This year, the prediction markets did nail the Super Bowl 2009.
-
However, last year, they did not.
-
What I am trying to convey is that:
- An argumentation on accuracy will sometimes win and sometimes lose. (For the Super Bowl, 2009 was a lucky year, and 2008, an unlucky year.)
- An argumentation on (relative) efficiency (when the event is occurring as the result of a complicated situation) will always win.
- The 2 reasons our prediction market scholars have always emphasized accuracy is that, one, efficiency is more difficult to define, two, there are no data available for free —whereas polling data can be found easily to establish relative accuracy.
- Since building those data is costly, let’s create The Open Institute Of Prediction Markets, which will collect $$$ from many sources, gather our research scientists to establish a protocol, build those data, and free them of copyright on the Web.
- The Open Institute Of Prediction Markets will not, by itself, conduct research. It won’t be a competitor of David Pennock and the other research eggheads. It will help them with data, and with plenty of other things.
- The Open Institute Of Prediction Markets will do plenty of things. You will see.
- By the way, The Open Institute Of Prediction Markets won’t be called that way —one reason being that, at the age of the Web, cloud computing, and network collaboration, it won’t be centralized.
- I am happy to report to you that some big organizations I have talked to lately are very seriously looking into this project. There is now a real chance to succeed. I want to thank all the prediction market people and prediction market organizations who have been supporting of this project. I want to tell them that February 2009 is time to act.
-
Thanks for your attention.
Thanks for your continuous support since 2003.
We are going to achieve something, in the end of this decade.
-
