5 thoughts on “Why you should *never* trust David Pennock when he brags about the accuracy of his predictions”
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.
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.
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.
Looking forward to your post.
Here you go:
http://torontopm.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/truth-in-advertising-meet-prediction-market/
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.
You’re more than welcome, David. I think you “get it”. I look forward to reading your comments!
Paul