<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Midas Oracle .ORG &#187; Ontario</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.midasoracle.org/tag/ontario/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.midasoracle.org</link>
	<description>Prediction Markets, etc.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:20:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://www.midasoracle.org/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>The US Federal Reserve Cuts Discount Rate.</title>
		<link>http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/08/17/the-us-federal-reserve-cuts-discount-rate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/08/17/the-us-federal-reserve-cuts-discount-rate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:35:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris F. Masse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Exchanges & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Market Prices & Probabilities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Open Market Committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve System]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street Journal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/08/17/the-us-federal-reserve-cuts-discount-rate/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wall Street Journal: The Federal Reserve has taken an intermediate step, cutting its discount rate to 5.75% from 6.25%, in order to â€œto promote the restoration of orderly conditions in financial markets.â€ Basically, itâ€™s the closest possible thing to an &#8230; <a href="http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/08/17/the-us-federal-reserve-cuts-discount-rate/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2007/08/17/fed-cuts-discount-rate/" title="Fed Cuts Discount Rate">Wall Street Journal</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>The Federal Reserve has taken an intermediate step, cutting its discount rate to 5.75% from 6.25%</strong>, in order to â€œto promote the restoration of orderly conditions in financial markets.â€ Basically, itâ€™s the closest possible thing to an actual cut in the federal-funds target rate without actually cutting that rate, and as such, some see it as more symbolic than anything else â€” after all, the discount rate is still a penalty rate, higher than the federal-funds rate. [...]</p>
<p><strong>The discount rate is the Fedâ€™s rate on loans to banks, whereas the federal-funds rate is the rate on overnight loans from one bank to another. </strong>[...]</p></blockquote>
<p>Fed Funds Rate to be ON or OVER 5.00% on Year End 2007</p>
<p><a href="http://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?selConID=437132"><img src="http://data.intrade.com/graphing/closingChart.png?contractId=437132&amp;chartSize=S&amp;tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com" alt="Price for Fed Funds Rate Year End 2007 at intrade.com" title="Price for Fed Funds Rate Year End 2007 at intrade.com" border="0" height="225" width="460" /></a><br />
&#8212;</p>
<p>Static chart:</p>
<p><img src="http://www.midasoracle.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/fomc-dec2007.gif" alt="FOMC December 2007" /></p>
<p>&#8212;</p>
<p><a href="http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=20409223&amp;ex=1&amp;origin=MRL" title="What will be the change in US Federal Funds Rate at this months scheduled Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting?">BetFair &#8211; FOMC &#8211; September FOMC</a> -</p>
<blockquote><p>What will be the change in US Federal Funds Rate at this months scheduled Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting? <strong>Any changes made in an unscheduled meeting <em>do not count</em> for market purposes.</strong> Current Rate 5.25% .</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/08/17/the-us-federal-reserve-cuts-discount-rate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fed Funds Rate to be ON or OVER 5.25% on Year End 2007</title>
		<link>http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/07/11/fed-funds-rate-to-be-on-or-over-525-on-year-end-2007/</link>
		<comments>http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/07/11/fed-funds-rate-to-be-on-or-over-525-on-year-end-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris F. Masse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Exchanges & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Market Prices & Probabilities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve System]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/07/11/fed-funds-rate-to-be-on-or-over-525-on-year-end-2007/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?selConID=437133"> <img src="http://data.intrade.com/graphing/closingChart.png?contractId=437133&amp;chartSize=S&amp;tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com" alt="Price for Fed Funds Rate Year End 2007 at intrade.com" title="Price for Fed Funds Rate Year End 2007 at intrade.com" border="0" height="225" width="460" /></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/07/11/fed-funds-rate-to-be-on-or-over-525-on-year-end-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canadian Identity Theft &#8212;Gambling Edition</title>
		<link>http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/01/26/canadian-identity-theft-gambling-edition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/01/26/canadian-identity-theft-gambling-edition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:42:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris F. Masse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Internet Marketing - Internet Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epassporte Or Citadel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[favourite poker site]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[findnot software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Gambling Enforcement Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online gambling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quebec]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/01/26/canadian-identity-theft-gambling-edition/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Poker Bandits&#8220; (I&#8217;m not making this up): Disclaimer: The following information is provided &#8220;as-is&#8221; without warranty of any kind and should only be used for educational purposes only. In order to bypass the US poker ban you will first need &#8230; <a href="http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/01/26/canadian-identity-theft-gambling-edition/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a title="How To ByPass The US Poker Site Ban" href="http://www.pokerbandits.ca/showthread.php?t=16">&#8220;Poker <em>Bandits</em>&#8220;</a> (I&#8217;m not making this up):</p>
<blockquote><p><strong><em>Disclaimer: The following information is provided &#8220;as-is&#8221; without warranty of any kind and should only be used for educational purposes only.</em></strong></p>
<p>In order to bypass the US poker ban you will first need to hide your ip address so that instead of showing up as an American citizen you will be now shown as a Canadian. This is important as the ban only affects American citizens and not Canadians, who can freely register on all the various poker sites.<br />
<strong><br />
Step 1: Go To Canada411.Ca</strong><br />
Find someone with a common last name in either Ontario or Quebec province.<br />
<strong><br />
Step 2: Get Address</strong><br />
Pick one of these real addresses and phone numbers as your gaming account information.</p>
<p><strong>Step 3: Signup at findnot.com</strong><br />
Findnot.com is a ip redirecting service that will forward your US ip address through Canadian servers located at Ontario and Quebec.<br />
<strong><br />
Step 4: Install findnot software</strong><br />
Now whenever you are going to log into your favourite poker site, you will first need to connect to one of findnot&#8217;s Canadian servers. The servers are fast and you will hardly notice the difference.</p>
<p><strong>Step 5: Signup With Neteller, Click2pay, Epassporte Or Citadel</strong><br />
Sign up at the sites using your real name and the Canadian address that you came up with. The US Internet Gambling Enforcement Act makes it illegal for online gambling sites to accept electronic fund transfers, however, you are free to deposit money from your bank or credit card into a third party pay site in this case Neteller, Click2pay, Epassporte or Citadel.</p>
<p>Enjoy ):</p></blockquote>
<p>Via <a title="Betting Market" href="http://del.icio.us/bettingmarket">Betting Market</a>, of course.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/01/26/canadian-identity-theft-gambling-edition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Summary of the Tradesports DEMS.HOUSE.OVER29.5 issue, and the TS &#8220;credibility gap&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.midasoracle.org/2006/11/20/summary-of-the-tradesports-demshouseover295-issue-and-the-ts-credibility-gap/</link>
		<comments>http://www.midasoracle.org/2006/11/20/summary-of-the-tradesports-demshouseover295-issue-and-the-ts-credibility-gap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 01:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alex Forshaw</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Guest Authors's Posts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Analysis (Accuracy & Precision)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exchanges & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Market Contract Statements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Market Expiry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alex Forshaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arbitration Committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bernie Sanders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Menendez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corzine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harriet Miers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[House of Representatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Lieberman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Louisiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.midasoracle.org/2006/11/20/summary-of-the-tradesports-demshouseover295-issue-and-the-ts-credibility-gap/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the past weeks, there was something of a dust-up over TS&#8217; handling of the DEMS.HOUSE.OVER29.5 contract. According to all American media, the Democrats needed 15 new House seats to gain control of the House of Representatives. And, indeed, in &#8230; <a href="http://www.midasoracle.org/2006/11/20/summary-of-the-tradesports-demshouseover295-issue-and-the-ts-credibility-gap/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the past weeks, there was <a href="http://the-ts-maven.blogspot.com/2006/11/ts-blows-another-call.html">something of a dust-up</a> over TS&#8217; handling of the DEMS.HOUSE.OVER29.5 contract. According to all American media, the Democrats needed 15 new House seats to gain control of the House of Representatives. And, indeed, in the final days leading up to the election, there an excellent synchronization between the DEMS.HOUSE.OVER14.5 contract and the inverse of HOUSE.GOP.2006, indicating a perceived equivalence between 100 &#8211; p(HOUSE.GOP.2006) and DEMS.HOUSE.OVER14.5. Thus, the (presumably overwhelmingly American) <strong>market inferred that TS would follow the same convention as all American media, mainstream and otherwise, did</strong>.  And according to American media, a Democrat replacing independent Socialist Bernie Sanders didn&#8217;t count as a Democratic pickup, because he already <em>caucused </em>with the Democrats anyway.  However, TS initially disagreed with that, and counted Sanders as a non-Democrat. (More on that soon.)</p>
<p>Speaking personally, TS reinforced this perception&#8211;that independents who caucused with the Democrats counted as Democratic seats, and if they were replaced by an official Democrat, that wouldn&#8217;t increase the Democrats&#8217; vote total&#8211;by specifically stating, in regards to SENATE.GOP.2006, that a <strong>&#8220;loss&#8221; of the Connecticut seat to Joe Lieberman (who had switched from Democrat to Independent) would still be counted as a Democratic seat</strong>, <strong>because Lieberman already caucused with the Democrats</strong> anyway.</p>
<p>The fine print of the Tradesports DEMS.HOUSE.OVERXX contracts was, for most of the time, fairly clear in stating that the Democrats started from 201 seats, and anything over that number would constitute a gain. Judging from the activity of DEMS.HOUSE.OVER14.5, however, I believe that <strong>most of the market inferred</strong> (as did I) that <strong>201 was the initial starting number of of Democrat seats</strong> according to American convention as well as TS, and <strong>didn&#8217;t realize the difference</strong> between the two systems. A very technical mistake, but not one for which TS deserved blame.</p>
<p>However, TS threw a monkey wrench in the system by telling forummer &#8220;gekko6&#8243; that Bernie Sanders&#8217; Independent seat going Democratic <a href="http://forum.tradesports.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/859603632/m/1981048591">would not count as a Democratic pickup</a>, because Sanders had already caucused with the Democrats in the first place.  In this decision, as in its Connecticut Senate decision, <strong>TS showed an impressive grasp of the vagaries of the American political system&#8211;namely, that the </strong><em><strong>size of each caucus</strong> </em>was the real issue; and Congressional majorities being determined on the basis of <em><strong>caucus, not party affiliation,</strong></em> it only made sense to calculate the shift in power in the House on the same basis.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that also meant that <strong>TS had, at the same time, repudiated its own convention</strong> for what constituted a &#8220;gain.&#8221; &#8220;gekko6&#8243; had already been very aware of this issue, because he had pointed out that the <em>actual </em>starting count according to the American system was 203, not 201&#8211;due to Sanders&#8217; being an independent endorsed and unopposed by the Democrats, and the vacancy of Bob Menendez&#8217;s seat after Menendez was appointed to the Senate by NJ Gov. Corzine. (From a foreign, technical perspective, this was defensible&#8211;Menendez&#8217;s seat was vacant, so the winner on Nov. 7 would count it as a &#8220;gain.&#8221;  However, the <strong>Republicans did not contest Menendez&#8217;s</strong> very Democratic <strong>seat</strong>, so in the <strong>American convention, it was never counted as a Democratic pickup</strong>.) Tradesports&#8217; convention effectively said that the Democrats gained two more seats than the American convention did, and several days after the November elections, the American convention said that the Democrats had gained 28 House seats with 1 certain to go Democratic in a runoff (in Louisiana), so 29 seats total, while the Democrats had effectively gained 31 seats according to TS. Hence the problem with DEMS.HOUSE.OVER29.5. And while a legalistic interpretation would favor TS, I believe that the <strong>synchronization of DEMS.HOUSE.OVER14.5 and 100 &#8211; p(HOUSE.GOP.2006) indicated that most trading during the final few days showed that the market was unaware of TS&#8217; own convention for the election outcome.<br />
</strong><br />
I sent Tradesports an e-mail about it (apparently they <strong>don&#8217;t accept new entrants to their forum anymore</strong>, because my application has been pending for about a month), and they replied that the new number of Democrats minus 201 would constitute the number of Democrat gains, thus contradicting what they had told &#8220;gekko6.&#8221; I then publicly <a href="http://the-ts-maven.blogspot.com/2006/11/ts-blows-another-call.html">denounced TS</a> for waffling the issue. TS did nothing, and apparently hoped the controversy would blow over. A bunch of recounts in close races later, TS appears to have lucked out, because according to the American convention, the Democrats now have at least <a href="http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2006_house_turnover.pdf">233 House members</a>, up from 202-plus-one-Socialist, so the American system now says the Democrats have gained 30 seats and DEMS.HOUSE.OVER29.5 has been fulfilled either way.</p>
<p>Honestly, I was impressed that TS understood the American system as well as they did.  Unfortunately, TS&#8217; subsequent &#8220;flip-flopping&#8221; showed that it <strong>did not, in fact, understand its own contract specifics</strong>. It also fit a larger pattern of <a href="http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Prediction-Markets/browse_thread/thread/4376f2936d246081/4fec9d3ebd63f5c7">cavalier disdain</a> for its clients, often interpreting an ambiguous outcome significantly contrary to that of the market-majority (Harriet Miers confirmation, NK missile test contract) <em><strong>without appropriate compensation</strong>, </em>setting up a joke &#8220;Arbitration Committee&#8221; that, if it even exists, has done nothing except infuriate customers, and most recently <strong><a href="http://forum.tradesports.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/809603632/m/7751024691">expiring sports contracts before the games were even concluded</a> &#8211;and coincidentally raking in tons of expiry fees from people who weren&#8217;t given a chance to liquidate.</strong></p>
<p>The latter, in fact, has happened with enough cavalier consistency that one can only wonder whether TS simply plans on milking its American consumers for as much as possible before closing the site to new American participants as a result of the recent US legislation. <strong>SportsBook has downgraded Tradesports to a C+ rating</strong>, which is at the very low end of what SportsBook can vouch for.</p>
<p>If TS plans on more effectively structuring its futures contracts, it should structure them along the lines of, &#8220;At 11:59:59 PM GMT on dd/mm/yyyy, Democrats will control ON or OVER XXX seats in the US House of Representatives.&#8221; If it wants to undertake a broader effort to restore its own credibility, it needs to <strong>stop the caprice that is fast becoming the norm for how it adjudicates contract outcomes&#8211;whether that adjudication occurs before or after the outcome has actually occurred. [added:] TS&#8217; infrastructure and trader base are both excellent, and there&#8217;s no point in wasting those assets on sloppy legalese and interpretation.<br />
</strong></p>
<p>&#8211;Alex Forshaw</p>
<p><a href="http://the-ts-maven.blogspot.com" title="Political speculation blog">http://the-ts-maven.blogspot.com</a></p>
<p>Tradesports forum homepage: <a href="http://forum.tradesports.com/">http://forum.tradesports.com/</a></p>
<p><strong>Addendum</strong>: As for 100 &#8211; p (HOUSE.GOP.2006) vs DEMS.HOUSE.OVER14.5, I remember them consistently mirroring one another, and thinking to myself, &#8220;Aha! Efficient markets at work.&#8221; However, what little historical data TS makes publicly available makes it hard to judge that, and there were snapshots when the two were de-coupled, so perhaps a minority of perceptive traders _did_ trade on the differences in the rules. But in the sample of snapshots that I looked at, the <strong>two were coupled (within 2 points) much more often than not</strong> during the final days, when liquidity was high enough to make arbitraging the two contracts a worthwhile use of capital.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.midasoracle.org/2006/11/20/summary-of-the-tradesports-demshouseover295-issue-and-the-ts-credibility-gap/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

