“-In 2000 two men who liked to play card games and make a bet or two created the Ebay of betting –- an exchange where players could bet with each other.”-
Another proof that prediction markets don’-t put food on the table of their most ardent advocates.
If you don’-t get that, you have nothing to do in the prediction market industry.
Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative spokesman Michael Waxman responds to a House Committee on Financial Services hearing on Internet gambling on December 3, 2009:
[H.R. 2266, Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act, and H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Ac
“-The United States’- War against Online Gambling”- –- An analysis of how the US sought and failed to stamp out internet gambling.
“-The road to nowhere –- European gambling law from Schindler to Bwin Liga and beyond.”-. An analysis of European Gambling Law by Niall O’-Connor
The journey from the European Court of Justice’-s ruling in Schindler to its most recent ruling in Bwin Liga has been a long one, during which, many lawyers have enriched themselves. Little has actually been settled to date, and many fear that under the leadership of Michel Barnier, that that is unlikely to change.
But Intrade, although it’-s a product I greatly appreciate, has some problems when it comes to efficiently pricing futures. It’-s hard to get money into the site. The exchange falls into a legal gray zone. Transaction fees are comparatively high. And Intrade is stingy about paying interest on deposits, which adds a cost to having your money tied up. Not that many people have heard of Intrade, moreover, which isn’-t true for the stock market. And because of network effects, it’-s likely that volume/liquidity is somewhat nonlinear with respect to the number of participants in the market. So if these encumberances reduce the number of participants by, say, a factor of 10, it’-s likely that trading volumes are depressed by some multiple of that.
It was about time, and it is good news.
From: Emile Servan-Schreiber, NewsFutures
To: all friends of prediction markets:
A number of us have been talking recently and we are in agreement that the existing forums for prediction market enthusiasts and watchers, owned and controlled by single individuals, are lacking. We think the industry deserves its own independent, open, community-owned discussion forum. As such, we have created a new Google Group dedicated to fostering and furthering high-quality open debate and communication about prediction markets: the R&-D, the theory, the practice, the industry developments and upcoming events.
We strive for an open discussion and we commit to run the group with transparency, openness, objectivity, and independence. But we also believe some ground rules are needed to maintain a high quality of conversation that minimizes advertising, second-hand PR, or anyone monopolizing the conversation. We think some vigilance along those lines will make a positive difference in the communication and discussion. We hope you do too!
To join our new discussion group, click here:
Oliver Bernhard Pedersen
I renew my call for boycotting the $400 vendor conference on prediction markets. Don’-t pay $400 to listen to prediction market software vendors. (They should pay you $400, rather, to listen to their marketese.) They highly exaggerate the usefulness of prediction markets (and enterprise prediction markets, in particular). They don’-t have a single use case to demonstrate their usefulness. There is no way you will get any R.O.I. out of those vendor conferences held in a phone booth.
Plus, the SF organizer of these conferences is a guy that has the detestable habit of hiding his identity under many pseudonyms (a female secretary, a “-legal assistant”-, a foundation director, etc.). This guy is a mythomaniac. Stay away.
Read Paul Hewitt’-s blog, instead. It is free —-and it tells the truth.