The journalistic rule should be that, if you cite one prediction exchange, you should cite the one that is the most liquid on the market you are writing about. For UK politics, it is clearly BetFair.

BetFair has clearly a PR problem.

Makes no sense at all.

The BetFair PR boys have an omelet on their face. They should work harder.

DISAMBIGUATION: The “illiquid” adjective refers to the UK political markets on InTrade —not the US political prediction markets.

I acknowledge you are a little InTrade fanboy, and that flies OK in my book. You say there are 3,000 daily transactions on the daily DJIA prediction markets. (It was much higher than that before the CFTC fined InTrade.) While I reckon that this liquidity is enough to generate trustworthy predictions, it is very small compared to the liquidity of the financial markets or BetFair’s liquidity. For your information, BetFair handles more transactions than the London Stock Exchange. InTrade’s liquidity is small compared to BetFair’s, and is certainly too small to generate profitability. That’s what counts.

Look at the market liquidity —too insignificant to say anything:

InTrade (like many other industry players and scholars) are exaggerating the usefulness of the prediction markets. When there is no liquidity, just keep your mouth shut. Wait until the market liquidity becomes more serious.

[...] we’ll be enabling the new matching process on soccer match odds markets, tennis match odds markets and greyhound win markets taking place on the UK exchange shortly.

-

Previously: BetFair’s new bet-matching logic…. (endorsed by Giberson International Incorporated).

-

-

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is for traders who make a bet in error, and now find the more efficient market has matched the bet before it could be withdrawn.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.

-

-

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

-

Robin Hanson:

One proposed distinguishing criteria includes the size of an individual trader’s stake, and the number of traders. The Iowa Electronic Markets are limited on both of these parameters. Such limits do succeed in preventing large hedging markets from masquerading as info-motivated event markets. But they do little to prevent generic gambling markets from masquerading as info-motivated event markets.

-

Total absurdity.

-

UPDATE: Robin Hanson comments…

Again, important for what purpose? The CFTC was clear that they are concerned about how to keep generic gambling from slipping in via whatever they might approve. I was addressing that concern. I don’t see how you can read anything I said as arguing against liquidity.

-

-

Our good friend Barry Ritholtz.has persuaded himself that our real-money prediction markets suffer from an irremediable and fatal problem: liquidity on political event derivative markets is too thin for smart Wall Street people like him to take their market-generated probabilities seriously. Barry Ritholtz is keen to tout oranges–apples comparisons: the NYSE volume versus the Obama–Clinton volume at InTrade. It’s a bullshit argument, but he managed to persuade some gullible journalists writing for some clueless mainstream media that thin liquidity was responsible for the New Hampshire upset —and else.

Barry, if you had 1,000,000,000 trades on the New Hampshire prediction market, you’d still have an inaccurate prediction. The polls were wrong, and there’s nothing … NOTHING… that the InTrade and BetFair traders could have done to get this election right. Get over it, Barry. Traders are not magicians.

-

[For why the polls were wrong, see: The New York Times, Zogby, Rasmussen, Gallup...]

-

Another academic fella who would be better off researching his topic before blogging on something he does not master.

-