I think the a€?small, secretive committeea€? explanation is weak .
Bradbury does an excellent job sifting through the shifting coalitions revealed in the three rounds of IOC voting. Neither Madrid nor Toyko showed any significant ability to attract votes as the rounds proceeded. It was going to be Rio or Chicago all along, but Chicago was weakest in the four-way vote and lost early, leaving the games to go to Brazil.
Based on Bradburya€™s [analysis], Ia€™m convinced that the decision was pretty much a toss up between Chicago and Rio. That conclusion was also implied in the prediction market prices just before the decision. Sure, the prediction markets favored Chicago, slightly, over Rio- I dona€™t think you can call it a miss given the closeness of the decision.
- The voting mechanism of the IOC regarding the 2016 Olympics venue was known to the news media and the prediction market traders (like Ben Shannon) well before the vote.
- The prediction market traders gave a surreal boost to the Chicago probability.
- The reality check is that Chicago was the weakest candidate.
- Hence, the prediction market traders were not informed enough about the basic facts regarding the IOC voting, for the reason that the International Olympic Committee is governed by secrecy, politics, and pork.
Next: “-I have to agree with Chris. The market participants did not possess a sufficient level of information completeness to arrive at the correct prediction.”-
Previously: The Chicago candidacy, which was favored by the prediction markets (and gullible bettors like Ben Shannon), is the one that fared the worst.
Previously: Chicago wona€™t have the Olympics in 2016.
– BetFair’-s event derivative prices:
– InTrade’-s event derivative prices:
– HubDub’-s event derivative prices: