@RealCarlAllen

Educator, Scientist. Sports & Political Data Analyst. Other social media: RealCarlAllen 馃摉 Book: *The Polls Weren't Wrong* out now

 Ohio, USA
realcarlallen.substack.com/
Joined January 2013
  • Tweets68.5K
  • Following5.4K
  • Followers5.6K
16.7KMedia
I fully expect DMs, EMs, etc to blow up in the next 48 hrs If I don't respond, don't worry. I know who has supported my work and I won't lose sight of that If you'd like to join me in developing a set of unified scientific standards for this field, my book is available in bio
11
1
69
50,247
One of the most unscientific things people like Nate Silver does is declare which pollsters are best based on how well their polls "predict the margin" See below: even a PERFECTLY ACCURATE POLL can be graded as highly inaccurate, because of the assumption undecideds split evenly
1
4
586
"the probability of this outcome exists and can be quantified, but existing methods neither report nor estimate it" @NateSilver538 (and @AAPOR as far as I know) literally declares with certainty that they know: 1) Which polls were more accurate 2) How accurate they were Wrong
137
Stat nerds: hitting the ball hard and in the air is good. Casuals: noooooooooo
1
1
436
5 events with probability 83% happen Silence 1 event with probability 17% happen *Uncontrollable screeching* I guess statistical illiteracy keeps me employed
3
542
Behold The Prediction Market Hater Paradox
4
421
Just a reminder for the statistical illiterates that if prediction markets assign the correct probability, then events they assign a 15% probability to will happen between 1/6 to 1/7 times
Mark Davin Harris
@markdharrisOct 26
Just a reminder for all the polymarket is destiny stuff that Lula was at 15% the day before the election.
4
1
11
1,698
"Poll error in Brazil" No there wasn't. Poll aggregators who didn't lie and dismiss undecideds had Bolsonaro around 48. If you compare poll margin to election margin and call the discrepancy "poll error" you are fundamentally ignorant of what polls measure
2
13
2,282
I didn't have a stake in Brazil elections. I did not build a forecast, and I'd say markets pricing Bolsonaro as a medium favorite were reasonable But here were the results from R1 Lula + left wing parties (PSD, Avante) = 51 Bolsonaro + right wing parties (Mission, Novo) = 49
2
239
Unless Republicans win by 18 nationwide, this poll is wrong If you can explain why that is flawed logic, you understand why the assertion that undecideds will split evenly to major candidates (and any discrepancy is a poll error, making the poll wrong) is also flawed.
1
578
What did Carl teach you about high undecided poll data?
3
5
1,427
The direction of photographer error in recent years: *2004: even bigger anti-US bias *2008: huge anti-US bias *2012: anti-US bias *2016: unbiased *2020: US bias *2024: anti-US bias
Nate Silver
@NateSilver538Oct 1
The direction of polling error in recent years: * 2008: Unbiased * 2010: Unbiased * 2012: R bias * 2014: D bias * 2016: D bias * 2018: Unbiased * 2020: Even bigger D bias * 2022: Unbiased * 2024: D bias, less than 2016/2020 * 2025 (e.g. NJ/VA): Big R bias
752
I think the Dem margin in North Carolina will be larger than the Republican margin in Mississippi, and maybe Florida.
3
1
1
26
1,602
The hardest throwing starting pitcher in the history of baseball is also the best pitcher in baseball No wonder boomers are so mad!
1
731
And one of the fastest players in history with 0 career home runs batting 3rd 馃ぃ
369
There are a lot of possibilities this election. I'll divide them into 4 ~equally likely bins 1) Rs hold Senate: narrow wins in notoriously purple states like.. Uhh Texas, Ohio, Kansas, and Iowa Leaves Rs taking a victory lap and Nate Silver loudly declaring "polls was wrong!"
7
1
1
64
89,165
more replies
3) Dems win all states they're favored in, plus KS and/or IA. 4) Dems win all of the above, plus some surprising state(s) like Nebraska, South Carolina in which case polling is dismissed as irredeemably broken I personally think 1 is more likely than 3, but that doesn't matter
3
1
13
12,925
What matters here is - even in generic ranges - no one KNOWS what will happen Lots of people will try to convince you otherwise. Strictly by chance (about 1/4 in fact) some of them will guess correctly Don't be tricked. Smart people quantify uncertainty, they don't wish it away
4
1
24
11,800
People who don't know how to do math crack me up 馃ぃ Watch this body 馃憞 3/5 (even 3 singles) is a .600 OBP, .527 wOBA, 246 wRC+ 1/5 with a HR is a .200 OBP, .403 wOBA, 159 wRC+ Nerds take 3/5 every time. Higher wOBA, higher wRC+. Proved him wrong again #shegone
Fryedaddy/Frito
@shegone03Oct 23
You #nerds sure hate Double Plays don鈥檛 you? You鈥檇 rather a guy go 1 for 5 with a homer and 3 K鈥檚 than a guy go 3 for 5 and hit into a Double Play. Cracks me up! #shegone
1
1
1,221
Carl Allen retweeted
Carl Allen@RealCarlAllenOct 23
Replying to @TheOneCA2021
And the people who calculate "poll accuracy" assume unconditionally across all election types and state makeup that undecideds will always split evenly to the major candidates.
1
324
Load more