Why you should *never* trust David Pennock when he brags about the accuracy of his predictions

He cherry-picks positive outcomes in hindsight, and he measures probabilistic predictions categorically and in isolation.

Don&#8217-t be fooled by any &#8220-research scientist&#8221-. :-D

5 thoughts on “Why you should *never* trust David Pennock when he brags about the accuracy of his predictions

  1. Paul Hewitt said:

    David Pennock was really bragging about simple statistical prediction models and web search data. Statistical (base line) models outperform web search models, and combining the two leads to better predictions. Neither is a prediction market, though the web search model would be classified as “collective forecasting”. I see you added the “Humor” tag to this post. You must agree that David’s post was at least partly in jest.

    Of all the researchers, David Pennock is not one I would doubt too much when it comes to discussing accuracy. I’m about to publish a post about “Prediction Without Markets” where he and the other authors conclude that prediction markets offer insignificant improvements in forecasting accuracy. He is one of the few that seem to understand the concept of materiality.

  2. Chris F. Masse said:

    Looking forward to your post.

  3. David Pennock said:

    Paul: thanks for the kind words and strong defense. Thanks for you interest in our work and for the fantastic post about it. I will comment further on your post on your site. I agree that Chris’s post matched jest with jest.

  4. Paul Hewitt said:

    You’re more than welcome, David. I think you “get it”. I look forward to reading your comments!

    Paul

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *