Archive for the 'Liquidity' Category

CNBC airs an upbeat explainer about InTrade’s prediction markets.

Chris F. Masse August 25th, 2008

No Gravatar

Via our good friend Jason Ruspini.

CNBC video + CNBC video #2

- Please, put that on YouTube, and then give me the YouTube URL. I’ll embed the video in another post.

- Who is that guy that they will interview later on, Jason??? [UPDATE: Serge Ravitch]

My observations:

  1. Quite upbeat. Almost an advertisement for InTrade.
  2. No mention whatsoever that InTrade is illegal in America.
  3. On the website, they call InTrade a “political futures market”.
  4. The InTrade critic was Barry Ritholtz. They just showed his blog. He wrote that the trading on InTrade is “pitifully” small.
  5. The first prediction market analyst they want to hear is InTrade CEO John Delaney. The second is professor Justin Wolfers. And that’s all.
  6. Steve Forbes asked whether “this thing” (InTrade) predicted Joe Biden “weeks ago”. The answer is that InTrade predicted Joe Biden some days ago.
  7. Joe Kerner put an emphasis on liquidity, whereas the emphasis should have been on the market as the mechanism that delivers a collective verdict.

UPDATE: YouTube video (the last part was censored by InTrade-TradeSports CEO John Delaney - PRECISION: the discussion between the journalists and the guest on the TV set was suppressed)

UPDATE: The second CNBC video segment that TradeSports-InTrade CEO John Delaney does not want you to see on YouTube

The vetting of the many potential Democratic vice president nominees was not as secretive as I thought. — Bo Cowgill was right, in hindsight.

Chris F. Masse August 24th, 2008

No Gravatar

The New York Times has a recount on how Barack Obama reached his decision on Joe Biden. The final decision was probably made 10 days ago, while Barack Obama was vacationing in Hawaii.

[...] Mr. Obama’s decision had as much to do with Mr. Biden’s appeal among white working-class voters and compelling personal story, and his conclusion that the Delaware senator was “a worker.”

The important information in the NYT piece is that Barack Obama personally called governor Bill Richardson “late last week” to announce him that he was not considered anymore. That’s around the time the Joe Biden rumor began to have more weight in the media circles —see the InTrade chart below.

Bo Cowgill, back in May 2008 (when I started to act as a prophet of doom):

This is dumb. Cover them if something interesting happens. Maybe your theory will turn out to be wrong. Anyhow: Although the decision is made in secrecy, the Presidential nominees have a number incentives which we have plenty of information about. Specifically:
* They want someone who will balance their tickets in terms of geography, race and class.
* They want someone who will help with weak areas of their campaigns.
* They want someone who will be a good campaign surrogate — giving good speeches and attacking the opponents effectively.
* They want to avoid a VP who will de-motivate or offend the base.
* They want to avoid someone with a bunch of skeletons in the closet such as angry ex-wives, out-of-wedlock kids, etc.
* Etc etc.
Anyhow, I don’t see any reason to ignore these markets in case something interesting happens. I read Midas Oracle so that I don’t *have* to read a whole bunch of other websites!

Bo Cowgill was on the right track, now that I think of it —in a society where everything leaks out.

On the opposite of the spectrum, Tom Snee was too much extreme in his view:

According to Tom Snee of the Iowa Electronic Market, at Iowa University, futures markets need more hard information than they get in the veepstakes, to reliably predict a result.

Markets are very good at predicting elections, he says - but not choices being made inside Barack Obama’s or John McCain’s head.

Justin Wolfers was more measured.

So, Bo Cowgill and Justin Wolfers are the winners, on that one.

I was partially wrong. I am a bit too extreme, sometimes. (Did someone else notice that? :-D ) I need to learn more about… granularity.

-

PS: On the Republican side, now…

Price for 2008 Republican VP Nominee (others upon request)(expired at convention) at intrade.com

Never trust a politician.

Barack Obama + Joe Biden — THE PREDICTION MARKETS NAILED IT… triple alas (for my reputation as a world-wide prediction market pundit, and for the debate on the different quality of the various primary indicators out there).

Chris F. Masse August 23rd, 2008

No Gravatar

Friend — I have some important news that I want to make official. I’ve chosen Joe Biden to be my running mate.

Some blogger says his wife is fantastic.

New York Times portrait of Joe Biden.

UPDATE: Barack Obama’s speech + Joe Biden’s speech

-

I think it is the worst pick ever. What a blunder. Joe Biden (a D.C. insider) is unpopular and gaffe prone. Plus, that choice shows that Barack Obama is insecure when it comes to foreign policy. An emphasis on the economy and, thus, on a successful gubernatorial experience would have been better.

Kathleen Sebelius was the one to pick. She is my vice president. (And Ron Paul is my president. :-D )

-

I have over-estimated the secretiveness of Barack Obama’s decision process. The chart above obviously shows that the Joe Biden narrative leaked out to reporters was beamed out for a purpose: testing the Obama-needs-a-VP-who-is-strong-in-foreign-policy argument, and letting the Press do the final vetting on gaffe-prone Joe Biden.

InTrade CEO John Delaney (along with the HubDub and BetFair people) will now brag on his marketing material that his prediction exchange did forecast Joe Biden as the Democratic vice president nominee.

What’s bad in all that (other than I have an egg on my face [*] ) is that we won’t have a public debate on the different quality of the various primary indicators, and how that conditions the accuracy of the prediction markets.

[*] I have an egg on my face, but Caveat Bettor has a whole omelet on his. :-D

While InTrade CEO John Delaney is deceiving the journalists to sell his wares, Tom Snee of the Iowa Electronic Markets is telling them the truth: BEWARE THE VP-CANDIDATE PREDICTION MARKETS, THEY JUST AGGREGATE RUMORS.

Chris F. Masse August 22nd, 2008

No Gravatar

BBC News:

According to Tom Snee of the Iowa Electronic Market, at Iowa University, futures markets need more hard information than they get in the veepstakes, to reliably predict a result.

Markets are very good at predicting elections, he says - but not choices being made inside Barack Obama’s or John McCain’s head.

Thank God for the BBC.

Thank God for the Iowa Electronic Markets.

Shame on John Delaney —over 3 generations of Delaneys.

Other than Tom Snee (the IEM spin doctor), Chris Masse and Justin Wolfers are the only prediction market analysts to have sent out warnings about the VP-candidate prediction markets.

CNN closed their 2 VP prediction markets… and immediately opened 2 not-brand-new VP prediction markets, with a full listing of candidate names, this time.

Chris F. Masse August 4th, 2008

No Gravatar

Storms vs. Hurricanes

Chris F. Masse July 16th, 2008

No Gravatar

There will be more than 14 named Atlantic storms in 2008.

© NewsFutures
-

There will be more than 9 named Atlantic Hurricanes in 2008.

© NewsFutures
-

NewsFutures’ chart widgets are the world’s most usable —from the standpoint of a blogger who wants to embed them. Congrats to Emile and his team.

-

How BetFair stole Bastille Day from the French —and how Ed Murray became BetFair’s best friend (NOT A HOAX).

Chris F. Masse July 15th, 2008

No Gravatar

-

Michael Giberson (professor of economics and chairman of our scientific advisory board):

Actually, I would expect the change to improve liquidity, but the real surprise for Ed Murray is that other than his liquidity argument, I pretty much agree with him this time.

It is a better scheme than before, as the exchange will match traders’ bets more efficiently and offer price improvement when available.

As Betfair observes (and Murray notes) the downside is for traders who make a bet in error, and now find the more efficient market has matched the bet before it could be withdrawn. If this is a frequent problem for a trader, perhaps they need to exercise a little more care at the keyboard. But as the Befair announcement indicates — and this time Ed Murray is repeating the Betfair company line! — at least there is the possibility that the trader will be matched at a better price than he would have otherwise.

-

Is the BetFair’s brand-new bet-matching logic (which matches bets across related selections) the first time a prediction exchange manages to increase liquidity WITHOUT augmenting the number of traders or relying on an automated market maker?

Chris F. Masse July 14th, 2008

No Gravatar

Professor Giberson,

What do you make of that?

-

In a blow to the French, BetFair choose Bastille Day to premiere the revised version of the bet-matching logic of their prediction markets. — IMPROVEMENT MEANS BETTER LIQUIDITY FOR THEIR EVENT DERIVATIVE TRADERS.

Chris F. Masse July 14th, 2008

No Gravatar

-

BetFair:

Improvements to Betfair’s bet matching logic today, Monday 14th July:

What’s changing?
We’ve improved the code that matches bets. As well as matching backs against lays as we’ve always done, we’ll also try to match your bet against bets on other selections in the market. We‘ll give you an improvement over the price you‘ve requested where possible, and we‘ll match you against whichever bets get you the best price.

For example in a tennis market:

Roger Federer is 1.9 to back, 2.1 to lay.
Rafael Nadal is 1.8 to back, 2.0 to lay.

If you try to back Federer at 1.9 or less, previously we would have matched your bet against the customer looking to lay Federer at 1.9. Both bets would have been matched at 1.9, even if you‘d asked for a shorter price. In theory we could do even better than that though: we could match you against the customer trying to back Nadal at 2.0 (backing one player at 2.0 is of course the same as laying the other player at 2.0). Our new bet matching process will see which match gets you the better price. In this case we would get you 2.0 by matching you against the Nadal backer (who is offering a better price than the layer of Federer).

When placing a new bet you will only ever be matched by the new process if doing so gives you a better price than you would otherwise have got. We will match your bet at the best price possible that’s a valid increment on Betfair’s odds ladder, as we explained in our update of 6th June.

Does this only work for 2-runner markets like tennis?
No. The new matching logic works for any number of runners in a market. An example with a 2-runner market is probably easiest to understand, but the principle is the same for markets with 3 runners or more. For example if a football market looked like this:

Spain 2.3 to back, 2.5 to lay
Germany 3.9 to back, 4.0 to lay
The Draw 2.9 to back, 3.0 to lay

Then if you want to back Spain we could match you with customers looking to back Germany and the Draw at 4.0 and 3.0 respectively, which would result in you being matched at 2.4, a better price than you would have got had we matched you against Spain layers (who are only offering 2.3).

Which markets will this affect?
We’ll introduce the new code on Monday 14th July, but initially matching will be done exactly as before. As explained earlier in the year, introducing best execution across selections wasn’t possible without significant change to the existing code that matches backs and lays, so we will need verify that performance is as expected for the existing matching process before enabling the new functionality. All being well we’ll enable the new code for a small number of markets to ensure that everything is as it should be later on Monday. We’ll announce which markets on Monday. Again if all is well we’ll roll out to a wider range of markets on Tuesday.

We’d expect to match across selections on the same range of markets as we currently do:

Match Odds in Basketball, Boxing, Cricket, Ice Hockey, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Snooker, Tennis and Volleyball, Greyhounds win markets, Darts match odds, correct score and handicaps and Soccer match odds, HT/FT, correct score and unders/overs.

Horse racing will not be covered for now, due to the possibility of non-runners, and the new process isn’t applicable to markets where runners can be added (for example “Next manager” markets), where runners listed might not take part (e.g. First Goalscorer) or where the runners in a particular “market” are treated independently (e.g. Accumulators).

What about bets placed in error?
We’re aware of a concern that this change might make it more likely that customers would match bets placed in error, for example asking for 1.2 when you really wanted to back at 2.2. One consequence of the change we’re making is that any bet you place is more likely to get matched - making it easier to get a match is the whole idea. Being realistic though, if you had placed a bet in error like that in the past, in the vast majority of cases you would have been matched (against lays on that selection). There’ll now be far, far more circumstances where you would have been matched anyway , but instead you’ll now get a better price, than situations where your bet would have been unmatched and you might have had the chance to cancel. On average we would expect customers who place bets in error to be better off as a result.

On a related point, we’d also expect this change to make it more difficult for people who place “trap bets” to get matched (a trap bet is an offer that is only likely to be matched if another customer places a bet in error). While putting up “trap bets” is against Betfair’s terms and conditions and we close the accounts of persistent offenders, on an exchange where any customer can ask for any price it’s difficult to eradicate this practice. In most instances where a trap bet is the best price available on a selection, customers will in future be matched at better prices against bets on other selections rather than matching the trap bet.

How will the change affect liquidity?
We would expect the change to be beneficial to liquidity. Obviously if we have opposing customer bets in the system that could be matched, whether on the same selection or across different selections, the best thing for liquidity is to match them.

-

Further to the above, we’ll be enabling the improved matching on the following markets later today.

Football:

Czech Republic U19 vs. England U19
FC Inter vs. MyPa

Tennis:
Andujar vs. Hanescu
Minar vs. Rochus

Greyhounds:
11:28 Sheffield
11:48 Oxford

Next »