BetFair fixes the corruption that it suscitates (since short selling could be used by cheating athletes or jockeys).

No Gravatar

From Andrew Gelman:

In a letter published in the latest New Yorker, Douglas Robertson writes,

James Surowiecki, in his column on sports betting, writes, &#8220-How much difference is there, after all, between betting on the future price of wheat . . . and betting on the performance of a baseball team?&#8221- (The Financial Page, September 25th). Future markets in products such as wheat allow famers and other producers to shield themselves from some financial risks, and thereby encourage the production of necessities. In this sense, the futures markets are more akin to homeowners&#8217- insurance or liability insurance than to gambling on sports. But there is no corresponding economic benefit to betting on sports- on the contrary, there are serious costs involved in protecting the sports activities from fixing and other corruptions that invariably accompany such gambling activity.

This is a good point. I enjoy gambling in semi-skill-based settings (poker, sports betting, election pools, etc.), and betting markets are cool, but it is useful to step back a bit and consider the larger economic benefits or risks arising from such markets.

My Take: They are both misinformed. With an ethical real-money prediction exchange (a.k.a. betting exchange), this problem is easily solved. As I reported last month, BetFair has signed memorandums of understanding with TWENTY FOUR sports bodies. If the BetFair managers spot manipulation attempts, they will report the villains&#8217-s mischiefs to the sports bodies and, possibly, to the Police, too. How do you like that, Andrew Gelman?

Addendum (October 30): Andrew Gelman published a blog post on Midas Oracle, in response.

Prediction markets vs. Experts (a.k.a. pundits)

No Gravatar

Via betting expert Niall O&#8217-Connor, this Slate piece:

But in the run-up to this year&#8217-s midterms, Intrade futures prices are everywhere. RealClearPolitics offers &#8220-Live Intrade Quotes&#8221- alongside its polling summaries. HuffingtonPost now posts them on the front page in a snazzy, multicolored bar graph. The HuffPo graphics won&#8217-t help with Tradesports/Intrade&#8217-s defense. The headline shouts &#8220-Midterm Betting Odds,&#8221- and the caption adds, &#8220-Odds based on people betting real money on the Tradesports website.&#8221- Is betting real money on the midterms a form of online gambling?

My Answer: No. TradeSports-InTrade is a prediction exchange, which can give more objective outcome probabilities than bookmakers or sportsbooks, and the Huffington Post does a diservice to the public in presenting that as &#8220-betting odds&#8221-.

Never mind the current Congress – the real value of political futures markets like Intrade is their potential to put someone else out of business: pundits. Intrade&#8217-s predictions are erratic, unreliable, and meaningless – in other words, a perfect market in the conventional wisdom. Most Washington talking heads are just day traders in political gossip. Thanks to Intrade, you no longer have to listen to all the pontificators, because the market does it for you. In politics, it&#8217-s often hard to tell the difference between the conventional wisdom and &#8220-the wisdom of crowds.&#8221- One man&#8217-s CW is another man&#8217-s WC. As further proof that the market works, this wisdom is now available for free – which is exactly what it&#8217-s worth.

My Take: I agree with what I put in bold, but not with what&#8217-s in between and after.

Reality check on TradeSports-InTrades recent statement

No Gravatar

The spin doctoring goes like this:

TradeSports, the leading person to person retail trading exchange, continues to grow and innovate in the lead-up to this November&#8217-s US elections.

Reality Check: The world&#8217-s biggest retail, real-money prediction exchange is BetFair, actually.

TradeSports offers person to person trading services to thousands of registered members from all over the Globe who trade their opinions on hundreds of events such as the US November mid-term elections, the capture of Bin Laden, the Dow Jones at year end, and many sporting events.

Reality Check: TradeSports-InTrade is entirely dependend on its American clientele, which makes up for the bulk of its revenues.

We also provide prediction market data which is becoming the reporting standard on political and other future uncertainties to the world’s media, academia, investment businesses, state and political organizations.

Reality Check: Highly exaggerated, but true.

We will be launching a new “Express” trading interface in the coming weeks to further improve our service and to cement our position as the leading retail person to person trading exchange.

Reality Check: The world&#8217-s biggest retail, real-money prediction exchange is BetFair, actually. As for improving the service, besides the &#8220-Express&#8221- interface, I suggest to seek regulation from the Irish government and membership from the Independent Betting Arbitration Service. In contrast, BetFair is regulated in the U.K. and is a member of IBAS.

Recent and historical legal directives in the US and other countries have been aimed at organizations in the business of bookmaking, an activity in which TradeSports is not involved.

Reality Check: The real-money prediction exchanges are not exempted from the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act of 2006. Also, there&#8217-s no indication that the US Treasury and US DOJ will exclude the real-money prediction exchanges (a.k.a. betting exchanges) when they will enforce the law.

TradeSports is not a sportsbook or a bookmaker, and as an Irish Company, operating legally from Ireland, we will continue to provide our services to current and new registered members.

Reality Check: True. However, the problem will be how to make the money cross the Atlantic (from the U.S. clients to the Irish firm), now that Neteller is out of the US market.

Thanks to all our thousands of current and many new members, and those interested in our prediction market data for making TradeSports a phenomenon.

Reality Check: BetFair is a phenomenon, not TradeSports-InTrade, which a poorly managed company headed by some Irish people with no questionable ethics, who behaved like thugs badly during the NKM episode. [See David Pennock’s comment.]

Faulty polls screw up the political prediction markets.

No Gravatar

In today&#8217-s soapbox:

Yet it turns out that in 2002, IEM markets indicated that Republicans would lose the house. Which we now know is wrong. They were pretty consistent in their 2004 presidential prediction, however. I recall that Surowiecki discussed the fact that the predictive markets for congressional elections tended to be less accurate than the presidential ones&#8211-because fewer people got involved in the betting.

Wrong. Volumes are OK. If I remember well, the polls were wrong in 2002, so don&#8217-t look any further for the cause of failure of those IEM prediction markets.

Paper That Documents This 2002 IEM Debacle: Iowa Electronic Markets – (PDF) – by Paul Gomme – 2003-04-15

Until September, Republican control of the House was seen as a 50–50 proposition, while their control of the Senate received a probability of around 20 percent. In October, the likelihood of a Republican-controlled House fluctuated between 65 percent and 90 percent while the likelihood of a Republican Senate fluctuated around 40 percent. It was not until election day results came in that market participants locked in on the eventual outcome: Republican control of both the House and Senate. Of course, this outcome was generally a surprise: Neither pollsters nor political commentators called the Republican win in the Senate.

I Disagree With This Paragraph Of The Same Paper:

Better than Gallup? The IEM political markets have a couple of advantages over their closest “competitor,” the public opinion poll. One advantage is that data from the IEM are available virtually instantaneously and almost continuously. Results from polls are typically several days old when they are reported and are taken at discrete intervals. Consequently, data from the IEM are more amenable to studying events like the untimely death of a Senate candidate. A further advantage of the IEM is that contracts can be written based on intrinsically interesting events, such as who controls the House or Senate. Poll results require more massaging to answer such questions.

My Take: Give the polls a break, and quit saying that our predictive market-generated technology is a &#8220-competitor&#8221- to the polls. Without polls, the political prediction markets could return to the locker room. Plus, prediction markets aggregate probably [see comment] more than just the polls.

Hint: A public roasting of David Perry over his impersonating of George Gallup is in the tube and will be published soon on this blog.

An Email Interview: Alex Kirtland

No Gravatar

(A note from AK: So, in case you haven&#8217-t noticed, Chris has proposed email interviews as a way to get a bit more participation on MidasOracle. I&#8217-m happy to start off by answering his questions to me.)

Chris Masse: What is the best public explanation of prediction markets? As &#8220-stocks&#8221- (Hollywood Stock Exchange, Washington Stock Exchange), as &#8220-event futures&#8221- (InTrade), or as &#8220-event derivatives&#8221- (HedgeStreet)?

Alex Kirtland: Considering that most people have probably never heard of derivatives, that most of the rest don&#8217-t know much about futures, and that almost everyone has heard of the stock market, I&#8217-m going to say that treating prediction market contracts as stocks is probably the best way to go for the general user.

For example, saying &#8220-They&#8217-re like stocks, but different,&#8221- is easier for most people to understand than: &#8220-You&#8217-re buying a futures contract on the likelihood of an event occurring that pays out either 0 or 100 depending on the result.&#8221-

Starting with something familiar, and then introducing complexity, rather than trying to be accurate right off the bat, is usually a better way to go.

That said, if the majority of your users are traders in pork belly futures, then using the stock market as your metaphor to explain prediction markets may just confuse them.

CM: What is the best trading model from a usability perspective: one single class of securities ala TradeSports (where selling means short-selling the &#8220-yes&#8221- contract) or two classes of securities ala Iowa Electronic Markets (where selling means selling the &#8220-no&#8221- contract)?

AK: I don&#8217-t know the answer to that, and I&#8217-ve actually pondered over this for some time. I&#8217-d like to do usability testing/user research to try and figure this out. Just from an academic point of view I think understanding this would be fascinating. But also I think that this has implications beyond prediction markets. Certainly brokerage houses and exchanges might be interested in understanding how to make trading easier for people who may not know how to trade, or are less familiar with trading.

My hunch is that both models work (in fact both models do work), but which one is better is a question of context – who is the user- what is their experience trading- what is the market- is margin involved- if so, how do we communicate that to the user- and so on.

I know there is a large body of research on behavioral economics, which I&#8217-m not as familiar with as I should be, but I don&#8217-t believe anyone has ever researched this specific question.

CM: What is the best pricing model from a usability perspective: a continuous price (HSX) or a 0-100 price (TradeSports)?

AK: It depends on the situation. Sometimes they&#8217-re clearly inappropriate – a linear contract for a binary question, for example. One is not inherently more usable than the other. It&#8217-s more important how it&#8217-s presented to the user.

CM: Should the designer of a new trading screen be innovative or be subordinated to the users&#8217- mental model (if any)?

AK: This is a fascinating question. First understanding a mental model and being innovative are not incompatible things. The mental model is usually a starting point from which innovation can spring forth. This is why you do user research: so you can understand how your users think (or even if they do) about the task you want them to perform.

So, it&#8217-s not so much that innovation (or, better, interface design), is subordinate to the user&#8217-s existing mental model(s), but how do you take advantage of an existing mental model(s) to get the user to more easily do what you want them to do on your site.

Secondly, a lot of readers are probably asking, &#8220-what the hell is a mental model?&#8221- Briefly (and quite vaguely), a mental model is a mental representation of something. For example, most everyone has a mental model of how a restaurant works. You go in, there may be a host, you sit, you order, they bring you food, you eat, you agonize over whether you&#8217-re going to get desert or not, you pay, and then you leave.

There&#8217-s a lot of subtlety to this mental model. Things can change drastically depending on whether you&#8217-re at a diner, a food cart on the street, or a five star restaurant. But the basic process is the same.

It&#8217-s important to note, though, that in and of itself a mental model has nothing to do with the interface of an application. It is usually a hodge podge of heuristics, tasks and sub tasks, and so on, all jumbled together. They don&#8217-t necessarily need to be a true representation of the world, but they need to help the person act in the world.

Referring to the above example, my mental model of a restaurant allows me to go to all sorts of restaurants I&#8217-ve never been to before, have appropriate expectations about what will happen there, and act accordingly.

As an experience designer we&#8217-re not necessarily interested in shaping our interfaces to someone&#8217-s mental model – we don&#8217-t want all interfaces to be exactly like McDonalds – but we do want to be aware of them and take advantage of them &#8230- and not violate them either. We don&#8217-t want to build a restaurant and not serve any food, for example. Once you violate someone&#8217-s mental model of some thing, then they&#8217-ll have no idea what to do next.

Donald Norman&#8217-s book, The Design of Everyday Things, is a good place to learn more about mental models and how they should used when designing an inteface.

CM: Should prediction exchanges set up corporate blog(s) and why? (And if &#8220-no&#8221-, why not???)

AK: Trendio, The Public Gyan, and TradeSports, for example, actually use their blogs quite nicely. These blogs, generally speaking, tell people about contract expirations, changes in margin, new contracts, and so on. They&#8217-re very useful to the people who trade on these sites.

Other prediction exchange corporate blogs are nothing more than self-promotion. That&#8217-s not a bad thing, but it&#8217-s less useful for traders on the site, and more useful for the person promoting the site (or the blogsters covering that site).

Prediction exchange blogs shouldn&#8217-t be treated differently than any other blog: they should publish on a timely basis, and write about something that is of interest to their users. If they can&#8217-t manage that, then they shouldn&#8217-t keep the blog.

One way or the other

No Gravatar

Something for everyone in this week&#8217-s data on housing from the Census Bureau. Pessimists will note the alarming 6% plunge during the month of September in seasonally adjusted new building permits. That one-month drop from the already low levels of August leaves them down 28% from September 2005. News this week of rising delinquencies and foreclosures provides more fuel for the pessimists&#8217- fire.

permits_oct_06.png

Optimists, on the other hand, might see new evidence that the housing bottom has been reached in the encouraging move in the number of new housing units started. This was up 6% from August to September, though still down 18% year to year:

starts_oct_06.png

For those of us who were unsure before this week, we&#8217-re stuck in the same rut at the end of the week. The effect of this summer&#8217-s drop in mortgage rates should start to show up in next month&#8217-s home sales, and we&#8217-ll have to wait to see if that effect is sufficient to outweigh the possible dynamics from financial distress and rapidly changing expectations.

The optimists seem to be winning the argument as far as commodity markets are concerned. Commodity prices had been battered down as the dismal housing data came in during September. But over the last two weeks, copper, zinc, and aluminum have surged back up dramatically. It may be that the only way these prices will be kept in check is if GDP growth stays below 2% for the coming year.

And although the headline CPI showed a dramatic 0.5% drop within the month of September alone, Dave Altig is none too impressed, noting that more robust measures such as the median CPI are still up 3.5% year-to-year:

inflation_oct_06.gif

Mixed (as opposed to really bad) news for housing and &#8220-unwelcome&#8221- news on core inflation have eroded the likelihood that we will see the Fed cut interest rates by spring. Here&#8217-s the recent behavior of the March 2007 fed funds futures contract (subtract from 100 to get the implied interest rate):

march_ff_oct_06.png

At the start of this month, traders had been betting on a 5.0% rate (a cut of 25 basis points from the current value) by March. Those hopes have now evaporated, with the current consensus for a prediction of no change.

I&#8217-m wondering though whether &#8220-no change&#8221- might be the least likely outcome at this point. If we start to see some serious financial repercussions develop in housing, I&#8217-d look for a rate cut, and wouldn&#8217-t worry in that event about commodity prices, since I would expect to see commodities fall sharply on news of a big downturn in economic activity. On the other hand, if instead we have seen the bottom for housing and the core inflation numbers remain this high, I&#8217-d look for the Fed to tighten further.

Either way, you might want to exercise some caution before thinking you&#8217-ll pick up some homebuilder equities at these bargain prices.

MIT Center for Collective Intelligence – Play-money prediction exchange

No Gravatar

Yesterday, I blogged about the MIT CCI&#8217-s collective book project, &#8220-We Are Smarter Than Me&#8220-, which will be presented today at a live web cast (at lunch time, EST).

I completely overlooked that the MIT CCI is launching a play-money prediction exchange. The topics are CCI self-centric and thus totally uninteresting.

PREDICTION TOOL FAQs

What is a &#8220-Prediction Tool&#8221-?

The Prediction Tool on this site is based on the idea of prediction markets. &#8220-Prediction markets are speculative markets created for the purpose of making predictions. Assets are created whose final cash value is tied to a particular event or parameter (e.g., Will there be at least 10,000 registered community members by March 31, 2007?). The current market prices can then be interpreted as predictions of the probability of the event or the expected value of the parameter. Other names for prediction markets include information markets, decision markets, idea futures, and virtual markets.&#8221- (Source: Wikipedia)

OK I get it, sort of, but what does that mean?

We have made a set of predictions about the success of the &#8220-We&#8221- community. You get to buy and sell stock in these predictions based on how likely you think they are to come true. If the prediction turns out to be true, the stock will pay out $100 per share. If it turns out not to be true, the stock will pay out $0 per share.

The hope is that through trading stocks back and forth, the market value of the stocks will eventually closely match the probability of each event coming true.

My Question: Does anybody know which software/design the MIT CCI is using here?

The Answer (added October 25): Shared Insights runs the MIT CCI&#8217-s play-money prediction exchange with the software provided by Consensus Point.

BetFairs Annual Review 2006: How did the worlds #1 real-money prediction exchange (betting exchange) fare in 2005/2006?

No Gravatar

Pretty good, thank you. British betting expert Niall O&#8217-Connor reports that &#8220-Betfair has announced that during the year to 30 April 2006, it recorded year-on-year revenue growth of 35 per cent to ?144.7 million, with profits before tax up to ?37.8 million from ?23.1 million in 2005, an increase of 63 per cent.&#8221-

More information: BetFair site – BetFair Corporate site – BetFair Annual Review 2006 (PDF)

Highlights of BetFair Annual Review (the sub-titles and emphasis are mine):

1. Unlike TradeSports/InTrade, BetFair does not break U.S. laws.

In light of recent events in the United States we continue to monitor the situation. We wish to reiterate our well documented and long-standing policy of not accepting US customers, funds, or bets. For many years, we have followed industry best-practice to ensure that we are able to detect and block unwanted usage.

My Remark: A small number of U.S. residents has managed to open an account with BetFair, I&#8217-ve heard, because they managed to prove some kind of residential or banking U.K. presence.

2. Compared to BetFair, TradeSports/InTrade and HedgeStreet look like kindergarten toys.

The size and scalability of the site is demonstrated by the fact that there were over 1.3 billion bets placed on the exchange in 2005, which is more than all the previous years’ totals added together. We now regularly handle over five million bets per day, serve two billion page impressions a week and more than ?2,000 a minute is deposited onto the site. We now employ over 900 staff across five main offices in West and North London, Denmark, Malta and Australia. While we are beginning to experience economies of scale in many operational areas, we continue to recruit heavily in IT, Product Management and International Development. These new hires will accelerate our product delivery and competitive advantage in the years ahead. Customer numbers are also impressive. In the past year we have doubled the number of registered customers, with over 900,000 by the end of the World Cup. The number of monthly actives increased from 95,000 to over 150,000 by April 2006 […].

My Remark: Two bets make up for one transaction, right?

3. Unlike TradeSports, BetFair has signed agreements with sports bodies.

We continue to work closely with a number of sporting regulators, notably in horseracing, football and tennis, which highlights the importance of our information sharing agreements. A series of &#8216-MoUs&#8217- (Memorandum of Understanding) have been signed with sports bodies over the year, including the Rugby Football Union, Women&#8217-s Tennis Association, International Tennis Federation, Belgian Football Association, British Darts Organisation, Racing Services Tasmania, Racing Victoria Limited and, most importantly in light of the World Cup, FIFA. This brings the total number of agreements we have with sports bodies worldwide to 24.

My Remark: Twenty four. Impressive.

4. Unlike TradeSports, BetFair has applied its trading technology to other applications.

The poker market is particularly competitive and therefore it is important that we expand our product portfolio and diversify our revenue streams. We acquired PokerChamps, a Danish-based poker platform, in October, and from August this year Betfair&#8217-s entire Games portfolio has been hosted from Malta. We will continue to invest and improve the product to make it the most exciting poker offering. The Games offering was also extended with the launch of Exchange Baccarat [CFM: and recently Exchange Hi Lo], complementing exchange versions of Poker and Blackjack. These unique exchange-enabled products offer further opportunities for customers and reinforce our reputation for innovation.

My Remark: I&#8217-m not (yet) persuaded that the BetFair Exchange Games is such a great killer ap. What I see is a small number of existing BetFair traders playing this stuff. In the coming months and years on this blog, I&#8217-m going to elaborate on the X Universes, which is a concept that extent much further. If you&#8217-re a universe creator, a techie, a VC or an exchange manager, stay tuned- the future will be fascinating in this area.

My Question To Robert Hahn And Paul Tetlock: Would your proposal, discussed in your paper and in your New York Times Op&#8217-Ed, allow for one or some U.S.-based real-money prediction exchange(s) as POPULAR AND PROFITABLE as U.K.-based BetFair?

NEXT: The BetFair 2007 Annual Review = 2007 Results (ending April 30, 2007) – (PDF file) –

Previous blog posts by Chris F. Masse:

  • Americans love rankings, but Americans hate to be assessed subjectively.
  • A libertarian view on the Internet betting and gambling industry in the United States of America
  • The CFTC is going to close the comments in 10 days. We have 10 days left to convince the CFTC to accept FOR-PROFIT prediction exchanges (e.g., InTrade USA or BetFair USA), and counter the puritan and sterile petition organized by the American Enterprise Institute (which has on its payroll Paul Wolfowitz, the bright masterminder of the Iraq war).
  • The Numbers Guy
  • The CFTC Readings Of The Day —Thursday Morning Edition
  • The CFTC is going to close the comments in 11 days. We have 11 days left to convince the CFTC to accept FOR-PROFIT prediction exchanges, and counter the evil petition organized by the American Enterprise Institute (which has on its payroll Paul Wolfowitz, the bright masterminder of the Iraq war).
  • The definitive proof that FOR-PROFIT prediction exchanges (like BetFair and InTrade) are the best organizers of socially valuable prediction markets (like those on global warming and climate change).

Did the Korean Bomb help the Republicans?

No Gravatar

The biggest event in the news yesterday was the test of Korean Atomic Bomb, and it was bound to have political repercussions.

TradeSports has two contracts that measure the chances of GOP control after the November election- the SENATE.GOP.2006 and the HOUSE.GOP.2006.

These were both down yesterday by unusually large magnitudes given their recent volatility.

There was no other particularly bad news regarding the Republicans yesterday, hence I believe that effect of the bomb on the GOP was negative.