bets vs polls
- Thread starter b23zombie
- Start date
I may be running amok by not more directly referencing:
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
To me a "bet" is a wager on something as yet undetermined, whether an event yet to occur (the outcome of a horse race), or a fact in dispute.
A "poll" is a sampling of a population.
On that basis I'm not sure either is intrinsically more accurate than another. A bet by an expert: "If you flick that light switch toggle upward I bet the light will turn on." may be more accurate than a shabbily run poll.
Modern public opinion polling is an arcane art. With a set sample size of 15, it's not accurate to simply find and poll the first 15 people you meet. If you meet them at the bus depot, they may not have much passion about the candidate that wants to triple car registration fees.
Thus to run an accurate public opinion poll, the poll sample selection protocol is important. Similar story with product sampling in manufacturing. Even with a pre-determined sample size of 3, it's not enough to merely select 3, but to insure the 3 extracted from the population sampled represent the whole population, not for example the first three manufactured in the series.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
To me a "bet" is a wager on something as yet undetermined, whether an event yet to occur (the outcome of a horse race), or a fact in dispute.
A "poll" is a sampling of a population.
On that basis I'm not sure either is intrinsically more accurate than another. A bet by an expert: "If you flick that light switch toggle upward I bet the light will turn on." may be more accurate than a shabbily run poll.
Modern public opinion polling is an arcane art. With a set sample size of 15, it's not accurate to simply find and poll the first 15 people you meet. If you meet them at the bus depot, they may not have much passion about the candidate that wants to triple car registration fees.
Thus to run an accurate public opinion poll, the poll sample selection protocol is important. Similar story with product sampling in manufacturing. Even with a pre-determined sample size of 3, it's not enough to merely select 3, but to insure the 3 extracted from the population sampled represent the whole population, not for example the first three manufactured in the series.
but there's the rub, with polls. they DON'T represent the entirety , they represent only the chosen slant for that poll.
bookies are rarely politically motivated, and they actually do a lot of research before they set odds. and they DON'T commit to wishful thinking, which virtually every poll i've ever seen does.
the bookies( and michael moore) were the first to realize that trump was going to win in 2016, for example.
bookies are rarely politically motivated, and they actually do a lot of research before they set odds. and they DON'T commit to wishful thinking, which virtually every poll i've ever seen does.
the bookies( and michael moore) were the first to realize that trump was going to win in 2016, for example.
Your wording "chosen slant" implies deliberate attempt to misrepresent. ABSOLUTELY that CAN happen.
That's in part why polling figure without attribute: According to my meticulous study the 97.4% of the nation's population is below the age of seven years. Says who?
That's in part why I note whose poll, and apply more credibility to those from Marist, Pew, Gallup, and other reputable polling institutions.
They do not necessarily represent the population sampled. Poll sample selection is critical. And the actual protocol for this selection is complicated. And I gather that, and and sample size, the proportion of the sample to the population are major factors in calculating the margin of error (MOE).
Think it through.
For a year before the election Hillary Clinton was polling ahead of Trump. A year!
They held the election, Trump won. BUT !! The polls were right. Hillary won the vote. The idiotic polling agencies did not account for the State by State impact of the electoral college.
We can agree that it was an error in polling. The statistical sampling was conventional protocol. They omitted the extra calculation necessary for close presidential races.
Insurance actuaries compile actuarial tables. That's how insurers figure out what to charge for an insurance policy. They follow a formula:
- what's the risk?
- what's our liability? (the amount we have to pay if it comes to that)
- etc
It's all statistics.
I don't have a bookie.
But I doubt many of them offer odds at 3.7954812 to one.
More likely it's 3 to 1, or 4 to one. "The house" almost always has the advantage. If it's too risky a bet for the bookie at 3 to 1, he can make it 2 to 1, if that favors him.
The research they do is calculating the odds. They may not use the same calculus taught at college. But if their odds are far from the mark they're likely to go broke.
sear, i think you're occasionally too smart for your own good, and it blinds you to reality. there will NEVER be a poll that represents the entirety of our country's citizens. and insurance stats, well, that's apples and oranges.
Correct.
They know that.
Thus the M.O.E.
And they've been at it long enough, they know how to sample populations to get a representative glimpse of the entire population.
Fact is b #5 I suspect there's an M.O.E. on election day as well. And there's even questions about that. If the ballot is a sheet of paper, and the candidate selection is ink in the circle, and an individual voter misinterprets the ballot syntax, and fills in the wrong circle, is that an election error? The machine scores the ballot correctly. It's the human that erred.
If you doubt me b #5 you can take a college course in it. I gather the complexity would surprise you, perhaps even me. There may not be one single college course that would impart the information. You might need to take a few. Not worth the trouble. BUT !!
If you're really interested you can get with a college that teaches the course, find out what the required texts are, and look one over. Could be an eye-opener for you.
Certainly not identical to election day, BUT !!
They're both statistics.
The major difference, election day is determinative. Actuarial tables are predictive. Bear in mind, in simplest form the concept is, if X amount of damage will happen to insured drivers, then they have to pay that same amount, "X" each year.
In practice insurers charge substantially more than "X", enough to cover all claims, PLUS enough for the insurance agent to pay the rent, put the kid through college, and even renovate the kitchen. "It's a $profit deal!"
mark mywords
Active member
you could run a referendum?
you could, if you really wanted, make it a criminal offence not to vote - although given that so much time effort and money is put into preventing or discouraging people from voting that course seems unlikely
If you mean that a poll with a sample on a few thousands cannot represent the whole country then you are entirely correct
m #7
Dog gone it m #7, 'cause of you I'm going to have to buy a larger thinking cap!
Not sure, I'll need your sanity check on this:
I think the difference between referendum and the other kind of vote is,
- the other kind of vote elects the people that make the decisions, whereas
- in a referendum the voters decide the issue directly (cutting out the middle-man / legislators)
Right?
If so, the actual statistical polling process may be the same, just the impact of the result that differs?
5 Point Bonus Question:
What's the difference between a referendum and a plebiscite?
The population of 300 million blue marbles is sampled by culling a few thousand, and meticulously examined. RESULT: All blue. Kind of nukes the "entirely correct" thing. BUT !!
I realize political public opinion polling is more complicated than blue / non-blue.
So I'd say the likelihood of a few thousand sampled out of a 300 million population produces a margin of error which is dependent upon how the sample was obtained, AND on the poll questions. It's complicated. I'd love to get s2 to weigh in on this one.
Dog gone it m #7, 'cause of you I'm going to have to buy a larger thinking cap!
Not sure, I'll need your sanity check on this:
I think the difference between referendum and the other kind of vote is,
- the other kind of vote elects the people that make the decisions, whereas
- in a referendum the voters decide the issue directly (cutting out the middle-man / legislators)
Right?
If so, the actual statistical polling process may be the same, just the impact of the result that differs?
5 Point Bonus Question:
What's the difference between a referendum and a plebiscite?
- klaxon ! -
The population of 300 million blue marbles is sampled by culling a few thousand, and meticulously examined. RESULT: All blue. Kind of nukes the "entirely correct" thing. BUT !!
I realize political public opinion polling is more complicated than blue / non-blue.
So I'd say the likelihood of a few thousand sampled out of a 300 million population produces a margin of error which is dependent upon how the sample was obtained, AND on the poll questions. It's complicated. I'd love to get s2 to weigh in on this one.
yes, that's what i mean.
mark mywords
Active member
Right, you vote for / against a law not a person ( do you think that twinkies should be banned)
Wouldnt worry about it too much your republic unlike many others has no facility for calling referenda.
Switzerland call them all the time every important change of law gets voted on, Ireland has them when its a change to the constitution - such as when they recently changed the law to allow abortion).
UK famously had one on Brexit Scotland had one about independence (from Britain)
Polls are very easy to get the answer you want - take your sample on a Sunday near a church and you can pretty much guarantee a majority against abortion take it when there is an NRA meeting of gun show in town and suddenly no one wants to restrict firearms!
I'm so glad you asked, as I have very strong conviction on this.
I think they should definitely brew beer, not ha ha. BUT !!
My personal preference, ha ha is a close second, about tied with coffee.
- translation -
I don't know anything about it. BUT !!
If you want a boat I think I can get you about a dozen of 'em. (that insurance brouhaha?)
Was it hurricane Andrew that broke the bank of a big insurance company? State Farm?
I have vague memory of some major insurer simply not able to cover all their liabilities.
Did that happen again?
EXACTLY!
at least 6 companies have gone under there in the last couple of years, and with hurricane ian that just hit, several more are already crying poverty, denying claims, and dumping clients. the state of florida has subsidized many of them for years, and now that debt will come due.
many i know won't be able to rebuild, and some who didn't get wiped out are now being dumped by their insurance companies, or the premiums, already high in some areas are skyrocketing. it's a sad and disgraceful turn of events, and mainly due to the GOP controlling the state for so long.
"( do you think that twinkies should be banned)"
Preventing them from wearing white trousers after Labor Day probably not a bad idea.
m #11
I know I shouldn't cry on your shoulder about it, but I do have a near groundless impression the Brexit vote was ill-conceived. I'm not smart enough to have a real reason, so I limp along on e. pluribus unum.
I'd guess the E.U. would benefit the U.K. for the same reason it benefits any of its other members. BUT !!
I hope the U.K. is strong enough to weather a brisk breeze if one should bluster by.
a) ding ! ding !
b) The other side of that ha'penny is, poll a population sample that represents the broader population, and so should the poll. I know it's quite involved. I heard a pollster discussing the protocol for telephone polling. iirc the interview was before the proliferation of the cell-phone. I don't remember vividly but the idea was, you don't just poll whomever answers. The pollster has to try to reach the one that owns the phone, not the babysitter. There's obviously much more to it than that, and I'm not sure they even do telephone polling anymore. No more telephone poles. Wooden you no it. Wire you even asking? You think I'm a phoney? (Saturday night)
88888888888888888888
b #14
I tend to draw a mental graph of situations, reflex by now I guess. My mental graph of your #14 is shaped like a hockey stick. Nice and straight, until the hook at the end. The storms, horrendous. The insurers going belly up, monstrous. Blame it on the GOP. - perfect -
I can't make mirth about it b. It's quite grim. And the -Wyoming is open for bidness- thing, unworthy. What can we do? I suppose even in this post I've trivialized it. Candidly the GOP / Trump / Jan 6 insurrection may be a more serious threat to our republic than the weather.
PS
I catch some fun anecdotes at cocktail parties. A bloke once told me, they don't even cook / bake Twinkies. He said there's chemicals in there that have an exothermic reaction during manufacture, and they toast themselves. Might have been his 3rd martini when he told me that. Worth a chuckle, though I doubt it.
mark mywords
Active member
didnt you opine elsewhere (one of the Ukraine threads) about a people right to determine their own future?
Brexit may have been right or wrong but dont the PEOPLE have a right to choose it even if it is wrong?
UK is plenty strong enough to look after the welfare of its people the question is is it strong enough to look after its own people AND pump £2,5 Billion (and rising) into Ukraine whilst the financial elite are using the national economy to line their own pockets.
Side bar
As ex prime minister Liz Truss is entitles to a stipend of £115000 per year for the rest of her life even though she was only in power for 45 days (10 days of which we were in national mourning and the government didnt do a great deal)and during which time she managed to completely wreck the economy!
Completely!
My apology m #16.
My words were unclear even to me. My words:
What I should have said, what I meant to say:
I do have a near groundless impression the Brexit vote outcome was ill-conceived.
It would never occur to me to undermine, or even challenge a People's right to self-determination.
What I meant by this now thrice-posted perspective is:
- I get the impression many individual voters may have chosen as they did, cast their ballots as they did, based not upon conclusions drawn by extremely intensive, highly detailed study, extensive comparisons of the two separate economic tracks, etc.
Instead I suspect many voters, a determinative % in the voting population, mulled it over without the degree of analysis it deserved, and voted on basis of shallow national pride, rather than on keenly considered economic merit.
I knew that's what I meant. And so I assumed that's what others would understand when I first posted it. Wrong again Sears !
Are our other allies, other E.U. or NATO member nations contributing a similar %GDP to Ukraine?
Alright.
That's bad.
Is it as bad as:
"... disassemble, that means not tell the truth" President of the United States of America GWB
This load-star gets Secret Service protection for life, along with piles of $cash he needs a bulldozer to plow around his various mansions.
mark mywords
Active member
Ukraine isnt in NATO
when Russia stormed into Hungary(1956) NATO did nothing
When Russia stormed into Czechoslovakia (1968) NATO did nothing
When Russia stormed into Afghanistan (1979) the west did almost nothing (beyond tea and sympathy)
Ukrainian refugees fleeing war are fast tracked for entry to UK
Take in a Ukrainian refugee and our government will give you £300 per month to help out
Ukrainian refugees are helped to get accommodation and employment
compare with Syrian refugees fleeing war AND persecution they cant get a visa and helping them settle in UK (supplying housing or employment) is a criminal offence
Why is Ukraine a line that cannot be crossed?
Correct.
Correct, for reason you've alluded to in your assertion above.
That's a dandy question to ask the allies including U.K. that have flocked to Ukraine's defense.
You're implying the response to Russian aggression is uneven.
Almost certainly so.
Problem is, the handwriting is on the wall.
Crimea was a pushover.
Emboldened, Putin's making his next play. And it's obviously more than merely incremental. Anyone else is free to believe Putin will conquer all Ukraine, and then stop there never to use its military aggressively again.
I wouldn't count on it.
And as I've already explained elsewhere (Victor's BBS iirc) among our choices:
- a) we can join the fight here, with Ukraine doing most of the fighting and dying, and do battle with a depleted, under-supplied, under-manned, demoralized Russian military, here and now. - OR -
- b) we can allow Putin's conquest to complete, allow Russia a few years to regroup, re-supply, reorganize, and then have to do battle against a fresh and vital Russia on the next battlefield.
Option a has its merits. Option b does not.
Polls may tend to be more formal. Bets can be as casual as a disagreement over spelling, to be settled by dictionary. The most a precisely structured bet may be more accurate than the most poorly conducted poll.