Comments on: The Chicago candidacy, which was favored by the prediction markets (and gullible bettors like Ben Shannon), is the one that fared the worst. http://www.midasoracle.org/2009/10/05/chicago-olympics-2/ Prediction Markets, etc. Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:13:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chris F. Masse http://www.midasoracle.org/2009/10/05/chicago-olympics-2/#comment-27285 Chris F. Masse Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:11:47 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/?p=17687#comment-27285 Hell, no. http://www.midasoracle.org/2009/10/05/chicago-olympics-2016-summer-olympics/ Paul Hewitt has the best analysis: http://www.midasoracle.org/2009/10/06/olympics-chicago-paul-hewitt/ http://www.midasoracle.org/2009/10/06/17849/#comment-27306 Hell, no.
http://www.midasoracle.org/2009/10/05/chicago-olympics-2016-summer-olympics/

Paul Hewitt has the best analysis:
http://www.midasoracle.org/2009/10/06/olympics-chicago-paul-hewitt/
http://www.midasoracle.org/2009/10/06/17849/#comment-27306

]]> By: Michael Giberson http://www.midasoracle.org/2009/10/05/chicago-olympics-2/#comment-27281 Michael Giberson Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:57:53 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/?p=17687#comment-27281 Chris, isn't it odd for you to state "Chicago had not the slightest chance to begin with." The phrase implies you believe that the probability of Chicago's selection was near zero all along, but you have been claiming that it is impossible to predict anything about the outcomes of IOC selection processes. Also, the NYT article reports on backbiting and disarray at the USOC. While the article is published after the IOC decision, presumably any careful observer knew this in advance and you are suggesting it was relevant to the outcomes of the IOC market, i.e. you are suggesting it is a reason to have believed the Chicago selection as particularly unlikely. Again, this suggestion is contrary to your earlier views suggesting IOC decisions are unpredictable because there is no good information to aggregate. I look forward to your correction! Chris, isn’t it odd for you to state “Chicago had not the slightest chance to begin with.” The phrase implies you believe that the probability of Chicago’s selection was near zero all along, but you have been claiming that it is impossible to predict anything about the outcomes of IOC selection processes.

Also, the NYT article reports on backbiting and disarray at the USOC. While the article is published after the IOC decision, presumably any careful observer knew this in advance and you are suggesting it was relevant to the outcomes of the IOC market, i.e. you are suggesting it is a reason to have believed the Chicago selection as particularly unlikely. Again, this suggestion is contrary to your earlier views suggesting IOC decisions are unpredictable because there is no good information to aggregate.

I look forward to your correction!

]]>