clueless idiot who thinks the actual probability was wrong because the underdog result happened.
no nigger that was my point exactly, Trumps actual probability was higher than what was shown, did you even try to understand what I said?

>Result A has ~16% chance of happening because statisticians and politically motivated pollsters intentionally skew the data in order to make it fit in with their pre-determined desired result
>Result A happens
>Analysts suck at their fucking jobs and can't be trusted to gather data impartially

Pretty legit desu.

And for Brexit, you know what skewed the polls/odds towards 'leave'? Some guy placed a huge bet on the UK remaining. That's it, that's all.

>Brexit
>Cubs
>Trump

What's next on Nate Plastic's list?

The polls were pretty much spot on, its just the polls were successfully predicting the popular vote.

Not in American politics

Electoral votes was the only thing that mattered and over 300 is considered a minor landslide

Stop posting about probabilities if you don't understand it. When an outliner happens, you can either say the methodology is correct and the result is an outliner, or you can say the result is not an outliner and the methodology is wrong. Considering the odds of a trump landslide and how every poll got him wrong, the latter is more likely to be true.

Fine.

>Paid analysts universally declare result A to be inevitable and laugh off any suggestions to the contrary for months.
>Result B happens
>Analytics need to be better

Faggot retard

>Trumps actual probability was higher than what was shown
Yeah. this is where you're wrong. Unless the projections had Trump at

Popular vote in general doesn't matter, and isn't what people like Nate Silver cared about. California votes don't matter. What mattered was the popular vote in each state, in which the polls were wrong when it came to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

What was the probability of Trump winning the states that he did?

What was the probability that Trump would get over 300 electoral votes.

Look at those probabilities and tell me the polling wasn't totally wrong.

Not the state polls

That's not me. I see Nate Silver's bullshit as unfalsifiable and therefore pseudoscientific. He could've given Trump a 1% chance of a win and still have not been demonstrably wrong.

In fact, HuffPo, Sam Wang, and others gave Trump a 1% chance of victory, and it was Nate Silver who threw shade and gloated by saying, as the night progressed, that it didn't seem like a 99%-for-Hillary election. Yet what were his grounds for saying that analytically, as it were?

>you can't make that statement
yes I can, polls were screwed with all the time by oversampling certain groups and undersampling others, if that wasn't the case Hillary"s chances could still be better but at least the shill's could save face, also remind me please what's Nate's margin of error, because whatever it is, I think he went WAY, WAAAAAAAAY over that

Votes are not random, you tard. Polls are not about chance, they're about certainty with which you claim to know the way the people are going to vote. If you say the night before election you're 99% sure that result A will happen but then result B happens it means you're either incompetent at polling or a liar or probably both.

>shill's
shills*
fuck my spelling tonight

also remember there were polls that literally showed Trump at less than 2%, so the goes your "Unless the projections had Trump at

>landslide
>lost the popular vote by almost 2 million votes

>leaf has a 99% chance of being a mad retard
>leaf is a mad retard

>Not understanding that popular vote is irrelevant when you have over 300 EV

What if the better option would have been to rig the polls for Donald to play the underdog and motivate people to vote?
What if politics is all just a CIA psyOP and more rigged than pro football?