Some people have apologized on Twitter, etc. But in general, I think apologies are overrated. If you change your behavior going forward, that's a lot more meaningful than an apology. And if you don't, an apology is an insincere gesture.

There are certainly more editorial constraints at the NYT. However, constraints are not necessarily a horrible thing for a writer. It's easy to write things that are fun in the moment but which you might regret later.

My hunch is that the poker community probably underrates how difficult it is to get ANYTHING done at the federal level, especially in the near term.

In middle school, I once put down a bunch of fake/wrong answers on a math test since I knew that people were peeking.

The polls showed Berg a little bit ahead. But also there weren't very many polls, so the model defaults in those cases toward looking at "state fundamentals", i.e. the fact that you'd bet on the Republican in North Dakota other things being equal.

I felt *professionally* invested in the outcome, sense that I knew I had a lot on the line as far as future opportunities went. So that's why it was very helpful to have a model that didn't change as the election wore on. The goal is to minimize the number of ad-hoc decisions that you make, since that's when poor…

Not really. Sam's projections also did very well. I got into these very heated debates with political scientists and economists early in the election cycle about the right way to model the election. But the DNA of these different approaches is 97% the same. I think we probably all feel some solidarity as partners in…

It's MUCH worse in politics, I think:

We got a modest amount of this in 2010, where I'd get Tweets saying things like "When did Nate become a Republican?"