If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections

nimh wrote:

Nothing changed there, then, since the last time you posted the odds (thanks, btw). That was a little over a week ago, so there's no movement whatsoever there, then?

What is the turnover on those bets now, anyway? Are people already betting on these odds in any significant numbers, or does the lack of change merely indicate a degree of disinterest in the whole thing thus far?

Reason I'm asking is also that I'd hazard a guess that a low participation in these bets would make them less meaningful, since they would then only represent the estimation of a relatively small number of people?

If you follow the link, you will see that the odds I posted are a compilation of the odds from 3 or 4 different betting 'parlors'.

Actually, the numbers changed twice between the original posting on the 6th until today ... they just returned to the same number as the 6th just the other day.

Odds are changed based upon the bookies best estimates of the actual event taking place (As estimated by the professional odds setters) and by the amount bet on the particular individual.

For example, if you were at a race and the odds on 'Santa's Little Helper' were 50 to 1, and you decided that you just HAD to bet your lottery winnings on that particular runner... you place 750,000 dollars on 'S L H' to win ... the odds on the toteboard will drop (Based upon the total amount bet on all of the racers by everyone) The odds could drop to 30 to 1 or even as low as 4 or 5 to one all depending on the total bet pool.

Odds are a very interesting field ... not the pure mathematical 'odds', but the odds of the book and bet.

[This message brought to you by "Not all Italians know everything about odds and betting ... oh come here and bet this way for gosh sakes"] [/i]

0 Replies

By definition, the majority of people will fall close to the 'average' intelligence - represented by an IQ score of 100. (please don't argue IQ stats to me, it's just a convience and I won't argue back.)

The question you have to ask then is this: are there more people on the high end of the curve (120+) or the low end (80-)? Which seems more logical to you? Given that intellectual ability can be stymied by several factors (bad environment, poor education, poor diet, etc) and these same factors breed MORE low-end people, it is logical to state that there are more people who are unintelligent than intelligent.

Therefore, most people (any reasonable sampling) will be of only average intelligence (probably a little lower), and GW stands a good chance of being re-elected; after all, that's his core audience.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

How can "most" people be only average intelligence or less?

Why, McG, would you posit that "most" people are of above-average intelligence?

Hehhehheh ... now that wouldnt make much sense, would it?

Anyway, Cyclo, I would actually bet (ahem) that those who bet on the elections would be better informed about them than your average person ... kinda like those who discuss them on some bulletin board ;-)

I'm not sure about Fedral's assertion about betting odds being an absolutely cool, neutral endeavour though ... just compare the odds for your national team winning the world championships in your country with the odds on the same thing happening, in another country. <grins>

0 Replies

No, I would posit that average is average and that a liitle less tha half will fall on either side with a proportion being average.

0 Replies

Thanks for the explanations, Fedral!

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The question you have to ask then is this: are there more people on the high end of the curve (120+) or the low end (80-)? Which seems more logical to you? Given that intellectual ability can be stymied by several factors (bad environment, poor education, poor diet, etc) and these same factors breed MORE low-end people, it is logical to state that there are more people who are unintelligent than intelligent.

Now that makes no sense at all, to me.

If there are "several factors" that stymie (how the f do you spell that?) intellectual ability, then its stands to reason there are also factors that stimulate it. Good environment, high education, good diet, etc.

If there were indeed more "low-end people" (<80) than "high-end people" (>120), then the only way in which the average still gets to be 100 would be if there were, for some reason, more people in the 100-120 range than the 80-100 range. Dont immediately see anything in your theory that would explain that.

Then there's the submission that people with low-end intelligence are more likely to vote Bush. That just a personal assumption? From what I remember, the Dems usually do better than the Reps both among those with high education (university-educated) and those with low education (manual workers etc), while the Reps do better among those with average education.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
How can "most" people be only average intelligence or less?

Why, McG, would you posit that "most" people are of above-average intelligence?

Hehhehheh ... now that wouldnt make much sense, would it?

Actually statistically it can make sense. Watch:

A: 101
B: 101
C: 101
D: 101
E: 101
F: 2

The average is 84.5

Most of those individuals ( to the tune of about 83%) are above the average intelligence of the group.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

No, I would posit that average is average and that a liitle less tha half will fall on either side with a proportion being average.

Yeah. So "most" people will be "average intelligence or less", just like Cyclo said. <shrugs>

Just like "most" people will be of average intelligence or more.

Right?

0 Replies

Merriam-Webster defines 'Average' as:

Main Entry: av·er·age
Pronunciation: 'a-v(&-)rij
Function: noun
Etymology: from earlier average proportionally distributed charge for damage at sea, modification of Middle French avarie damage to ship or cargo, from Old Italian avaria, from Arabic 'awArIyah damaged merchandise

1 a : a single value (as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values b : MEAN 1b
2 a : an estimation of or approximation to an arithmetic mean b : a level (as of intelligence) typical of a group, class, or series <above the average>
3 : a ratio expressing the average performance especially of an athletic team or an athlete computed according to the number of opportunities for successful performance

AVERAGE is exactly or approximately the quotient obtained by dividing the sum total of a set of figures by the number of figures <scored an average of 85 on tests>

MEAN may be the simple average or it may represent value midway between two extremes <a high of 70° and a low of 50° give a mean of 60°>.

MEDIAN applies to the value that represents the point at which there are as many instances above as there are below <average of a group of persons earning 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10 dollars a day is 6 dollars, whereas the median is 5 dollars>.

The term you are looking for when describing the point at which there are as many people above as below the average is the median (See above)

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Actually statistically it can make sense. Watch:

A: 101
B: 101
C: 101
D: 101
E: 101
F: 2

The average is 84.5

Most of those individuals ( to the tune of about 83%) are above the average intelligence of the group.

Yep - hypothetically possible.

Now, how likely is that to apply to the average IQ of a population of 100 million, say?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
No, I would posit that average is average and that a liitle less tha half will fall on either side with a proportion being average.

Yeah. So "most" people will be "average intelligence or less", just like Cyclo said. <shrugs>

Just like "most" people will be of average intelligence or more.

Right?

No. I mean that's probably how it averages out but there is no statistical reason for it to have to be that way nimh.

The overwelming majority can be on one side of an average. You just need extremity.

Edit to include the quote.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Yep - hypothetically possible.

Now, how likely is that to apply to the average IQ of a population of 100 million, say?

Just as likely as it is to apply to 6 as long as selection criteria remains the same.

There is not enough data to estimate the likelihood and we'll run into issues with floors and ceilings with IQ tests (e.g. what's a baby's IQ? And someone in a coma?).

I'd say the majority are probably under average merely on the basis for there being many more ways to drive the quotient down than up.

I can hit someone with a bat and lower the quotient. It is much harder to raise it.

I think that the majority is below average. But the floor and ceiling make this a moot point.

We do not know what the average IQ is, we know what the median is, and the entire test is based on median, not average.

0 Replies

nimh, just FYI, the transactions resulting in the Tradesports Odds Line run into the tens of thousands and more weekly. The "Handle", or Amount-at-Wager, is in the tens of millions of dollars weekly. By any measure, the sample is significant. Likewise, the US Election Outcome Futures Trading Boards track hundreds of thousands of contracts. The overall accuracy rate, whether in terms of absolute win/lose call or mean percentage deviation from realized outcome, of the bookies and the brokers would be the envy of any pollster.

0 Replies

Boy, I sure derailed this thread, sorry everyone Sad

Quote:

Anyway, Cyclo, I would actually bet (ahem) that those who bet on the elections would be better informed about them than your average person ... kinda like those who discuss them on some bulletin board

Yeah, I know they do. But; they are not judging who SHOULD get elected, just who they think WILL get elected. That would take the intelligence of the average voter into account.

Quote:

If there are "several factors" that stymie (how the f do you spell that?) intellectual ability, then its stands to reason there are also factors that stimulate it. Good environment, high education, good diet, etc.

If there were indeed more "low-end people" (<80) than "high-end people" (>120), then the only way in which the average still gets to be 100 would be if there were, for some reason, more people in the 100-120 range than the 80-100 range. Dont immediately see anything in your theory that would explain that.

Attaining a high level of intelligence and education is like scoring a touchdown in football (or a goal in football for all you dirty foriegners Smile

). It takes a large combination of factors, all contributing and going well, for someone to turn out intelligent. Remove ONE of those legs and the possiblity is quite lessened.

The base state, given no outside interference, does not lead to a majority of people being intelligent at all. Why? Education trains a mind to use it's natural ability. Some people don't have the natural ability to take hold of the education, some people have the ability but not the education. Some have both, and they turn out 'intelligent.'

The average turns out the way it does becuase 1) there are a vast number of people near the middle (100) that sort of weigh down the sampling, so individual cases don't change the average as much, and 2) it takes two individuals with an IQ of 70 (which is not that far below average) to counteract an individual with an IQ of 160. As all the baseline factors point towards the difficulty of acheiving a high level of intelligence, this argument is not without merit in my opinion. Craven said it right:

Quote:

The overwelming majority can be on one side of an average. You just need extremity.

On preview, another good quote by Craven, man you are on fire today!

Quote:

I can hit someone with a bat and lower the quotient. It is much harder to raise it.

I guess I need to work more on the statistical sampling portion of this and get back to you guys.

Quote:

Then there's the submission that people with low-end intelligence are more likely to vote Bush. That just a personal assumption? From what I remember, the Dems usually do better than the Reps both among those with high education (university-educated) and those with low education (manual workers etc), while the Reps do better among those with average education.

Nah. The supposition is that those with AVERAGE intelligence are more likely to vote for Bush, thus the bookies give him a lead, which leads us back to the initial argument nicely.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

there is no statistical reason for it to have to be that way nimh.

The overwelming majority can be on one side of an average. You just need extremity.

Yep, got that the previous post around. Statistical possibility. But we were talking about the average intelligence of a many-million population. <shrugs>

Actually, I guess that considering the mentally handicapped etc are, I would guess, further below the average than the brightest of minds are above the average, probably the median of IQ scores would actually be a little above the average of IQ scores. Just ever so slightly. I'm guessing.

But like Cyclo, I took "people of average intelligence" to mean a range, as in "80-120", rather than an absolute point (those with 100, exactly). And then to say that most people have either average or below-average IQ is a truism. <shrugs>

Anyway, digressed enough on that one.

0 Replies

Thanks for the details Timber.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Yep, got that the previous post around. Statistical possibility. But we were talking about the average intelligence of a many-million population. <shrugs>

The data sample size is not what will change it unless the criteria for selection changes. Obviously it will because I chose easy to type, easy to add numbers and decided to go above 100 just to avoid unecessary confusion with those who consider IQ median.

Quote:

Actually, I guess that considering the mentally handicapped etc are, I would guess, further below the average than the brightest of minds are above the average, probably the median of IQ scores would actually be a little above the average of IQ scores. Just ever so slightly. I'm guessing.

Your guess is as good as mine. What you guys are discussing does not exist, so it's all guesswork.

IQ is a system based on grading by the curve and a median. It's not dealt with in averages. Because people utilize the median to maintain the quality of the test this can't be tested either.

Because if it swung either way, the test would have to be scrapped or corrected.

0 Replies

Re "Are more or fewer folks of above average intelligence" (a silly proposition on its face) ...

Envision a bell curve: it will have shoulders of relatively gradual slope flanking a relatively steeper central curve. At some point along that steeper central curve, there will exist a transecting line above and below which will lie 50% of the sample. Should that transecting line fall closer to the peak than to the shoulders, more folks would be of below average intelligence, while conversely if the transect occurs relatively closer to the shoulders, a greatet number of folks will fall within the steeper central curve. I honestly have no idea, nor inclination to determine, where in fact the transect line crosses the curve. I rather suspect the mean is not far divergent from the average; that's just the things work with really large samples.

0 Replies

A good point.

But there must be some sort of criteria with which we can rate a persons' IQ/intelligence/smartitude with respect to the following society, right?

I shouldn't have slept during statistics in college :/

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Re "Are more or fewer folks of above average intelligence" (a silly proposition on its face) ...

Not at all, what you did afterward was silly, which was use arguments about averages to describe a system based on median.

0 Replies

I think you missed my point, CdK, which essentially was that I doubt, given the necessarily large sample size, there would be significant difference between the mean and the average. Of course both propositions are silly.

0 Replies

If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know