Tag Archives: Justin Wolfers

ENDLESS VEEPSTAKES: Why you should never trade on VP prediction markets, and why their probabilistic predictions are as stochastic as Paris Hiltons daily dress picks.

Posted on by
Reply

No Gravatar

As I explained in early June 2008, the VP speculations that appear in the Press should never be taken seriously. Most of them (and you don&#8217-t know which ones) are a big orchestration of pure lies aimed at creating publicity, or wicked lies in the form of trial balloons. The aims of the political campaigns are to:

  • creating suspense (sometimes false) so as to generate free publicity-
  • sending a positive message to the supporters of each VP candidate-
  • letting the Press do the vetting of the VP candidates-
  • flattering the political journalists by leaking to them-
  • sending out false leaks so as to preserve the surprise for the scheduled announcement day-
  • sometimes, buying time to impose the head of the VP search committee as the most serious VP candidate (remember Dick Cheney in 2000). [Psstt… Funny enough, in the 2008 election, Michael Moore is pulling for Caroline Kennedy. :-D ]

All that means that there are no good primary indicators for the prediction markets on the Democratic and Republican VP-candidate selections.

I want to offer 6 remarks:

  1. Not all prediction markets are created equal. Some have good primary indicators (e.g., the prediction markets on the presidential elections, thanks to polls), while some other prediction markets have unreliable primary indicators (e.g., the prediction markets on who will be on the ticket).
  2. The prediction exchange executives (like InTrade-TradeSports CEO John Delaney) will never tell you that, because their job is to sell their wares, of course.
  3. The public needs prediction market analysts, who can judge the quality of the primary indicators of one particular prediction market, so as to separate the grains from the shaft &#8212-reliable prediction markets from unreliable prediction markets. (A prediction market analyst has also other functions, which I will blog about later on.)
  4. A prediction market analyst should have a dual competency &#8212-in a vertical (in our example, US politics), and in prediction markets.
  5. The expertise in the vertical (here, politics) should be a major, and the expertise in prediction markets should be a minor. Take a look at these 2 mainstream media news stories: the one written Jack Shafer in Slate (which I linked to at the top of this post), and the one written by Justin Wolfers in the Wall Street Journal. Obviously, the one that shows the most mastering is the one written by Jack Shafer, an American professional journalist who follows US politics for a living.
  6. The consequence of that for prediction market journalism is that the writer should be an expert in a vertical, and the editor should be an expert in prediction markets &#8212-and not the other way around.

That said, I wish the very best of luck to our good friends Caveat Bettor (who is betting on Tim Kaine) and Nigel Eccles (who is predicting Joe Biden). :-D

UPDATE: My (informal) Democratic VP-candidate bet is on Kathleen Sebelius. Hint, hint.

UPDATE: Gawker says that Joe Biden would be a horrible choice. I agree. Plus, he has denied to be the pick. He could have lied to reporters, though.

UPDATE: New York Times publishes portraits of all VP candidates.

DEVELOPING&#8230-

NEXT: While InTrade CEO John Delaney is deceiving the journalists to sell his wares, Tom Snee of the Iowa Electronic Markets is telling them the truth: BEWARE THE VP-CANDIDATE PREDICTION MARKETS, THEY JUST AGGREGATE RUMORS.

Share:

Google Web Search shows that I am the only blogger in the world to talk about prediction market journalism.

Posted on by
Reply

No Gravatar

Good thing: I&#8217-m a pioneer (following Justin Wolfers&#8217- footsteps).

Bad thing: The whole world does not give the first fig about &#8220-prediction market journalism&#8220-. We will spend much energy introducing them to this new concept.

–

Previous blog posts by Chris F. Masse:

  • BetFair angel investor Sean Park says that Jed Christiansen’s anti-sport comment to the CFTC stinks like rotten dead fish under the Egyptian sun.
  • Did ex-HSX Max Keiser cowardly give up on his prediction market TV journalism project? His website, predictionmarkets.tv, now redirects to a clunky YouTube video webpage.
  • Big Brother
  • Enterprise prediction markets in Israel
  • 2 interesting links — Monday Morning Edition
  • Track Record Collecting vs. Prediction Markets
  • Why don’t prediction market people submit conference proposals for SXSW 2009?

How InTrade CEO John Delaney tried to undo the great damage done to the prediction market industry by Bobs little minions (among them, Robin Hanson and Justin Wolfers)

Posted on by
Reply

No Gravatar

John Delaney (CEO of InTrade) – (InTrade PDF file – CFTC PDF file):

Nearly all leading academics, not known for their attraction to unanimity, have publicly supported event markets. A great majority of these academics have been supplied with Intrade market data in the past, a service that Intrade intends to continue, for all study leads to an increase in transparency and understanding of event markets. It seems that the leading event market academics make no distinction between the benefits derived from academic owned markets like Iowa Electronic Markets and commercial market platforms like Intrade.

Yet many academics, with some notable exceptions, do temper their policy prescription to suggest a “safe harbor” for academic sites where research might be more generally available. As noted above Intrade has gladly supplied its event market data, typically free of charge to most of the leading prediction market academics and their students, and we are committed to encouraging the future study of event markets by continuing to supply our event market data free of charge or at very deep discounts. The academics that study event markets do a great service in developing our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of event markets. Some commentators suggest that market liquidity and breadth typically benefit all event market stakeholders. Thus far commercial platforms like Intrade seem to be providing the greatest depth and breadth in event markets.

As Intrade has been a staunch supporter of event market academic study, and supplies greater depth and liquidity in its event markets than any other platform, it seems strange not to be a preferred purveyor. Perhaps the predominant reason many academics have held back from advocating and treating all event markets alike is a sense that initiatives to clarify or unwind the legislation restraining the optimal development of event markets is unlikely to be achievable. It seems many academics and commentators suggest a slow bureaucratic and pragmatic caution rather than focus on the optimal result. While the optimal result may be more challenging to achieve, for consistency, for better price discovery for the benefit of all, as well as for the development of Intrade, we encourage CFTC to apply common goals, objectives and standards for all participants.

–

This discourse should be given to read to children in public and private schools, all over the world.

–

How InTrade CEO John Delaney rightfully spanked the posteriors of Bobs little minions (among them, Robin Hanson and Justin Wolfers)

Posted on by
Reply

No Gravatar

John Delaney (CEO of InTrade) – (InTrade PDF file – CFTC PDF file):

Nearly all leading academics, not known for their attraction to unanimity, have publicly supported event markets. A great majority of these academics have been supplied with Intrade market data in the past, a service that Intrade intends to continue, for all study leads to an increase in transparency and understanding of event markets. It seems that the leading event market academics make no distinction between the benefits derived from academic owned markets like Iowa Electronic Markets and commercial market platforms like Intrade.

Yet many academics, with some notable exceptions, do temper their policy prescription to suggest a “safe harbor” for academic sites where research might be more generally available. As noted above Intrade has gladly supplied its event market data, typically free of charge to most of the leading prediction market academics and their students, and we are committed to encouraging the future study of event markets by continuing to supply our event market data free of charge or at very deep discounts. The academics that study event markets do a great service in developing our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of event markets. Some commentators suggest that market liquidity and breadth typically benefit all event market stakeholders. Thus far commercial platforms like Intrade seem to be providing the greatest depth and breadth in event markets.

As Intrade has been a staunch supporter of event market academic study, and supplies greater depth and liquidity in its event markets than any other platform, it seems strange not to be a preferred purveyor. Perhaps the predominant reason many academics have held back from advocating and treating all event markets alike is a sense that initiatives to clarify or unwind the legislation restraining the optimal development of event markets is unlikely to be achievable. It seems many academics and commentators suggest a slow bureaucratic and pragmatic caution rather than focus on the optimal result. While the optimal result may be more challenging to achieve, for consistency, for better price discovery for the benefit of all, as well as for the development of Intrade, we encourage CFTC to apply common goals, objectives and standards for all participants.

–

Excellent.

However, simply to say that we want the &#8220-optimal&#8221- solution won&#8217-t do the trick, alas. I&#8217-ll blog about that, later.

–

Pssttt… Did I tell you that I like InTrade CEO John Delaneys comment to the CFTC about event markets (prediction markets)? I cant remember whether I did tell you that already. (I do suffer memory lapses, sometimes. I know its a common affliction, because I see that Robin Hanson and Justin Wolf

Posted on by
2

No Gravatar

John Delaney (CEO of InTrade) – (InTrade PDF file – CFTC PDF file):

Nearly all leading academics, not known for their attraction to unanimity, have publicly supported event markets. A great majority of these academics have been supplied with Intrade market data in the past, a service that Intrade intends to continue, for all study leads to an increase in transparency and understanding of event markets. It seems that the leading event market academics make no distinction between the benefits derived from academic owned markets like Iowa Electronic Markets and commercial market platforms like Intrade.

Yet many academics, with some notable exceptions, do temper their policy prescription to suggest a “safe harbor” for academic sites where research might be more generally available. As noted above Intrade has gladly supplied its event market data, typically free of charge to most of the leading prediction market academics and their students, and we are committed to encouraging the future study of event markets by continuing to supply our event market data free of charge or at very deep discounts. The academics that study event markets do a great service in developing our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of event markets. Some commentators suggest that market liquidity and breadth typically benefit all event market stakeholders. Thus far commercial platforms like Intrade seem to be providing the greatest depth and breadth in event markets.

As Intrade has been a staunch supporter of event market academic study, and supplies greater depth and liquidity in its event markets than any other platform, it seems strange not to be a preferred purveyor. Perhaps the predominant reason many academics have held back from advocating and treating all event markets alike is a sense that initiatives to clarify or unwind the legislation restraining the optimal development of event markets is unlikely to be achievable. It seems many academics and commentators suggest a slow bureaucratic and pragmatic caution rather than focus on the optimal result. While the optimal result may be more challenging to achieve, for consistency, for better price discovery for the benefit of all, as well as for the development of Intrade, we encourage CFTC to apply common goals, objectives and standards for all participants.

–

Prediction Market Industry Association – (PMIA)

4) Lobby for a clear legal and regulatory environment conducive to the productive adoption of prediction markets by individuals, firms, and governments, and ensuring free access to these markets by traders.

–

The PMIA’s first board is comprised of:

[…]
Robin Hanson (George Mason University)
Justin Wolfers (Wharton School – University of Pennsylvania)

–

Science comes to the rescue of the leading academics suffering lapses of memory -those who, on Monday, signed on to be on the board of the Prediction Market Industry Association, which is supposed to lobby for the legalization of InTrades real-money prediction markets in the United States of America

Posted on by
Reply

No Gravatar

CX717 = &#8220-memory pills&#8221-

US scientists have invented a pill that can boost memory.

–

Invented by Dr Gary Lynch from the University of California.

–

–

John Delaney (CEO of InTrade) – (InTrade PDF file – CFTC PDF file):

Nearly all leading academics, not known for their attraction to unanimity, have publicly supported event markets. A great majority of these academics have been supplied with Intrade market data in the past, a service that Intrade intends to continue, for all study leads to an increase in transparency and understanding of event markets. It seems that the leading event market academics make no distinction between the benefits derived from academic owned markets like Iowa Electronic Markets and commercial market platforms like Intrade.

Yet many academics, with some notable exceptions, do temper their policy prescription to suggest a “safe harbor” for academic sites where research might be more generally available. As noted above Intrade has gladly supplied its event market data, typically free of charge to most of the leading prediction market academics and their students, and we are committed to encouraging the future study of event markets by continuing to supply our event market data free of charge or at very deep discounts. The academics that study event markets do a great service in developing our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of event markets. Some commentators suggest that market liquidity and breadth typically benefit all event market stakeholders. Thus far commercial platforms like Intrade seem to be providing the greatest depth and breadth in event markets.

As Intrade has been a staunch supporter of event market academic study, and supplies greater depth and liquidity in its event markets than any other platform, it seems strange not to be a preferred purveyor. Perhaps the predominant reason many academics have held back from advocating and treating all event markets alike is a sense that initiatives to clarify or unwind the legislation restraining the optimal development of event markets is unlikely to be achievable. It seems many academics and commentators suggest a slow bureaucratic and pragmatic caution rather than focus on the optimal result. While the optimal result may be more challenging to achieve, for consistency, for better price discovery for the benefit of all, as well as for the development of Intrade, we encourage CFTC to apply common goals, objectives and standards for all participants.

–

Prediction Market Industry Association – (PMIA)

4) Lobby for a clear legal and regulatory environment conducive to the productive adoption of prediction markets by individuals, firms, and governments, and ensuring free access to these markets by traders.

–

The PMIA’s first board is comprised of:

[…]
Robin Hanson (George Mason University)
Justin Wolfers (Wharton School – University of Pennsylvania)

–

How InTrade CEO John Delaney rightfully slammed Bobs little minions (among them, Robin Hanson and Justin Wolfers) as hypocrite and short-sighted -and how he told the CFTC to put Bobs petition (signed by Robin Hanson and Justin Wolfers, among others) in the trash can (where it belongs).

Posted on by
Reply

No Gravatar

John Delaney (CEO of InTrade) – (InTrade PDF file – CFTC PDF file):

Nearly all leading academics, not known for their attraction to unanimity, have publicly supported event markets. A great majority of these academics have been supplied with Intrade market data in the past, a service that Intrade intends to continue, for all study leads to an increase in transparency and understanding of event markets. It seems that the leading event market academics make no distinction between the benefits derived from academic owned markets like Iowa Electronic Markets and commercial market platforms like Intrade.

Yet many academics, with some notable exceptions, do temper their policy prescription to suggest a “safe harbor” for academic sites where research might be more generally available. As noted above Intrade has gladly supplied its event market data, typically free of charge to most of the leading prediction market academics and their students, and we are committed to encouraging the future study of event markets by continuing to supply our event market data free of charge or at very deep discounts. The academics that study event markets do a great service in developing our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of event markets. Some commentators suggest that market liquidity and breadth typically benefit all event market stakeholders. Thus far commercial platforms like Intrade seem to be providing the greatest depth and breadth in event markets.

As Intrade has been a staunch supporter of event market academic study, and supplies greater depth and liquidity in its event markets than any other platform, it seems strange not to be a preferred purveyor. Perhaps the predominant reason many academics have held back from advocating and treating all event markets alike is a sense that initiatives to clarify or unwind the legislation restraining the optimal development of event markets is unlikely to be achievable. It seems many academics and commentators suggest a slow bureaucratic and pragmatic caution rather than focus on the optimal result. While the optimal result may be more challenging to achieve, for consistency, for better price discovery for the benefit of all, as well as for the development of Intrade, we encourage CFTC to apply common goals, objectives and standards for all participants.

–

InTrade CEO John Delaney&#8217-s comment to the CFTC is a major contribution, and I&#8217-ll blog about it many times under different angles during this Summer 2008.

–

Justin Wolfers = Open Researcher

Posted on by
Reply

No Gravatar

&#8220-Open&#8221- in the sense described in this document.

Consider this:

  1. The ungated version of a document is provided.
  2. The references are provided in a special file
  3. The pieces of evidence are stated in a special file.
  4. The raw data are provided in a special file &#8212-so that you can apply your own statistical method to them.

–

Amazing.

–

Now, contrast Justin Wolfers with that British professor (the little poodle of a British prediction exchange), who, when asked by me what he meant by &#8220-betting markets&#8221- (a quite vague term that covered different things at different times), replied to me, &#8220-I meant what I wrote&#8221-.

–

The Case for Decrimininalization of Prediction Markets

Posted on by
Reply

No Gravatar

[This article is cross-posted from Major Wager.]

–

A recent article in the prestigious academic journal Science (May 16, 2008, Vol 320, p. 877-8) once again makes the case for regulated prediction markets, more commonly known as &#8220-betting exchanges&#8221- to online gamblers. The authors make the case that such markets are useful in forecasting future events with less error than traditional measures such as polling. This argument is hard to ignore, with the authors including 21 top economists from such esteemed institutions as Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, and the University of Pennsylvania. Notable among the authors is Justin Wolfers from the Wharton School of business at UPenn, an economist who has gained notoriety in gambling circles due to his work on such topics as NBA referee bias (highlighted in a May 2008 article from MajorWager: http://www.majorwager.com/index.cfm?page=27&amp-show_column=660).

The concept behind using prediction markets as a decision-making tool is simple. &#8220-Shares&#8221- are made available on an open market, and the participants use their capital (and the promise of profits) to make predictions on future events, which is incorporated into the share price. In general, information tends to be widely dispersed, and a market allows wide-ranging opinions to be gathered and consolidated into a market-wide prediction. In other words, an infinite amount of opinions can be aggregated, and an open market with potential for profit provides an incentive for individuals to make their opinions publicly known.

Prediction markets always get more than their fair share of press near the end of the 4-year U.S. Presidential election cycle. The Iowa Electronics Market, housed at the University of Iowa, is perhaps the most well-known. The authors of the Science paper show that, in the week immediately preceding the Presidential elections from 1988 through 2000, the Iowa Electronic Markets erred by an average of only 1.5 percentage points from the actual vote results, while the traditional Gallup poll was off by 2.1%. Numerous other studies have shown the superiority of markets compared to other forecasting tools.

Of course, there have been some dust-ups regarding prediction markets in the past, most notably the &#8220-terrorist strike market&#8221-, unveiled a little too close to 9/11 to be palatable to the general public. The official name was the &#8220-Policy Analysis Market&#8220-, and it was established by the Pentagon to act as a prediction market for Middle East political events. It was quickly scuttled after heated comments from U.S. Senators, calling it &#8220-grotesque&#8221- and &#8220-stupid&#8221-, due to the perception of using catastrophic events such as assassinations as profit-making tools. Regardless of its political correctness (and the misinformed opinions of a few politicians), such a prediction market still holds value as a glimpse into the collective mindset of everyone with an understanding of political currents in the region. Utilizing such a prediction market as a component of foreign policy decisions may have ultimately spared the U.S. much grief in Iraq.

In recent years, prediction markets have grown beyond academic and government roles. Dublin-based InTrade is rapidly growing and provides many more options than the Iowa Electronic Markets. Others such as MatchBook have focused more on sporting contests, but provide coverage of other events as demand calls. Of course, those outside the U.S. have access to the largest betting exchange of them all, the massive European markets of BetFair. The success of these exchanges speaks to the public interest and feasibility of prediction markets.

One factor holding back the growth of online prediction markets is their close association with the quasi-legal world of sports betting and internet casinos. InTrade has been fairly proactive in this regard, spinning off from Tradesports to clean up its corporate slate, but it is still knee-deep in the legal sludge surrounding offshore &#8220-gambling&#8221-. All have to deal with the legal and financial hurdles of operating offshore.

The authors of the Science paper propose that clarification of internet gambling laws is needed to exploit the benefits of prediction markets within the United States. Clearly, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006 is one such mechanism restricting the widespread use of prediction markets. Another is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the regulatory agency which oversees futures markets in the U.S. The CFTC has provided a &#8220-no-action letter&#8221- to the Iowa Electronic Markets, an assurance that they will not seek any enforcement action against the exchange. However, this protection is not absolute and may not trump state and federal law if challenged. The Science authors propose a number of legal reforms which will allow prediction markets to begin to gain acceptance within the U.S. financial regulatory structure.

By no means does the Science article condone large-scale public markets, at least not initially. They take a (typically academic) conservative approach, recommending new legal framework to allow for the establishment of small markets with limited scope so as to evaluate the promise and use of prediction markets. But baby steps are going to be a necessity in the growth and acceptance of regulated public markets.

Clearly, there are negative aspects to financial markets, and regulation certainly has its place. Bear Sterns, Enron, the S&amp-L scandal of the 80s, and the current housing bubble all caused tremendous loss of wealth resulting from missteps in the financial markets. The current oil crisis is due at least in part to speculation, leading to the introduction of no less than 9 separate bills in the U.S. Congress seeking tougher regulation over the trading of commodities. However, the existence of problems in the financial markets does not necessitate their dissolution. Likewise, prediction markets are sure to encounter bumps in the road, but their utility should far outweigh the risks.

Should prediction markets be legalized in the U.S.? Almost certainly. They would have benefit across numerous industries, from business decisions to political policies to financial forecasting. Unfortunately, this would require building an unlikely bridge over the Puritanical moral moat placed around gambling in the U.S. But there is no inherent difference in betting on who will win in an election than what the price of oil will be in 6 months, or what the S&amp-P 500 will close at on a particular date. Distancing prediction markets from &#8220-illegal&#8221- gambling, and instead likening them to regulated financial markets, will be a necessary first step towards broader acceptance.

The academic groundwork on prediction markets has already been laid, and offshore exchanges have begun to turn these concepts into functioning businesses. As these markets grow and begin incorporating more diverse opinions, we can expect their success rate at predicting the future to only grow. To restrict such a promising tool simply due to its perception that it is a gambling outlet is silly indeed.

6-25-08
Jay Graziani
MajorWager.com
[email protected]

–

[This article is cross-posted from Major Wager.]

–