Not his best piece.
I’-m sure he’-ll produce a better piece on Freaknomics, or Marginal Revolution, later on. Or in one of his papers.
Previous blog posts by Chris F. Masse:
- Last year’s best April Fool’s Day Joke had something to do with the Wisdom Of Crowds.
- Will HedgeStreet USA, the hypothetical InTrade USA, and the hypothetical TradeFair USA, be regulated in the future by a merged SEC+CFTC regulatory structure?
- WORST THAN ELIOT SPITZER (if it were possible): Formula One boss, Max Mosley, had sado-masochist sex with 5 prostitutes, for 5 hours (!!), reenacting a concentration camp scene (!!) in which he played the role of both Nazi guard and inmate.
- Is BetFair Poker a booby trap for the gullible novices? Does The Sporting Exchange (the operator of the BetFair brands) help gangs plucking down innocent recreational poker players?? To get an inkling, don’t read The Guardian, seeded by the BetFair spin doctor- read Midas Oracle.
- The video that the technologically retarded BetFair spin doctor should watch.
Wolfers’ response to one of the greatest upsets in prediction markets history is lame.
Yes, outsiders do win, and for many different reasons.
Often, as is the case with Clinton in New Hampshire, it is simply because they have been mis-priced by the market.
Wolfers would have done better to have tried to explain why this happened. To explain why it was that the wisdom of the crowd did not take into account such factors as; the independence of New Hampshire’s voters; the fact that many had told the polls that they would not make up their minds until the final hours of the campaign; the fact that historically (Jackson/Dukakis) many voters say that they will vote for a black candidate and then do not etc…
The crowd in this instance behaved like lemmings – their behaviour heavily influenced by the polls; many of which, had actually taken their readings long before voting began…………………….
“why it was that the wisdom of the crowd did not take into account such factors as”
Did you? Where is your track record, if you’re such a great political predictor?
—
“The crowd in this instance behaved like lemmings – their behaviour heavily influenced by the polls;”
I like lemmings. Wolves feed on lemmings, in winter. What is important for me is that PMs give me a quick, most-of-the-time accurate reading —something that I cannot get with the pundits. I’m with John Tierney on that. PMs is a time-saving tool.
Wolfers is a better economist than pundit or editorialist (not that he is bad at the latter, but just much better at the former), so for his best answer I’d look forward to the analysis of the massive dataset that he mentions he and co-researchers are collecting.
In the meantime, I wouldn’t mind seeing more from Wolfers on Freakonomics or the next WSJ entry or elsewhere, but then I’m always in favor of other people working harder to write things of interest to me.
But I’m wondering whether one more “why were prediction markets wrong in New Hampshire” article in really necessary at the present. The question has been asked and answered many times now at the level of gut feeling, raw opinion, and considered logic. Hanson is right, Masse is right, and Wolfers in the article cited above is all right, too. So I think let it go for now, and if anyone still cares in a week then let the research begin.
I think this is another “Pentagon moment” for prediction markets. A lot of attention is being paid to prediction markets, and it looks bad, but it will all turn out just fine.
Consider that the criticism is a product of high expectations — people are complaining that, contrary to expectations, the markets were not better than the polls. There is lots to argue about with that phrasing, but my point is that there seems to be a broad base of relatively high expectations that wasn’t evident in the press six months ago.
Wolfers’ response to one of the greatest upsets in prediction markets history is lame.
Yes, outsiders do win, and for many different reasons.
Often, as is the case with Clinton in New Hampshire, it is simply because they have been mis-priced by the market.
Wolfers would have done better to have tried to explain why this happened. To explain why it was that the wisdom of the crowd did not take into account such factors as; the independence of New Hampshire’s voters; the fact that many had told the polls that they would not make up their minds until the final hours of the campaign; the fact that historically (Jackson/Dukakis) many voters say that they will vote for a black candidate and then do not etc…
The crowd in this instance behaved like lemmings – their behaviour heavily influenced by the polls; many of which, had actually taken their readings long before voting began…………………….
“why it was that the wisdom of the crowd did not take into account such factors as”
Did you? Where is your track record, if you’re such a great political predictor?
—
“The crowd in this instance behaved like lemmings – their behaviour heavily influenced by the polls;”
I like lemmings. Wolves feed on lemmings, in winter. What is important for me is that PMs give me a quick, most-of-the-time accurate reading —something that I cannot get with the pundits. I’m with John Tierney on that. PMs is a time-saving tool.
Wolfers is a better economist than pundit or editorialist (not that he is bad at the latter, but just much better at the former), so for his best answer I’d look forward to the analysis of the massive dataset that he mentions he and co-researchers are collecting.
In the meantime, I wouldn’t mind seeing more from Wolfers on Freakonomics or the next WSJ entry or elsewhere, but then I’m always in favor of other people working harder to write things of interest to me.
But I’m wondering whether one more “why were prediction markets wrong in New Hampshire” article in really necessary at the present. The question has been asked and answered many times now at the level of gut feeling, raw opinion, and considered logic. Hanson is right, Masse is right, and Wolfers in the article cited above is all right, too. So I think let it go for now, and if anyone still cares in a week then let the research begin.
I think this is another “Pentagon moment” for prediction markets. A lot of attention is being paid to prediction markets, and it looks bad, but it will all turn out just fine.
Consider that the criticism is a product of high expectations — people are complaining that, contrary to expectations, the markets were not better than the polls. There is lots to argue about with that phrasing, but my point is that there seems to be a broad base of relatively high expectations that wasn’t evident in the press six months ago.