Prediction Markets + Market Predictions = Collective Forecasting That Pays Off
Wow. That’s a lot.
BetFair: 2007 World Cup of Rugby
South Africa will win (against England, who did beat France, who did beat New Zealand), BetFair says.
On this South Africa chart, spot the volume, lately. Seems like the English have been betting en masse since their team made it to the finale.
You can follow all the replies to this entry through the comments feed.
Jason Ruspini on PROVEN AND DOCUMENTED: Joe Weisenthal is drunken with his own manipulation paranoia.
Paul Hewitt on Libertarian journalist John Stossel explained InTrade’s prediction markets, and forgot BetFair.
Max Keiser on PROVEN AND DOCUMENTED: Joe Weisenthal is drunken with his own manipulation paranoia.
Daniel Horowitz on Health care reform is down to 47% at InTrade. –> Toss a coin, it will get you the same.Daniel Horowitz on Insider trading in the InTrade prediction market on health care reform?Paul Hewitt on Oscars 2010 Post-Mortem — InTrade Prediction MarketsPaul Hewitt on Predictalot = combinatorial prediction markets (a la Robin Hanson)
Chris F. Masse on What’s wrong with soccer bettingDaniel Horowitz on What’s wrong with soccer bettingChris F. Masse on What’s wrong with soccer betting
I think it is important to put this figure into perspective.
$18m is equivalent to 9m GBP. In order to work out the actual sum traded, we need to half this amount, which gives us 4.5m GBP.
This includes one bet from a mystery gambler of $A5 million ($NZ5.8 million) on New Zealand to win the tournament.
A proportion of this total will also be accounted for by players trading in and out of positions. Betfair takes a commission of between 2% and 5% from people who win on the market.
So, as can be seen, the headline figure can be misleading as regards Betfair’s actual profit margin on the match.
This is from Tony Clare of BetFair:
Nice of Betfair to clarify matters.
But why have a running total of bets matched, if in fact it does not include all bets matched?
I could not find the place on the site where this was explained.