[ QUOTE ]
The more top heavy the payout is, the better the correlation is between winning and EV. In a winner take all tournament, EV is 100% correlated with the probability of winning.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's correct. But that's different than what you said before. The thing I quoted you on assumed winner take all, 100%, as I read it. I guess maybe you were just exaggerating the point and I'm being nitty. I didn't read this whole exchange; that statement just caught my eye as being wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
Thats incorrect. The prop bets that Borodog mentioned are not set so that the percentages must add up to 100%.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh OK. Sorry, like I said I didn't really read the exchange. Ya, if they don't add up to 100% they don't mean much.
[ QUOTE ]
Back to the original topic: I like Ron Paul, but the bottom line is that he's polling at 1-2% and his chances of winning the Republican nomination are somewhere close to that as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like Ron Paul too, but I would say his chances or winning are exactly 0% lol. I don't think it matters what he's polling. What if he was polling at 1% with one week left, or one day left? I think there is still a 0% chance that he will end up with enough support to win. That said, every debate he takes part in and every mind he can change is a good thing in my book.
[ QUOTE ]
He is certainly not underrepresented in the media compared to his popularity and chances of winning.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean he was under represented by way of air time. I'll paste my response to someone else who thought I meant the same thing, so you don't have to scroll for it:
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really talking about media "attention," certainly I agree that you have to focus on the front runners. I'm just talking about the way his ideas are introduced when they do talk about him. People in the media, while they might not share certain "extremist" beliefs, (should) understand what the beliefs are based on. But when someone doesn't fit the talking points of one of the two parties, this throws the audience for a loop, so the interviewer will play along and maintain (either implicitly or explicitly) that these views are insane. So the effect is that the media helps polarize towards the two major parties because that's more entertaining than challenging the audience and making them question certain assumptions.
It's impossible for anyone to win an election if their views aren't mostly the agreed upon talking points for each party. That's just the way it is has to be. The two parties are coalitions of views, so the politicians' goal when he speaks is to resonate with as many, and alienate as few, of his supporters as possible. His beliefs aren't necessarily based logically on other beliefs. And the media panders to this, because it plays well for their purpose of catching people's interest. But it's not honest. Do you agree with this?
Here, I'll link the Jon Stewart clip, cause I don't seem to be getting my point across:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8
The full version is the first one on the playlist to the right.
[/ QUOTE ]