Tag Archives: IOC

If Michael Giberson is wrong, then that means that Chris Masse is right.

Posted on October 6, 2009 by Chris F. Masse

Paul Hewitt: I dont’ know that you could say Chicago was the “weakest link”, just because it got dropped first in the voting. The political process caused it to go early. However, Michael Giberson is wrong to imply that the … Continue reading →

Posted in All Best Posts Ever, Analysis (Accuracy & Precision), Analysis (Industry), Analysis (Meta), Collective Decision Making, Collective Forecasting, Collective Intelligence - Wisdom Of Crowds, Exchanges & Markets, Market Prices & Probabilities | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Who has the best analysis for Chicago’s failed bid for the Olympics?

Posted on October 6, 2009 by Chris F. Masse

Prof Michael Giberson: I think the “small, secretive committee” explanation is weak []. Bradbury does an excellent job sifting through the shifting coalitions revealed in the three rounds of IOC voting. Neither Madrid nor Toyko showed any significant ability to … Continue reading →

Posted in All Best Posts Ever, Analysis (Accuracy & Precision), Analysis (Data), Collective Forecasting, Exchanges & Markets, Market Prices & Probabilities | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why did all the prediction markets get the Olympic decision to reject Chicago so wrong?

Posted on October 6, 2009 by Chris F. Masse

The blogger at Sabernomics sees “this as a win for prediction markets, not a failure.” I don’t share his views, but I wanted to link to his piece for you to make up your own mind about the issue.

Posted in Analysis (Accuracy & Precision), Analysis (Meta), Collective Forecasting, Exchanges & Markets, Information Technology, Leading & Lagging Indicators | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Never try to divine the IOC decisions on Olympics venues, Mike.

Posted on October 6, 2009 by Chris F. Masse

Prof Michael Giberson, No “careful observer knew this in advance” (about Chicago being a lemon), for the simple reason that if they knew, they would have downgraded Chicago on the InTrade and BetFair prediction markets, and Ben Shannon would have … Continue reading →

Posted in Analysis (Accuracy & Precision), Collective Forecasting, Exchanges & Markets, Leading & Lagging Indicators, Market Prices & Probabilities | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Could we have divined that Chicago was a lemon?

Posted on October 5, 2009 by Chris F. Masse

Prof Michael Giberson: 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 … Continue reading →

Posted in Analysis (Accuracy & Precision), Collective Forecasting, Exchanges & Markets, Leading & Lagging Indicators, Market Prices & Probabilities | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Midas Oracle is the only website in the world to have told you *not* to bet on Chicago —and to stay (far) away from any Olympics venue prediction market.

Posted on October 5, 2009 by Chris F. Masse

Previously: Will Chicago get the Olympics? Don’t bet on it. Too risky. Had Ben Shannon listened to us, he would have spared $6,000 —yes, that’s six thousand US dollars. Next: Could we have divined that Chicago was a lemon?

Posted in Money | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why you won’t hear Robin Hanson et al. about the Chicago Olympics prediction market disaster

Posted on October 5, 2009 by Chris F. Masse

- Because they are not interested in telling you the truth about prediction markets. – They are interested in propagating a myth, rather. – Don’t pay $400 for a vendor phone-booth conference on prediction markets, where their merits are hyper … Continue reading →

Posted in Ethics, Midas Oracle Archives | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

Posted on October 5, 2009 by Chris F. Masse

Look up prof Michael Giberson’s comment below my highly intelligent post, “Why an analyst should assess each newly created prediction market“. And compare it with Paul Kedrowski’s bad analysis, followed by InTrade CEO John Delaney’s equally bad analysis. Read the … Continue reading →

Posted in Midas Oracle Archives, News | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Why an analyst should assess each newly created prediction market

Posted on October 3, 2009 by Chris F. Masse

The Chicago candidacy, which was favored by the prediction markets (and gullible bettors like Ben Shannon), is the one that fared the worst. As we have blogged here many times, not every prediction market is created equal. Some are bound … Continue reading →

Posted in All Best Posts Ever, Analysis (Accuracy & Precision), Analysis (Meta), Collective Forecasting, Exchanges & Markets, Market Prices & Probabilities | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Professor Thomas Rietz (Iowa Electronic Markets) was so wrong on the usefulness of prediction markets about the 2016 Summer Olympics in Chicago.

Posted on October 2, 2009 by Chris F. Masse

Chicago Olympic Market Might Have Value, Says Reitz (Chicago Tribune, April 17) A credible source of information about Chicago’s chances of hosting the 2016 Olympics would have value, says columnist Bill Barnhart. Local real estate developers, hotel operators, employment agencies, … Continue reading →

Posted in Analysis (Accuracy & Precision), Exchanges & Markets, Market Expiry, Market Prices & Probabilities | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment