Red Monitor – Prognostic Exchange

No Gravatar

Red Monitor &#8211- Die 7&#215-24 Prognoseborse &#8211- German-speaking, Austria-based, real-money prediction exchange –

Globaler Marktplatz fur Prognosen.

Actually, the ABOUT US page is in German, only. Hubertus Hofkirchner (CEO) has provided the following information &#8212-the final wording is mine:

Like HedgeStreet, Red Monitor chose the regulated path and is subject to the Austrian Finanzmarktaufsicht supervision. Red Monitor lives off a small fee on traders&#8217-s profits. Red Monitor&#8217-s market design is original and patented &#8212-and scientific and private use is free.

Hubertus Hofkirchner has written a short essay in English to describe the new market design used by Red Monitor, and how it is better than CDA &#8212-or so he says. I leave the commentary to the specialists.

I&#8217-m more interested in one marketing point: Wouldn&#8217-t it make sense to have an English-speaking platform so as to attract international traders? Is Red Monitor restricted to Austrians and Germans?

If Hubertus Hofkirchner wants to leave a comment below, I&#8217-ll be happy to pass the information. He can cross-post his text here, at Midas Oracle, if he wishes.

Also, I know some of the German beta traders. If they want to pass some tips to me, I&#8217-m all ears. One of my source said that the Red Monitor&#8217-s frontpage looks like a stock exchange portal. Indeed. So my next question is (as I can&#8217-t read German, alas): Is Red Monitor in the content business, too?


Full list of English-speaking prediction exchanges at CFM



Hubertus Hofkirchner (Red Monitor CEO) has posted a comment&#8230-

Hello Chris,

Just a short note in reply to your questions following our Public-Beta launch.

“Better than CDA” — is a bit strong because there are many dimensions on which one could compare market mechanisms. There are however quite a few differences to conventional mechanisms some of which may well prove highly advantageous. I will list a few (not exhaustive):

1. The RED mechanism can capture and mathematically measure “price information”.
2. RED, as a market place, monetizes “price information” for those who have or need it.
3. The creation of predictive information &#8211- in principle &#8211- does not depend on liquidity.
4. RED distinguishes between two types of risk, one measured by volatility and one by yield (the Price of Uncertainty).
5. RED’s RealPrice data set provides new methods to identify price distortions of all kinds.

“English” – “Restricted to Austrians and Germans” – Redmonitor’s underlying platform is designed to support multi-language and multi-currency operations, in principle. As you can imagine there are many tasks which must be done before we can activate these capabilities. We will announce other languages and operating constituencies outside the European Community as and when available, so bear with us.


Best regards,
Hubertus Hofkirchner
Red Monitor


And check Jason Ruspini&#8217-s comment&#8230-

From what I can gather, the RED mechanism has more in common with traditional options than the prediction markets we would recognize. […]

PEAR lab (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) – REDUX – Retrocausality in physics

No Gravatar

In my previous blog post, I said that Princeton professor Robert Jahn has been unable of finding the right hypothesis about the so-called &#8220-psychic phenomena&#8221- (if any). I mentioned the work of a theoretical physicist, Olivier Costa de Beauregard, who interprets the E.P.R. paradox using the concept of &#8220-retrocausality&#8221- (the reversal of the arrow of time). I said that, speaking of the so-called &#8220-psychic ability&#8221- (if any), one could interpret the so-called &#8220-precognition&#8221- (if any) as a reversal of the psychological arrow of time, where the mind could receive information coming from its own future.

Well, today, via Jason Kottke, we have some news from the scientific world that scratches this concept of &#8220-retrocausality&#8221- (which we should not confuse with &#8220-finality&#8221-, I was told), and which seems to comfort the Costa de Beauregard&#8217-s interpretation:

Quantum theory describes the behavior of matter and energy at the atomic and subatomic levels, a level of reality where most of the more familiar Newtonian laws of physics (why planets spin, airplanes fly and baseballs curve) no longer apply. The problem with quantum theory, put simply, is that it&#8217-s really weird. Findings at the quantum level don&#8217-t fit well with either Newton&#8217-s or Einstein&#8217-s view of reality at the macro level, and attempts to explain quantum behavior often appear inherently contradictory. &#8220-There&#8217-s a whole zoo of quantum paradoxes out there,&#8221- Cramer said. &#8220-That&#8217-s part of the reason Einstein hated quantum mechanics.&#8221- One of the paradoxes of interest to Cramer is known as &#8220-entanglement.&#8221- It&#8217-s also known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, named for the three scientists who described its apparent absurdity as an argument against quantum theory. Basically, the idea is that interacting, or entangled, subatomic particles such as two photons &#8212- the fundamental units of light &#8212- can affect each other no matter how far apart in time or space. &#8220-If you do a measurement on one, it has an immediate effect on the other even if they are separated by light years across the universe,&#8221- Cramer said. If one of the entangled photon&#8217-s trajectory tilts up, the other one, no matter how distant, will tilt down to compensate. Einstein ridiculed the idea as &#8220-spooky action at a distance.&#8221- Quantum mechanics must be wrong, the father of relativity contended, because that behavior requires some kind of &#8220-signal&#8221- passing between the two particles at a speed faster than light.

This is where going backward in time comes in. If the entanglement happens (and the experimental evidence, at this point, says it does), Cramer contends it implies retrocausality. Instead of cause and effect, the effect comes before the cause. The simplest, least paradoxical explanation for that, he says, is that some kind of signal or communication occurs between the two photons in reverse time. It&#8217-s all incredibly counterintuitive, Cramer acknowledged. But standard theoretical attempts to deal with entanglement have become a bit tortured, he said. As evidence supporting quantum theory has grown, theorists have tried to reconcile the paradox of entanglement by basically explaining away the possibility of the two particles somehow communicating. &#8220-The general conclusion has been that there isn&#8217-t really any signaling between the two locations,&#8221- he said. But Cramer said there is reason to question the common wisdom. Cramer&#8217-s approach to explaining entanglement is based on the proposition that particles at the quantum level can interact using signals that go both forward and backward in time. It has not been the most widely accepted idea. But new findings, especially a recent &#8220-entangled photon&#8221- experiment at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, testing conservation of momentum in photons, has provided Cramer with what he believes is reason for challenging what had been an untestable, standard assumption of quantum mechanics.


Parting Shot: If &#8220-psychological retrocausality&#8221- (&#8220-precognition&#8221-, actually) could be engineered one day, then we could make a killing on prediction markets. I could have sold short the SENATE.GOP.2006 contract at TradeSports, and made as much money as scientist David Pennock did (or so he claims &#8212-and I saw that some vendor also made this self-interested and undocumented claim).