This blog is still alive, just in semi-hibernation.
When I want to write something longer than a tweet about something other than math or sci-fi, here is where I'll write it.

Showing posts with label beating Nate Silver yet again. Show all posts
Showing posts with label beating Nate Silver yet again. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Mouth and money time, part 2:
Hubbard 83, Silver 82
Game over, dude.

I made prognostications in 84 races on Monday, the 33 Senate races and the 51 electoral contests, all the states and the District of Columbia. Nate Silver made predictions in all these and many more.

Let me point out that this is just a hobby for me and he's getting paid and has a staff.

Florida goes to Obama.That's a win for Silver and a loss for me. Technically it is a loss for Matthew Hubbard and not for my system, since my system thought it was a toss-up.

No matter. Silvers gets a win and I get a loss.

The first two disagreements to be called were the Senate races in North Dakota and Montana. My system had the Democrats ahead and Nate's said they were both going Republican.


Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I need to stay in practice with my online Howard Cosell impression.

After 84 contests, I lead 83-82. In races where both of us made predictions in 2008 when I only followed the presidential contests, I had 50 correct with one abstention, Indiana. Silver predicted McCain in Indiana, which means I won that year as well by an ever narrower margin, 50-0-1 to 50-1-0.

Look, people have called me a genius many, many times in my life. If I compare myself to the big dogs, people like Newton and Gauss and Euler and Von Neumann, I know how ordinary I am. But if Nate Silver's a genius in this world, I'm a super-genius.

No brag, just fact. My simple system is better than his arcane one. It's the difference between the elegance of math and the constant tinkering of statistics.

Mathematicians really do outrank statisticians. It's all part of the "physics envy" nature of the ranking of the sciences. I didn't create this bias, but I do essentially agree with it and if it plays to my favor, why should I argue?

No disrespect to guys like Persi Diaconis, who works in both the math and stats department at Stanford and uses one of my algorithms in his class.

There are so many people on the right despising Nate Silver right now, I want to distinguish myself from them. He's not bad at what he does. He's very good. Getting 82 of 84 contests right is excellent, even though some of them are very obvious and everyone will get them right.

I went 83 of 84 on the same predictions. That is clearly better.

I do not want Nate Silver driven from the national stage. I want my chance to be part of the conversation as well. I have important things to say and ways to make polling data better, if anyone thought what I had to say was worth noticing.

With all my heart, I know it is. There are many important things I know that no one on the national stage is saying. 

This is two presidential elections in a row for me beating him. I look forward to 2014. Who knows, maybe he'll know who I am by then and offer me a $1,000 bet like he did Joe Scarborough.

Back when I gambled a lot more, I made it a rule never to borrow money to place a bet. If need be, in this case, I'll make an exception.