Comments on: BetFair: “Which of these parties will have more seats in the US Senate following the 2006 US Senate Elections?” – Chris Masse’s 6 Golden Rules of any Prediction Exchange http://www.midasoracle.org/2006/11/09/betfair-%e2%80%9cwhich-of-these-parties-will-have-more-seats-in-the-us-senate-following-the-2006-us-senate-elections%e2%80%9d-chris-masses-6-golden-rules-of-any-prediction-exchange/ Prediction Markets, etc. Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:24:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Chris Hibbert http://www.midasoracle.org/2006/11/09/betfair-%e2%80%9cwhich-of-these-parties-will-have-more-seats-in-the-us-senate-following-the-2006-us-senate-elections%e2%80%9d-chris-masses-6-golden-rules-of-any-prediction-exchange/#comment-120 Chris Hibbert Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:16:23 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/2006/11/09/betfair-%e2%80%9cwhich-of-these-parties-will-have-more-seats-in-the-us-senate-following-the-2006-us-senate-elections%e2%80%9d-chris-masses-6-golden-rules-of-any-prediction-exchange/#comment-120 The question I was addressing wasn't whether mistakes get made in judging. It's whether it's possible to write completely correct and unambiguous claims up front as you advocate as a solution to the problem. Do you want to address that question? I don't believe it's possible to get the claims correct up-front, so I don't see your rule as a solution. My experience writing, advising, and judging at FX informs my belief. It's all done in public on FX, so I'm not the only one with that experience. The other markets (IEM, TEN, BF, HSX, etc.) have closed processes, so the community can't learn from their experience. There is a lively community at FX and at each of the other markets, play money or not. The discussions can go on for quite a while. You may be right that there's more outside attention for the real money markets, but that doesn't help at the point that the claims are being written. The question of party alignment of independents could easily have been addressed in an interpretation after the claim was written. Many people realized it was an important question over the last few weeks. On FX, players can ask the judge, and the judge can add his interpretation to the claim. I don't know of other markets that have a facility for issuing clarifications that traders can see when they're reviewing the claim. The question I was addressing wasn’t whether mistakes get made in judging. It’s whether it’s possible to write completely correct and unambiguous claims up front as you advocate as a solution to the problem. Do you want to address that question?

I don’t believe it’s possible to get the claims correct up-front, so I don’t see your rule as a solution. My experience writing, advising, and judging at FX informs my belief. It’s all done in public on FX, so I’m not the only one with that experience. The other markets (IEM, TEN, BF, HSX, etc.) have closed processes, so the community can’t learn from their experience.

There is a lively community at FX and at each of the other markets, play money or not. The discussions can go on for quite a while. You may be right that there’s more outside attention for the real money markets, but that doesn’t help at the point that the claims are being written.

The question of party alignment of independents could easily have been addressed in an interpretation after the claim was written. Many people realized it was an important question over the last few weeks. On FX, players can ask the judge, and the judge can add his interpretation to the claim. I don’t know of other markets that have a facility for issuing clarifications that traders can see when they’re reviewing the claim.

]]>