February 2, 2014
Posted by Jay Livingston
I have posted frequently – maybe too frequently – about the “wisdom of crowds” in sports betting (in this post, for example, which has links to earlier posts going back to the early days of this blog). For those of us who doubt that wisdom, today’s Superbowl looks like a notable opportunity.
The initial line two weeks ago from most bookmakers was pick ’em or even the Seahawks favored by a point. The crowd, in its alleged wisdom, jumped all over the Broncos. The bookmakers, desperate for Seahawks action to balance their ledgers moved the line, and by early in the week the Broncos were 2½-point favorites. Betting is still going 75% for the Broncos.*
Of course, a single game (n = 1) is not a good test of this betting strategy. Still, as Damon Runyon said, the race is not always to the swift, but that’s the way to bet ’em.
It’s two hours till game time, and although this may be the year of the horse, I’m going with Seattle.
UPDATE, Monday, Feb. 3: Well, that was easy. Rarely is the crowd so decisively unwise. Their Broncos handed the Seahawks a two-point lead on the first play of the game, and after that it was all downhill. The Seahawks won 43 - 8.
--------------------------
*Bookmakers are leery of raising the line to 3 to attract Seahawks money because if the Broncos do win by 3 (the most common margin in football outcomes), those new bets will be result in a push rather than a win for the books. The books will pay Broncos bettors, who only gave 2½ points, but they will not collect from Seahawks bettors who took the 3 points. So instead, the books are lowering the vigorish (in effect, the surcharge on losing bets) from 10% to 0% for Seattle bettors but raising it to 15% or 20% for Broncos bettors.
What Never? No, Never.
January 31, 2014
Posted by Jay Livingston
A survey question is only as good as its choices. Sometimes an important choice has been left off the menu.
I was Gallup polled once, long ago. I’ve always felt that they didn’t get my real opinion.
“What’d they ask?” said my brother when I mentioned it to him.
“You know, they asked whether I approved of the way the President was doing his job.” Nixon - this was in 1969.
“What’d you say?”
“I said I disapproved of his entire existential being.”
I was exaggerating my opinion, and I didn’t actually say that to the pollster. But even if I had, my opinion would have been coded as “disapprove.”
For many years the American National Election Study (ANES), has asked
This year the ANES included “Never” in the options read to respondents. Putting “No-way, no-how” right there on the ballot makes a big difference. And as you’d expect, there were party differences:
Over half of Republicans say that the federal government can NEVER be trusted.
The graph appears in this Monkey Cage post by Marc Hetherington and Thomas Rudolph. Of course, some of those “never” Republicans don’t really mean “never ever.” If a Republican becomes president, they’ll become more trusting, and the “never-trust” Democrat tide will rise. Here’s the Hetherington-Rudolph graph tracking changes in the percent of people who do trust Washington during different administrations.
This one seems to show three things:
Posted by Jay Livingston
A survey question is only as good as its choices. Sometimes an important choice has been left off the menu.
I was Gallup polled once, long ago. I’ve always felt that they didn’t get my real opinion.
“What’d they ask?” said my brother when I mentioned it to him.
“You know, they asked whether I approved of the way the President was doing his job.” Nixon - this was in 1969.
“What’d you say?”
“I said I disapproved of his entire existential being.”
I was exaggerating my opinion, and I didn’t actually say that to the pollster. But even if I had, my opinion would have been coded as “disapprove.”
For many years the American National Election Study (ANES), has asked
How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right – just about always, most of the time or only some of the time?The trouble with these choices at that they exclude the truly disaffected. The worst you can say about the federal government is that it can be trusted “only some of the time.” A few ornery souls say they don’t trust the federal at all. But because that view is a write-in candidate, it usually gets only one or two percent of the vote.
This year the ANES included “Never” in the options read to respondents. Putting “No-way, no-how” right there on the ballot makes a big difference. And as you’d expect, there were party differences:
The graph appears in this Monkey Cage post by Marc Hetherington and Thomas Rudolph. Of course, some of those “never” Republicans don’t really mean “never ever.” If a Republican becomes president, they’ll become more trusting, and the “never-trust” Democrat tide will rise. Here’s the Hetherington-Rudolph graph tracking changes in the percent of people who do trust Washington during different administrations.
- Trust took a dive in the 1960s and 70s and never really recovered.
- Republican trust is much more volatile, with greater fluctuations depending on which party is in the White House.
- Republicans really, really hate President Obama.
“A Pony Here Someplace”
January 29, 2014
Posted by Jay Livingston
The Great Recession has brought out all the pessimists with their hand-wringing complaints about economic hardship. We need a few more optimists pointing out the silver linings. Like this
When households had two people working, time constraints forced them to grab meals at restaurants. But now
Philip Cohen at his Family Inequality blog has been taking issue with some of these claims, and he is far less less sanguine.
Posted by Jay Livingston
The Great Recession has brought out all the pessimists with their hand-wringing complaints about economic hardship. We need a few more optimists pointing out the silver linings. Like this
When people can’t keep up the payments, their cars get repossessed. But many people appear to be developing an appreciation for public transit and just plain walking. The silver lining in this financial pain is a healthier life style. Without cars, people produce less carbon emissions. That’s good for the health of their neighborhoods, their cities, and the planet. It’s also good for them as they will enjoy the many health benefits of walking.OK, it’s just my snarky spoof. The template for it is Bradley Wilcox’s various writings (here for example) about the wonderful effects the recession has supposedly had on marriage. Wilcox seems think that any marriage is better than divorce. So if divorce rates fall in hard times, well, hey, that means that more people are staying married. Wilcox says things like,
As Herman Schmidt of Moline, IL told the Moline Sentinel, “After they repo-ed my Explorer, it took me a while to get used to walking that two miles to the Wal-Mart [there’s no local bus route he could take], what with my bad knee and all, and in this weather lately I got a touch of frostbite, but I don’t buy as much ’cause I can’t carry it. Since 2009 when I got laid off, I’ve lost four pounds.”
No doubt some of these people, if their incomes rebound, will get another car. But some of them just might use part of that money to buy a treadmill.
But there may be a silver lining in all this financial pain. . . .The divorce rate is actually falling.and
the Great Recession is leading some spouses to develop a renewed appreciation for the social and economic solidarity engendered by marriage and family lifeFor evidence, he offers this:
But anecdotal evidence suggests that other couples have responded to the recession by rededicating themselves to their marriages. “I had one couple who started to file for divorce but put the proceedings on hold because the husband lost his job," Florida family attorney J.J. Dahl told the Orlando Sentinel. Eventually, the couple decided to remain married. "They said, 'We made it through this tough time, and we learned how to compromise, so we've decided to stick it out.'”Wilcox’s rosy view extends to other virtues. Do people have less money to buy stuff?
The recession has encouraged Americans to rediscover the virtue of thrift.Wilcox seems to assume that the foregone purchases were frivolities rather than things like clothes for children.
When households had two people working, time constraints forced them to grab meals at restaurants. But now
They are also eating at home more often.Where others might be looking at the reality of families at or below the margin, the families in Wilcox’s vision seem to be something out of TV – sure, there’s been some economic setbacks, but we’re all gathered round the dinner table, pulling together happily to overcome it.
Philip Cohen at his Family Inequality blog has been taking issue with some of these claims, and he is far less less sanguine.
With marriages in a recession, more are miserable, yet the bar for divorcing is raised (or lowered) by the costs relative to income. So there are more miserable marriages not ending in divorce.He is also more honest in his use of data and more modest in his claims about what the data can allow us to conclude:
It is very common, yet wholly unjustified, to always assume falling divorce rates are good. As I argued before: We simply do not know what is the best level of divorce to maximize the benefits of good marriage while mitigating the harms caused by bad marriage.
Dating a Stereotype (Getting to Know You – Not)
January 26, 2014
Posted by Jay Livingston
The useful thing about cultural stereotypes is that to some degree, they’re often accurate – a convenient shorthand.
(Sorry about the lousy sound, but this was the best clip I could find, and it does have subtitles.)
The Woody Allen character learns her name, her thesis topic . . . and all the rest follows. Note also that Allison (my neighbor Carol Kane) doesn’t say that Woody is incorrect.
What reminded me of “Annie Hall” (the Annie character too is a cultural stereotype) was this:
The three axes are percentages:
The stereotypes, based on clusters, were very useful for finding, well, clusters. McKinlay tailored his two OK Cupid profiles to maximize his chances of getting a response so he would do better than the six OK Cupid dates he’d managed to get in the previous nine months. He did. His scientifically customized profile was getting 400 hits a day.
Cultural stereotypes may get you into the right room (and save you a lot of time wandering into wrong rooms), but they’re no guarantee of compatibility with an actual person. McKinlay went on more than 50 first dates – a big improvement over six in nine months – but only a handful of these led to a second date, and none went further.
Given this data, most of us would figure that it was time to start thinking about our interpersonal skills or perhaps our grooming and hygeine. Wired says merely that McKinlay “had to question his calculations.”
But finally, something clicked, and the story seems to be heading towards a happy ending – a year-long relationship, some of it long-distance since the woman is on a one-year fellowship in Qatar.
* Previous posts on OK Cupid are here and here.
** The technical details:
Posted by Jay Livingston
The useful thing about cultural stereotypes is that to some degree, they’re often accurate – a convenient shorthand.
(Sorry about the lousy sound, but this was the best clip I could find, and it does have subtitles.)
The Woody Allen character learns her name, her thesis topic . . . and all the rest follows. Note also that Allison (my neighbor Carol Kane) doesn’t say that Woody is incorrect.
What reminded me of “Annie Hall” (the Annie character too is a cultural stereotype) was this:
(Click on an image for a larger view.)
The three axes are percentages:
- Width - seeking a one-night stand
- Depth - had same-gender sex
- Height - say God is important to them)
A modified Bell Labs algorithm called K-Modes. First used in 1998 to analyze diseased soybean crops, it takes categorical data and clumps it like the colored wax swimming in a Lava Lamp. With some fine-tuning he could adjust the viscosity of the results, thinning it into a slick or coagulating it into a single, solid glob.The names of the clusters –Tattoo, Dog, etc. – are basically cultural stereotypes.
He played with the dial and found a natural resting point where the 20,000 women clumped into seven statistically distinct clusters based on their questions and answers.
In the younger cluster, the women invariably had two or more tattoos and lived on the east side of Los Angeles. In the other, a disproportionate number owned midsize dogs that they adored.The article also has graphics on how the seven stereotypes differed from one another in four areas. (The “Green” tag is not political; Greens are merely recent arrivals at OK Cupid. They are also the most sexually adventurous. As the placement of the green ball on the graph shows, 50-60% would be comfortable with a one-night hook-up, and 40-50% have had same gender sex. Not surprisingly, they do not find God to be an important part of their lives.)
Cultural stereotypes may get you into the right room (and save you a lot of time wandering into wrong rooms), but they’re no guarantee of compatibility with an actual person. McKinlay went on more than 50 first dates – a big improvement over six in nine months – but only a handful of these led to a second date, and none went further.
Given this data, most of us would figure that it was time to start thinking about our interpersonal skills or perhaps our grooming and hygeine. Wired says merely that McKinlay “had to question his calculations.”
But finally, something clicked, and the story seems to be heading towards a happy ending – a year-long relationship, some of it long-distance since the woman is on a one-year fellowship in Qatar.
on one of their daily Skype calls . . . McKinlay pulls out a diamond ring and holds it up to the webcam. She says yes.----------------------------
* Previous posts on OK Cupid are here and here.
** The technical details:
he set up 12 fake OkCupid accounts and wrote a Python script to manage them. The script would search his target demographic (heterosexual and bisexual women between the ages of 25 and 45), visit their pages, and scrape their profiles for every scrap of available information: ethnicity, height, smoker or nonsmoker, astrological sign—“all that crap,” he says.The phrase “Python script” of course poses a tremendous challenge for me to avoid the obvious joke – surely one made so often that it has long been an ex-joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)