The Chicago candidacy, which was favored by the prediction markets (and gullible bettors like Ben Shannon), is the one that fared the worst.


Look up prof Michael Giberson&#8217-s comment below my highly intelligent post, &#8220-Why an analyst should assess each newly created prediction market&#8220-.

And compare it with Paul Kedrowski&#8217-s bad analysis, followed by InTrade CEO John Delaney&#8217-s equally bad analysis.

Read the New York Times for more on why Chicago had not the slightest chance to begin with.

Previously: Will Chicago get the Olympics? Dona€™t bet on it. Too risky.

Next: Could we have divined that Chicago was a lemon?

Next: &#8220-I have to agree with Chris. The market participants did not possess a sufficient level of information completeness to arrive at the correct prediction.&#8221-