Midas Oracle .ORG

Chris F. Masse August 12th, 2008

Overcoming Whatever:

I don’t really think the comparison with sports/business/weather forecasters really holds up, for a prosaic reason — in particle physics, the timescale for experiments is years and decades, not days. There is no way to efficiently grade/reward people on the accuracy of their predictions, and correspondingly no real incentive for anyone to make very quantitative predictions.

On the other hand, it’s not as if there is no incentive to be right. If you devote your life to working out the ramifications of low-energy supersymmetry and it’s not there, you won’t get fired (if you have tenure), but on the other hand your life’s work will be useless. Which is a pretty big incentive.

Posted by: Sean Carroll [from Cosmic Variance] | August 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM

—

Sean, I don’t understand the relevance of the timescale to the efficient grading of predictions. Given enough forecasts we can see a signal of accuracy above the noise of luck in individual forecasts. I agree that the longer the timescale the weaker are incentives from any given reward tied to scoring. But I’m not really focused on incentives in this post - I’m focused on whether it is reasonable for folks to crow about being vindicated when they weren’t willing to make scoreable forecasts.

Posted by: Robin Hanson | August 11, 2008 at 12:35 PM

-

Scientists don’t want to make scoreable forecasts.

Hence, it is impossible to collect track records.

Period.

Robin Hanson’s idea has no application —over than vanity blogging.

Let’s go back to our prediction markets (where traders work, for free, as info collectors).

Let’s not waste our precious time on fruitless ideas.

-

Tags: event derivative markets, Forecasting, prediction markets, Robin Hanson, scoreable forecasts, scoreable predictions, Sean Carroll, track records

• All Best Posts Ever , Analysis (Meta) , Forecasting , Science
• Comments(0)

Chris F. Masse August 10th, 2008

Robin Hanson’s false good idea: collecting track records.

But his post is the living proof that he is wrong:

• Prediction markets incentivize traders in researching issues (reading the experts’ works), making probability bets, and delivering a collective verdict;
• Experts don’t like to state publicly their home-made probabilistic predictions —as his post shows.

And if experts are not used to express scoreable forecasts, then, by essence, you can’t collect anything. Hence, the superiority of the prediction market method.

Another false good idea from Robin Hanson.

-

Tags: event derivative markets, Forecasting, prediction markets, Robin Hanson, scoreable forecasts, scoreable predictions, track records

• All Best Posts Ever , Analysis (Meta) , Forecasting
• Comments(3)

Chris F. Masse August 5th, 2008

Tags: Jean-Claude Kommer, Peter McCluskey, Robin Hanson, subsidized conditional prediction markets, subsidized prediction markets

• Exchanges & Markets
• Comments(0)

Chris F. Masse August 5th, 2008

Should Google subsidize the Lunar X Prize contract on InTrade?

John Salvatier,

Our good friend Bo Cowgill might have already re-created those prediction markets on Google’s internal prediction exchange at a marginal cost of zero US dollar. No need for him to “subsidize” external prediction markets.

[As an appendix, I precise that I am in favor of opening the enterprise prediction markets to external traders, for some questions.]

-

Subsidizing prediction markets is an old Robin Hanson idea that carries quite a heavy price tag.

Conditional prediction markets is a great idea on the paper. Many people (e.g., Mike Linksvayer) like the idea. However, here is what the uncritical Robin Hanson fanboys blogging on Overcoming Whatever won’t tell you:

• The first problem is that nobody trades those things.

• The second problem is that subsidizing those conditional prediction markets costs an arm and a leg.

• The third problem is that no major news media outlet has ever quoted the prediction market prices / probabilities generated by those conditional prediction markets.

Peter McCluskey could have rent a French mistress (or a French gigolo) for a full year with all the money he is spending on Robin Hanson’s idea. Or vaccinated the whole African continent against Malaria. See Peter’s comment, at the middle of the webpage, here.

Philanthropy and prediction markets are not mixing well —yet.

-

Tags: conditional prediction markets, decision-aid markets, event derivative markets, Peter McCluskey, Philanthropy, prediction markets, real-money prediction markets, Robin Hanson, subsidized conditional prediction markets, subsidized prediction markets

• All Best Posts Ever , Analysis (Industry) , Analysis (Meta) , Exchanges & Markets , Philanthropy
• Comments(2)

Chris F. Masse August 4th, 2008

Tags: conditional prediction markets, event derivative markets, prediction markets, Robin Hanson, Silas Barta

• Miscellaneous
• Comments(0)

Chris F. Masse August 2nd, 2008

- Robin Hanson

- Justin Wolfers

-

More profiles

-

Tags: event derivative markets, FaceBook, Justin Wolfers, Midas Oracle Network, networking, prediction markets, Robin Hanson, social networking

• Midas Oracle Network
• Comments(0)

Chris F. Masse August 2nd, 2008

Silas Barta

Tags: conditional prediction markets, event derivative markets, prediction markets, Robin Hanson, Silas Barta

• Analysis (Meta) , Exchanges & Markets
• Comments(0)

Chris F. Masse July 26th, 2008

Robin Hanson

(Nothing interesting in the link above. More craziness from Robin Hanson here.)

-

Tags: event derivative markets, markets, prediction markets, Robin Hanson

• Analysis (Meta) , Economics
• Comments(0)

Chris F. Masse July 23rd, 2008

Robin Hanson is trembling in his pants:

Coming soon after speculators were blamed for rising commodity prices, I fear this is bad news for hopes for legal prediction markets anytime soon.

-

The CFTC decisions are politically sensible in 4 areas:

1. The CFTC will never allow real-money prediction markets on sports. That’s too close to gambling, for some critics. (Some ventures have approached the CFTC with the idea for new financial instruments with sport hedging capability. We will see what the CFTC makes of that in the near future.)
2. The CFTC will never allow real-money prediction markets on politics that will allow economic agents to hedge against the future economic consequences of the election of one particular presidential candidate. Hedging on “Obama as 2009 US president” is too sensitive. I expect the CFTC to send HedgeStreet and the CME Group packing. The CFTC won’t classify political elections as “excluded commodities”, as those DCMs asked. (But it could be that the CFTC will find another way to allow DCMs to offer prediction markets on political elections. That could be.)
3. The CFTC will never allow real-money prediction markets on terrorism. The CFTC will tell Tom W. Bell to get lost in his Orange county.
   
4. The CFTC will never allow insider trading on public, real-money prediction markets. Robin Hanson has long argued that insider trading enhances the accuracy of the marked-based predictions. The CFTC will never rule in such a way. Plus, insider trading is a very touchy issue for the event derivative traders, who hate to get skimmed by people in the know. Rightfully, BetFair make their possible to enforce fair trading on their prediction markets.

-

Tags: BetFair, CFTC, event derivative markets, insider trading, laws, Politics, prediction markets, real-money prediction markets, Regulations, Robin Hanson, Sports, terrorism

• Analysis (Industry) , Regulations
• Comments(1)

Chris F. Masse July 17th, 2008

CX717 = “memory pills”

US scientists have invented a pill that can boost memory.

-

Invented by Dr Gary Lynch from the University of California.

-

-

John Delaney (CEO of InTrade) - (InTrade PDF file - CFTC PDF file):

Nearly all leading academics, not known for their attraction to unanimity, have publicly supported event markets. A great majority of these academics have been supplied with Intrade market data in the past, a service that Intrade intends to continue, for all study leads to an increase in transparency and understanding of event markets. It seems that the leading event market academics make no distinction between the benefits derived from academic owned markets like Iowa Electronic Markets and commercial market platforms like Intrade.

Yet many academics, with some notable exceptions, do temper their policy prescription to suggest a “safe harbor” for academic sites where research might be more generally available. As noted above Intrade has gladly supplied its event market data, typically free of charge to most of the leading prediction market academics and their students, and we are committed to encouraging the future study of event markets by continuing to supply our event market data free of charge or at very deep discounts. The academics that study event markets do a great service in developing our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of event markets. Some commentators suggest that market liquidity and breadth typically benefit all event market stakeholders. Thus far commercial platforms like Intrade seem to be providing the greatest depth and breadth in event markets.

As Intrade has been a staunch supporter of event market academic study, and supplies greater depth and liquidity in its event markets than any other platform, it seems strange not to be a preferred purveyor. Perhaps the predominant reason many academics have held back from advocating and treating all event markets alike is a sense that initiatives to clarify or unwind the legislation restraining the optimal development of event markets is unlikely to be achievable. It seems many academics and commentators suggest a slow bureaucratic and pragmatic caution rather than focus on the optimal result. While the optimal result may be more challenging to achieve, for consistency, for better price discovery for the benefit of all, as well as for the development of Intrade, we encourage CFTC to apply common goals, objectives and standards for all participants.

-

Prediction Market Industry Association - (PMIA)

4) Lobby for a clear legal and regulatory environment conducive to the productive adoption of prediction markets by individuals, firms, and governments, and ensuring free access to these markets by traders.

-

The PMIA’s first board is comprised of:

[...]
Robin Hanson (George Mason University)
Justin Wolfers (Wharton School – University of Pennsylvania)

-

Tags: CX717, Gary Lynch, Humor, Justin Wolfers, memory lapses, memory loss, memory pills, Robin Hanson

• Analysis (Industry) , Humor , Science
• Comments(0)