Tag Archives: relative accuracy

OSCARS 2010: Did Justin Wolfers brag too much and too loudly? — [RELATIVE ACCURACY DEPARTMENT]

Posted on March 10, 2010 by Chris F. Masse

Jason (a Freakonomics reader): You are giving yourself WAY too much credit. Siskel and Ebert successfully predict these awards 100% year after year. This isn’t a difficult thing to predict. Predicting something like the NCAA tourney, that would be an … Continue reading →

Posted in Analysis (Accuracy & Precision), Exchanges & Markets, Market Prices & Probabilities, Prediction Post-Mortem | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

POLLS VERSUS PREDICTION MARKETS: Justin Wolfers retorts to Bob Erikson.

Posted on June 9, 2008 by Chris F. Masse

Justin Wolfers (in January 2008): 1. Bob and Chris has four elections in their data, so it is hard to draw too much from it. That said, I draw two conclusions. First, markets beat an unconditional use of polls as … Continue reading →

Posted in All Best Posts Ever, Analysis (Accuracy & Precision), Exchanges & Markets, Forecasting (Science & Practice) | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Based on market data from a tiny prediction exchange (IEM, which is much smaller than InTrade-TradeSports or BetFair), a couple of researchers claim that prediction markets do not have superior predictive power. — And, adding salt to injury, they call our prediction market luminaries (Robin Hanson, Justin Wolfers, etc.)… “naive”.

Posted on June 9, 2008 by Chris F. Masse

Via Adam Siegel… …of Inkling Markets fame…. – Are Political Markets Really Superior to Polls as Election Predictors? – (draft: PDF file) – by Robert S. Erikson and Christopher Wlezien – 2008-05-02 Abstract Election markets have been praised for their … Continue reading →

Posted in All Best Posts Ever, Analysis (Accuracy & Precision), Analysis (Meta), Exchanges & Markets, Forecasting (Science & Practice) | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments