Hacker News Reader

Comment by fdsaaf | Hacker News Reader

Bradley effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

(Also known as social desirability bias)

Lots of people say in public that they're in favor of immigration, unity, and tolerance, because lots of people will call you a bigot if you don't, but in private, harbor old-fashioned ideas about nationalism, and well, polling involves a human and voting happens in private.

View on HN

Makes me wonder about the Trump presidential odds: https://electionbettingodds.com/. They're not even as wide as the Brexit odds were earlier today.

Well, since we have much more information about presidential elections (which happen regularly) than we have about brexit (which is mostly without precedent), you could argue that election 2016 forecasts are probably more accurate.

I don't think that's the case though. I predict a Trump victory on the basis of a very strong social desirability bias and an immense amount of silent resentment against current social justice orthodoxy, especially as it pertains to speech restrictions on campus and in the workplace.

Yup. I got some money on Trump too, and tbh I was tempted to double-down on it now that we know he's facing a 100% "establishment" "PC" candidate.

I've gone through Italian politics in the '90s. We tend to be pioneers when it comes to political monstrosities.

Just curious, but have you acted upon this belief and bet on Trump in the prediction markets?

I don't have that much confidence in my analysis. I'm an amateur.

But if this is a known effect, why were the betting markets also wrong?

I think betting markets are prone to wishful thinking; there's no guarantee that errors of reasoning toward one side or the other will cancel out, since it's perfectly reasonable to imagine that errors in one direction are more common.

There's no guarantee, but the bookie is watching his, uh, book and adjusting the odds to make sure the payouts come from losing bets rather than his pocket.

Not on Betfair, it's an exchange. They make money either way.

The betting markets had somewhere around a 35% of Brexit. So it wasn't that unlikely according to the betting markets.

I saw 15% before election data started coming out. That's pretty wrong.

It looks like the average was around 35%: http://predictwise.com/politics/uk-politics Interestingly the odds went down pretty sharply as the election came closer, but it is not really fair to pick the lowest odds when evaluating how good the predictions were. But even 15% odds are not really all that unlikely, about a 1 in 6 chance. It isn't as though pundits were predicting leave.

Or maybe people are using the betting markets to hedge. Is that a dumb thing to do?

I think that hedging would have the opposite effect. The pound is tanking (30-year low right now), so if your salary is paid in pounds, it would have made sense to bet on Leave. I'm not sure who wins economically from leaving. British companies that compete with continental ones?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com