Daily Archives: March 5, 2007

BRIAN SHIAUS SIM EXCHANGE FEATURED TODAY IN THE FREAKONOMICS BLOG.

Posted on by
Reply

Freakonomics.

Previous: BetFair, Sim Exchange = Vertical Prediction Exchanges, First + The Sim Exchange: Basic Trading vs. Advanced Trading + Since November 9, 2006, the Sim Exchange has attracted over 2,400 registered players. + An invitation to join the simExchange beta

Read the last blog posts by Chris. F. Masse:

Do Gambling Laws Threaten Prediction Markets?

Posted on by
2

No Gravatar

Because prediction market traders generally rely more on skill than on chance to win, I&#8217-ve argued that they do not qualify in &#8220-gambling&#8221- as defined by U.S. law. I&#8217-ve also admitted, however, that over-ambitious prosecutors might see the matter differently. A recent email exchange I had with Prof. George R. Neumann, who serves on the Board of Directors of the Iowa Electronic Markets, confirmed my worries. I here quote him, with his permission.

&#8220-We have been threatened several times with suits by various states,&#8221- he wrote, &#8220-but so far the CFTC coverage [i.e., the two ‘no action’ letters that the CFTC gave the IEM] has been our trump card.&#8221- Prof. Neumann offered this example: When the IEM ran a market on Hilary Clinton&#8217-s run for the New York Senate seat, an N.Y.C.-based district attorney &#8220-contacted us (via a very nasty letter) to tell us that NY had a law that forbade gambling on elections in that state. He demanded a list of each and every NY State resident who was a participant in our market.&#8221- Wielding the CFTC&#8217-s &#8220-no action&#8221- letter in defense of the IEM, Prof. Neumann directed the DA to file suit in, um, a venue at once very local and yet very inconvenient.

Alas for those who would like to match Neumann&#8217-s feat of legal acumen, the CFTC&#8217-s treatment of the IEM so far looks like a one-shot deal. Or, rather, it looks like a big-shot deal- you would probably need some political help to squeeze another such letter out of the CFTC. While you&#8217-re at it, please ask the CFTC to issue an advisory opinion saying, &#8220-The CFTC has no rationale to regulate transactions or markets in which price discovery functions predominate over hedging functions.&#8221- It could state a market cap limit to make clear the limits on its discretion.

Such a &#8220-public no action letter&#8221- would give a great many useful prediction markets freedom to help us discern the future, just as the IEM has done. It would also, to judge from the IEM&#8217-s experiences, give new prediction markets a shield from state anti-gaming prosecutions.

[Crossposted to Agoraphilia.]

InTrade-TradeSports – Next Major Sportsbook to Withdraw from US

Posted on by
4

No Gravatar

Another contract expiry debate.

InTrade-TradeSports – Next Major Sportsbook to Withdraw from US:

These contracts will be expired based on who of the listed Sportsbooks will be next to stop accepting US customers (before 11:59:59pm ET on December 31st 2007. )
A contract will expire at 100 if the named Sportsbook is the first to publicly announce it will stop accepting US customers. If the named Sportsbook is not the first to announce this the contract will expire at 0. If none of the listed Sportsbooks make this announcement the SB.DEC07.NONE will expire at 100 and all others at 0.
Expiry is based only on the Sportsbooks listed . Any other Sportsbooks announcing their withdrawal from the US market will not affect expiry of the listed contracts.
Any change to the result after the contract has expired will not be taken into account – Exchange Rule1.4.
Due to the nature of this contract please also see Contract Rule 1.9 Unforeseen Circumstances.
The Exchange reserves the right to invoke Contract Rule 1.8 (Time Protection) if deemed appropriate.
Please contact the exchange by emailing [email protected] if you have any questions regarding this contract before you place a trade.
Clarification (added March 3rd, 2007): The announcement by BetCRIS that all US customers must now access their accounts through BookMaker.com is not considered as a refusal to accept US-based customers. BookMaker.com is powered by BetCRIS and so this is considered more a rebranding/renaming issue rather than the introduction of a policy of refusing US-based customers.
Important:
Please contact the Exchange if you have any query or uncertainty (including how it may be settled) about this Contract, the Rule above or the Contract Rules before you trade.

&#8212-
Price for Next Major Sportsbook to Withdraw from US (**from those listed only**) at intrade.com

BetCris:

Effective immediately, all U.S. customers must now access betting accounts through www.BookMaker.com where you can continue to wager using your same account number and password. All player account details, open wagers, account balances and pending withdrawals have been transferred and will be honored. Powered by BetCRIS, BookMaker.com offers the same quality of service and experience you&#8217-ve come to expect at BetCRIS. Should you have any questions, please contact our Customer Service Department at 1-866-BetCRIS. All non-US customer accounts are unaffected by this change and can continue to access their accounts at BetCRIS.com.

BookMaker:

Following a Legacy of quality in service and renowned bookmaking experience of more than two decades, BookMaker.com is born to aim and serve both professional and recreational players. Always first sportsbook to post lines, the phrase “Where the Line Originates” will continue attracting the world’s sharpest and biggest players.

Powered by BetCRIS International, a recognized sports betting industry Leader since 1985, BookMaker.com provides Safe and Secure sports betting on sporting events, as well as horse racing, online casino games, poker, bingo and mobile betting from any location in the world, 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Thus, whether you are betting from your office computer or calling from the comfort of your home you can rest assured our service will be first class and completely confidential.

NetSol&#8217-s Who Is Database:

BetCris.com – Registrant = Investments Manager, S.A. (Location not specified)

BookMaker.com – Registrant = Investments Manager, S.A. (Costa Rica)

MY OPINION ON THIS CONTRACT:

The InTrade-TradeSports contract makes reference to &#8220-sportsbooks&#8221-, which are identified by their brand name (e.g., &#8220-BetCris&#8221-) and domain name (e.g., &#8220-BetCris.com&#8221-), not to the investing group (a.k.a. holding group), refered here by the trade name &#8220-Investments Manager&#8221-. The BetCris sportsbook has indeed notified US customers that it won&#8217-t take their business anymore. The BetCris contract should then expire at 100.

PostScriptum: The term &#8220-powered by&#8221- means that BetCris&#8217- technology is rented to BookMaker. It does not mean, by itself, that BetCris owns BookMaker (although we see, by other means, that yes, it is the case). In any case, that&#8217-s not the issue. The issue is whether the InTrade-TradeSports contract is about sportsbooks brand names (here, &#8220-BetCris&#8221-) or sportsbooks trade names (here, &#8220-Investments Manager&#8221-). The contract mentioned &#8220-BetCris&#8221-, which is a brand name for the sportsbooks service- the contract did not mention &#8220-Investments Manager&#8221-, which is a trade name for the holding group.

Do you guys/gals agree with me or disagree with me??