The Chicago candidacy, which was favored by the prediction markets (and gullible bettors like Ben Shannon), is the one that fared the worst.

IOC

Look up prof Michael Giberson&#8217-s comment below my highly intelligent post, &#8220-Why an analyst should assess each newly created prediction market&#8220-.

And compare it with Paul Kedrowski&#8217-s bad analysis, followed by InTrade CEO John Delaney&#8217-s equally bad analysis.

Read the New York Times for more on why Chicago had not the slightest chance to begin with.

Previously: Will Chicago get the Olympics? Dona€™t bet on it. Too risky.

Next: Could we have divined that Chicago was a lemon?

Next: &#8220-I have to agree with Chris. The market participants did not possess a sufficient level of information completeness to arrive at the correct prediction.&#8221-

2 thoughts on “The Chicago candidacy, which was favored by the prediction markets (and gullible bettors like Ben Shannon), is the one that fared the worst.

  1. Michael Giberson said:

    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!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *