Comments on: Intra-Debate and Post-Debate Prediction Markets http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/05/25/intra-debate-and-post-debate-prediction-markets/ Prediction Markets, etc. Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:13:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Emile Servan-Schreiber http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/05/25/intra-debate-and-post-debate-prediction-markets/#comment-15678 Emile Servan-Schreiber Sat, 26 May 2007 20:50:46 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/05/25/intra-debate-and-post-debate-prediction-markets/#comment-15678 On the contrary, I think the logic is as direct as can be: my point is that it makes no sense to argue that a candidate has "won the debate" if that has not increased his or her probability of winning the election. So the pundits arguing that Royal had won the debate were in direct disagreement with the market increasing the price of the Sarkozy contract. On the contrary, I think the logic is as direct as can be: my point is that it makes no sense to argue that a candidate has “won the debate” if that has not increased his or her probability of winning the election. So the pundits arguing that Royal had won the debate were in direct disagreement with the market increasing the price of the Sarkozy contract.

]]> By: Michael Giberson http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/05/25/intra-debate-and-post-debate-prediction-markets/#comment-15676 Michael Giberson Sat, 26 May 2007 15:50:34 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/05/25/intra-debate-and-post-debate-prediction-markets/#comment-15676 Emile, I do agree with your general theme about the disconnect between pundits and the market, and your post illustrated the point in a somewhat general sense. My reaction was that the logic underlying the post wasn't quite as direct as suggested. Emile, I do agree with your general theme about the disconnect between pundits and the market, and your post illustrated the point in a somewhat general sense. My reaction was that the logic underlying the post wasn’t quite as direct as suggested.

]]> By: Emile Servan-Schreiber http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/05/25/intra-debate-and-post-debate-prediction-markets/#comment-15675 Emile Servan-Schreiber Sat, 26 May 2007 09:51:33 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/05/25/intra-debate-and-post-debate-prediction-markets/#comment-15675 Michael is absolutely right that the NewsFutures contracts priced "winning the election" rather than "winning the debate". However, one must ask what exactly does it mean to "win a debate" if it doesn't increase your likelihood of winning the election even just a little bit? That's why I think this episode showed a true disconnect between the pundits and the market, which was resolved in favor of the market. Michael is absolutely right that the NewsFutures contracts priced “winning the election” rather than “winning the debate”. However, one must ask what exactly does it mean to “win a debate” if it doesn’t increase your likelihood of winning the election even just a little bit? That’s why I think this episode showed a true disconnect between the pundits and the market, which was resolved in favor of the market.

]]> By: Chris. F. Masse http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/05/25/intra-debate-and-post-debate-prediction-markets/#comment-15667 Chris. F. Masse Fri, 25 May 2007 12:51:17 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/05/25/intra-debate-and-post-debate-prediction-markets/#comment-15667 <p>"Servan-Schreiber’s blog post was a bit unfair to the pundits, no? There is no contradiction between the debate being won by Royal and yet it increasing the likelihood that Sarkozy would win the election."</p> <p>--> No.<br /> --> The debate was clearly won by Sarkozy. His opponent was vague. Plus, she flew into a rage on half-wrong data.</p> <p>"All he had to do in the debate was not blow up, and as the debate continued and he didn’t blow up, the likelihood he would win the election increased."</p> <p>--> Turned out *she* blew it up. She got into a small rage at one point, and it turned out that it is not all clear that she was right.</p> <p>"But that is a “polls vs. the pundits” posting, and not a “prediction markets vs. the pundits” posting."</p> <p>--> That is a POLLS + PREDICTION MARKETS versus the SOCIALIST PUNDITS discussion. What is interesting with the prediction markets (BetFair, InTrade, NewsFutures) is that you don't have to wait two days to get the inkling.</p> <p>Thanks for your input, Mike. :)</p> “Servan-Schreiber’s blog post was a bit unfair to the pundits, no? There is no contradiction between the debate being won by Royal and yet it increasing the likelihood that Sarkozy would win the election.”

–> No.
–> The debate was clearly won by Sarkozy. His opponent was vague. Plus, she flew into a rage on half-wrong data.

“All he had to do in the debate was not blow up, and as the debate continued and he didn’t blow up, the likelihood he would win the election increased.”

–> Turned out *she* blew it up. She got into a small rage at one point, and it turned out that it is not all clear that she was right.

“But that is a “polls vs. the pundits” posting, and not a “prediction markets vs. the pundits” posting.”

–> That is a POLLS + PREDICTION MARKETS versus the SOCIALIST PUNDITS discussion. What is interesting with the prediction markets (BetFair, InTrade, NewsFutures) is that you don’t have to wait two days to get the inkling.

Thanks for your input, Mike. :)

]]> By: Michael Giberson http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/05/25/intra-debate-and-post-debate-prediction-markets/#comment-15666 Michael Giberson Fri, 25 May 2007 12:37:03 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/05/25/intra-debate-and-post-debate-prediction-markets/#comment-15666 I've also posted related remarks over at the <a href="http://www.knowledgeproblem.com">Knowledge Problem</a> blog as <a href="http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archives/002059.html">Prediction Markets vs. the Pundits in the French Election</a>. I’ve also posted related remarks over at the Knowledge Problem blog as Prediction Markets vs. the Pundits in the French Election.

]]> By: Michael Giberson http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/05/25/intra-debate-and-post-debate-prediction-markets/#comment-15665 Michael Giberson Fri, 25 May 2007 12:33:32 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/05/25/intra-debate-and-post-debate-prediction-markets/#comment-15665 Servan-Schreiber’s blog post was a bit unfair to the pundits, no? There is no contradiction between the debate being won by Royal and yet it increasing the likelihood that Sarkozy would win the election. I'm no expert on French politics, but from what I understand Sarkozy had a strong lead going into the debate. All he had to do in the debate was not blow up, and as the debate continued and he didn't blow up, the likelihood he would win the election increased. Now the post-debate polling suggested that, contrary to many pundits, the majority of the people polled felt that Sarkozy won the debate. But that is a "polls vs. the pundits" posting, and not a "prediction markets vs. the pundits" posting. And by the way, aren't these conclusions, by pundits and by people polled, generally so afflicted with confirmatory bias as to be generally suspect as indicators of success? Servan-Schreiber’s blog post was a bit unfair to the pundits, no? There is no contradiction between the debate being won by Royal and yet it increasing the likelihood that Sarkozy would win the election.

I’m no expert on French politics, but from what I understand Sarkozy had a strong lead going into the debate. All he had to do in the debate was not blow up, and as the debate continued and he didn’t blow up, the likelihood he would win the election increased.

Now the post-debate polling suggested that, contrary to many pundits, the majority of the people polled felt that Sarkozy won the debate. But that is a “polls vs. the pundits” posting, and not a “prediction markets vs. the pundits” posting.

And by the way, aren’t these conclusions, by pundits and by people polled, generally so afflicted with confirmatory bias as to be generally suspect as indicators of success?

]]>