The most comprehensive analysis ever conducted of presidential primary polls:

&#8220-a handful of methodological missteps and miscalculations combined to undermine the accuracy of predictions about presidential primary winners in New Hampshire and three other states.&#8221-

Via Mister the Great Research Scientist David Pennock &#8211-who is an indispensable element of the field of prediction markets.

As I blogged many times, prediction markets react to polls&#8230- See the addendum below&#8230- – [UPDATE: See also Jed’s comment.] – Prediction markets should not be hyped as crystal balls, but simply as an objective and continuous way to aggregate expectations. So, if you think of it, their social utility is much smaller than what the advocates of the &#8220-idea futures&#8221-, &#8220-wisdom of crowds&#8221- or &#8220-collective intelligence&#8221- concepts told us. Much, much, much, much smaller&#8230- They all make the mistake to put accuracy forward. (By the way, somewhat related to that issue, please go reading the dialog between Robin Hanson and Emile Servan-Schreiber.)

–

Addendum

–

California Institute of Technology economist Charles Plott:

What you&#8217-re doing is collecting bits and pieces of information and aggregating it so we can watch it and understand what people know. People picked this up and called it the &#8220-wisdom of crowds&#8221- and other things, but a lot of that is just hype.

–

New Hampshire – The Democrats

–

The Hillary Clinton event derivative was expired to 100.

–

New Hampshire – The Republicans

–

The John McCain event derivative was expired to 100.

–

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)