THE FATE OF HARRY POTTER IN J.K. ROWLINGS 7TH BOOK, THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: prediction market vs. bookmaker

No GravatarSPOILER ALERT: MIDAS ORACLE IS REVEALING WHO DIES IN HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS. IF YOU DON&#8217-T WANT TO KNOW, STOP READING. (Hit your back button.)

&#8212-

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows

&#8212-

Pioneer Press:

Here&#8217-s the good news: Harry [Potter], Ron, Hermione, Ginny and Hagrid do not die. But others do. The good guys who meet their demise include Fred Weasley- Tonks (the witch who loves to change her hair color) and her husband, werewolf Remus Lupin- and Tonks&#8217- father, Ted. Bad guys who die are Professor Snape- Bellatrix, Voldemort&#8217-s favorite servant- Crabbe, one of Draco Malfoy&#8217-s mean friends- and Pettigrew, Voldemort&#8217-s servant known as Wormtail. One of the saddest scenes follows the death of Dobby, the house elf Harry [Potter] freed in a previous book. Harry [Potter]&#8217-s beloved owl, Hedwig, also dies.

There is also an epilogue, which takes place 19 years later, revealing that Harry [Potter] married Ginny Weasley and Ron married Hermione. They meet at platform 9? to send their children to Hogwarts.

OK, but I would like more info about the epilogue. Does J.K. Rowling mentions that Harry Potter dies as a happy man at an old age? I think it&#8217-s important because, since the statement of the Harry Potter event derivative is vague (&#8221-alive&#8221-), that could be a factor in the expiry of the NewsFutures contract. (As for me, no matter what is said in the epilogue about Harry Potter dying as an happy man at an old age, I believe that Harry Potter is still &#8220-alive&#8221- if J.K. Rowling will be able to write a sequel to her 7th book.)

&#8212-

TEMPORARY CONCLUSION (until we get strong confirmation of the outcome of The Deathly Hallows from two other sources):

1. The NewsFutures event derivative was predictive (as was an Internet poll), thanks to comparative literature analysis (analysis of the past writings of J.K. Rowling).

2. The William Hill people were bull-shitting when they said that Harry Potter died and when they opened betting on who was the killer. They took 50,000 British pounds from suckers. 100% pure profit for William Hill. Niall O&#8217-Connor, who swallowed the William Hill P.R. bullshit, should come on Midas Oracle, concede defeat, and analyze the root of his debacle.

&#8212-

PREDICTION MARKET VS. BOOKMAKER: THE PREDICTION MARKET WON.

&#8212-


© NewsFutures

&#8212-

Static chart:

Harry Potter NewsFutures

&#8212-

THE NIALL O&#8217-CONNOR FESTIVAL (1 + 2):

[1] What is the conclusion to be drawn here? In a market such as this, the outcome will already be known, by certain people. Are we too assume that these individuals choose to bet with traditional risk-averse bookmakers such as William Hill, forcing said bookmakers to close their books on the event? And that the uniformed, who know nothing, but cannot believe that Harry Potter will be killed off, choose to bet on NewsFutures?

[2] My own opinion is that the insiders have no reason to trade on NewsFutures (they are not interested in the notion of bragging rights). Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that they are even aware of the prediction exchange. They are interested however, in being able to take 500 sterling of William Hill, on a [fairly] anonymous basis. And this it would seem is what they have indeed done. The fact that the NewsFutures market has not fallen into line, gives rise to the notion that it represents nothing more than an amalgam of uninformed guessers, who are ignorant in the psychology of traditional betting markets. If Harry Potter is killed off- there will certainly be a lot of explaining to do……

Well, sounds like it&#8217-s Niall O&#8217-Connor who will have &#8220-a lot of explaining to do&#8221-. :) &#8230- And sounds like Niall O&#8217-Connor is &#8220-ignorant in the psychology&#8221- of high-volume play-money prediction markets. :)

&#8212-

And Michael Giberson, too, should have some explaining to do. :)

&#8212-

DISCLOSURE: At times, I was a participant in this Harry Potter prediction market, but decided to get out some time ago because of the incertitude regarding how the epilogue would be taken into account in the expiry process.

&#8212-

NEXT: NEWSFUTURES JUDGES THAT HARRY POTTER IS STILL ALIVE AT THE END OF J.K. ROWLING&#8217-S 7TH NOVEL, THE DEATHLY HALLOWS.

Previous blog posts by Chris F. Masse:

  • Red Herring’s list of the top 100 North-American high-tech startups includes Inkling Markets —but not NewsFutures, Consensus Point, or Xpree.
  • Professor Koleman Strumpf explains the prediction markets to the countryland people.
  • Professor Koleman Strumpf tells CNN that a prediction market, by essence, can’t predict an upset.
  • Time magazine interview the 2 BetFair-Tradefair co-founders, and not a single time do they pronounce the magic words, “prediction markets”.
  • One Deep Throat told me that this VC firm might have been connected with the Irish prediction exchange, at inception.
  • BetFair Rapid = BetFair’s standalone, local, PC-based, order-entry software for prediction markets
  • Michael Moore tells the Democratic people to go Barack Obama in Pennsylvania (a two-tier state), but the polls and the prediction markets tell us that that won’t do the trick.

NOBEL LAUREATE VERNON SMITH LEAVES ROBIN HANSONS GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY TO GO WORKING FOR TOM W. BELLS CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY.

No Gravatar

Felix Salmon:

GMU&#8217-s economics department is, famously, full of bloggers. Its chairman Donald Boudreaux blogs at Cafe Hayek with colleague Russ RobertsRobin Hanson founded Overcoming Bias- Bryan Caplan and Arnold Kling blog at EconLog- Peter Boettke blogs at The Austrian Economists- and, of course, Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok are bona fide stars of the blogosphere with their hugely popular Marginal Revolution. I&#8217-m sure there are more I don&#8217-t know about, too. All of these bloggers are famously unrestrained. GMU&#8217-s economics department is, famously, also home to 2002 Nobel laureate Vernon Smith. (He&#8217-s 80 years old, and a Nobelist, so you&#8217-ll forgive him for not having a blog of his own.) Smith more or less invented the hugely fecund field of experimental economics, and is by far the most important economist at GMU. So when GMU grad student Brian Hollar broke the news that Smith was leaving GMU and taking most of its experimental economics faculty with him to Chapman University in California, it&#8217-s not surprising that the blogosphere immediately started buzzing. Or rather, it is surprising that the blogosphere didn&#8217-t start buzzing: so far, none of the GMU economists has seen fit to mention this news at all. One might almost think that a don&#8217-t-blog-this edict had gone out, either explicitly or implicitly. But certainly the silence is puzzling.

Note: The experimental economics is the ancestor of the prediction markets, one could say.

NEXT: All GMU’s ICES faculty except Houser and McCabe are leaving to join Chapman University.

NEXT: Deep Throat on the George Mason University exodus to Chapman University.

NEXT: OFFICIAL: NOBEL LAUREATE VERNON SMITH DECAMPS FOR WEST COAST&#8217-S CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY.

NEXT: The latest about the departing of Nobel Laureate Vernon Smith from George Mason University to Chapman University

Innovation happens when these new things are delivered to the marketplace for the benefit of consumers/society.

No Gravatar

Via the Mises Economics blog, Carleen Hawn.

Commenter Francis Wu:

I’d rather be known as an innovator. Anybody can come up with an idea, but an idea is worthless unless it’s acted upon and properly executed (innovation). Sometimes the idea and the innovation can come from the same person. Other times, the idea people get drunk on their own big ideas and fail to execute.

For more on the &#8220-Invention vs. Innovation&#8221- debate, see this April 2007 blog post from Mike Linksvayer, with plenty of good comments.

One way of putting it is that six billion people generate a huge number of ideas, some number of which could be called inventions. Most are hopeless (the inventions- the people at least manage to survive for a time). Most of the rest are not actively pursued. The only way to test whether an invention is hopeless or useful is to attempt to deliver it at scale. So innovators (think of them as idea entrepreneurs, or whatever) both figure out which inventions are not hopeless and deliver the useful ones at scale. Innovators create all of the surplus, inventors do little more than breathe.