Inkling Markets no good
Chris F. Masse August 28th, 2007
As I said, I rarely look at Inkling’s public prediction markets because they are expired by volunteers who hide behind pseudonyms. How can I know whether they will expire their event derivatives correctly?
I made an exception this morning, prompted by some commenters, and looked (too hastily, it happened) at their Alberto Gonzales contracts, and made a big mistake by misinterpreting the August contract (which was phrased differently than the other contracts in the series). Thanks to economist Steve Bass for the correction.
Another reason to stay away from Inkling’s public prediction markets.
And my conclusion on the Alberto Gonzales bet stays: Once again, resignation prediction markets failed to the task.
NOTE: I like Inkling Markets as a software maker and consulting firm, though.
- Exchanges & Markets , Market Contract Statements
- Comments(2)
I too misread the August contract — or more precisely, failed to re-read the contract descriptions before my comment on your recent resignation market post.
But, frankly, in this case the August contract was phrased differently because it served a catch-all “August and everything after” role.
This isn’t a reason to stay away from Inkling, it is a reason to carefully read before investing (or commenting) (or bombastic blogging).
I disagree. The contracts in a series should be phrased with a common language. If one breaks the structure of the series, then it’s counter-intuitive. Think of 30 contracts in a series, should a trader read carefully the 30 contracts? They should be phrased with the same language, with the only difference being their term (the expiry date). Otherwise, if we have to scrutinize the 30 contracts in a series, we need hours, and there is no time anymore for trading … or blogging.