Nate Silver

Algorithm is the term that would technically be used for our political forecast. Literally, you input the polls and press the go button and it takes five minutes and runs 50,000 simulations and spits out a bunch of data. But that makes it seem like it has a mind of its own. It's hard because on the one hand, you don't want to dictate what the data says, right?

On the other hand, if you already have the answer you want, that's not really objective science either. So it's kind of this iterative process between I want to systematize, so I have to follow rules and not just be totally ad hoc. If I feel like it's handling this player badly or this election badly for a politics model, and I change the rules, what's that mean for the other elections?

On the other hand, if you already have the answer you want, that's not really objective science either. So it's kind of this iterative process between I want to systematize, so I have to follow rules and not just be totally ad hoc. If I feel like it's handling this player badly or this election badly for a politics model, and I change the rules, what's that mean for the other elections?

On the other hand, if you already have the answer you want, that's not really objective science either. So it's kind of this iterative process between I want to systematize, so I have to follow rules and not just be totally ad hoc. If I feel like it's handling this player badly or this election badly for a politics model, and I change the rules, what's that mean for the other elections?

What's that mean for the whole system overall? It's not like there's just one right answer. What are hedge funds and banks doing? Or what are the sports bettors doing? They're usually using multiple models. You want a model that's robust. So basically, if one thing breaks and it will still spit out a reasonable answer, that's where some of the art comes in as opposed to the science.

What's that mean for the whole system overall? It's not like there's just one right answer. What are hedge funds and banks doing? Or what are the sports bettors doing? They're usually using multiple models. You want a model that's robust. So basically, if one thing breaks and it will still spit out a reasonable answer, that's where some of the art comes in as opposed to the science.

What's that mean for the whole system overall? It's not like there's just one right answer. What are hedge funds and banks doing? Or what are the sports bettors doing? They're usually using multiple models. You want a model that's robust. So basically, if one thing breaks and it will still spit out a reasonable answer, that's where some of the art comes in as opposed to the science.

It's as a hobbyist. You're trying to win your fancy baseball league. You're trying to solve a problem that you're determined to solve. You're trying to maybe win money, gambling, for example. You need to be very hands-on and have skin in the game because academics, to cliche a little bit, tend not to have good street smarts for modeling.

It's as a hobbyist. You're trying to win your fancy baseball league. You're trying to solve a problem that you're determined to solve. You're trying to maybe win money, gambling, for example. You need to be very hands-on and have skin in the game because academics, to cliche a little bit, tend not to have good street smarts for modeling.

It's as a hobbyist. You're trying to win your fancy baseball league. You're trying to solve a problem that you're determined to solve. You're trying to maybe win money, gambling, for example. You need to be very hands-on and have skin in the game because academics, to cliche a little bit, tend not to have good street smarts for modeling.

A lot of the skill is like being able to look at a data set and say, the value that number put out, something's wrong there. And there must be either a bug in the input. We put the numbers in wrongly or the code failed somehow.

A lot of the skill is like being able to look at a data set and say, the value that number put out, something's wrong there. And there must be either a bug in the input. We put the numbers in wrongly or the code failed somehow.

A lot of the skill is like being able to look at a data set and say, the value that number put out, something's wrong there. And there must be either a bug in the input. We put the numbers in wrongly or the code failed somehow.

No, I still do it for the most part, all my own coding. I'm a control freak in that way.

No, I still do it for the most part, all my own coding. I'm a control freak in that way.

No, I still do it for the most part, all my own coding. I'm a control freak in that way.

You know, if you can get 56% of your points, that's right, then you're like a world class.

You know, if you can get 56% of your points, that's right, then you're like a world class.

You know, if you can get 56% of your points, that's right, then you're like a world class.

And that comes from poker, too. Poker players can discern like a 52% probability from 48%, right? Most people think 100-0 and 50-50, right? There are a lot more gradations between 50-50 and 100-0.