Electability of Hillary Clinton according to InTrade-TradeSports = 65%

Eddy Elfenbein at Crossing Wall Street:

I written about this topic before but one of the things I find fascinating about finance is how you can use markets for two items to create an “implied market” for a third. This idea is at the root of all the complex financial instruments that caused problems for so many hedge funds recently.

I’ll give you a good example. At InTrade.com, the site where you can trade futures on real world events, you can buy contracts on which candidate will win his or her party’s nomination [*] next year. There’s a separate contract for which candidate will win the presidency [**].

Let&#8217-s break out some math, shall we?

If you divide the latter [**] by the former [*], you get an “electability” contract.
For example, according to recent prices, Rudy Giuliani has a 41.5% chance (I&#8217-m using the last price) of getting the GOP nomination and an 18.4% of winning the presidency. Soooo&#8230- the market believes that if he gets the nomination, he has a 44.34% chance of winning (18.4% [**] divided by 41.5% [*]).

(The only minor flaw is that could include a candidate winning but not getting the nomination, however, I’m content with dismissing that possibility as beyond remote.)

What’s interesting is electability in the general election can have little impact on how well a candidate does in the primaries. Some people, myself included, think that Ronald Reagan would have had a better chance of beating Jimmy Carter in 1976 instead of Gerald Ford, even though Ford beat Reagan for the nomination.

I should add that I don’t place a great deal of faith in these real world futures markets. I simply see them as fun games to enjoy, but not to take too seriously.
Also, the markets aren’t very liquid. A minor change could have a big impact on the smaller-priced contracts.

Having said that, here’s a look at some candidates and the market’s take on their electability (sorry Paulites and Edwards fan, your candidates were too low to get a useful meaure).

Candidate………To Get Nomination….To Win&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-Electability
Hillary&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-..59.5&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-.39.0&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-65.55
Obama&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-33.0&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-.17.2&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-52.12
Giuliani&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-41.5&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-.18.4&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-44.34
Huckabee&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-..18.6&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-7.2&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-38.71
Romney&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-..18.8&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-5.9&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-&#8230-31.38


Author Profile&nbsp-Editor and Publisher of Midas Oracle .ORG .NET .COM &#8212- Chris Masse&#8217-s mugshot &#8212- Contact Chris Masse &#8212- Chris Masse&#8217-s LinkedIn profile &#8212- Chris Masse&#8217-s FaceBook profile &#8212- Chris Masse&#8217-s Google profile &#8212- Sophia-Antipolis, France, E.U. Read more from this author&#8230-


Read the previous blog posts by Chris. F. Masse:

  • Comments are now completely open on Midas Oracle.
  • Albert Einstein, Chairman of the Midas Oracle Advisory Board
  • Erratic –but not Stochastic– Charts
  • Barack Obama is the 44th US president.
  • We already have prediction markets in future tax rates. It’s called the municipal bond yield curve.
  • DELEGATES AND SUPERDELEGATES ACCOUNTANCY
  • O’Reilly – Money-Tech Conference

InTrade are aware; BetFair are not.

No GravatarDavid Pennock, the Yahoo! research scientist, in April 2007:

One of the great things about InTrade (recently split from TradeSports) is that they are open to suggestions from wide-eyed academics. [&#8230-]

Exactly.

Previously: The London School of Economics chose InTrade-TradeSports over BetFair-TradeFair for floating event derivatives on global warming.

Previous blog posts by Chris F. Masse:

  • If Midas Oracle were to meet, would we use Huddle, and why?
  • WORLD’S SUCH A SMALL PLACE: Smarkets meet HubDub.
  • 50% of our prediction market luminaries have a MacBook.
  • STRAIGHT FROM OUR TRUISM DEPARTMENT: Money buys happiness.
  • Ron Paul (R) and Barney Frank (D) ally together to attack “the practical hurdles of the federal law, known as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, rather than its legitimacy”.
  • Clicking on the “SPHERE: RELATED CONTENT” button, at the bottom of each Midas Oracle post, will bring you a list of external webspots.
  • FRIGHTENING: Jed Christiansen’s prediction market blog was briefly overtaken by web spammers, who inserted invisible links to their commercial sites so as to game the Google PageRank system.

InTrades global warming prediction markets are more socially interesting than BetFairs ones.

No Gravatar

InTrade has just opened (and not publicized yet on their site feed) a set of global warming prediction markets &#8212-more exactly, event derivative markets on whether the world&#8217-s biggest national governments will soon agree to reduce CO2 emissions under the UNFCCC treaty. They are, in my view, more interesting than the pitiful BetFair&#8217-s prediction markets on global warming (2 out of 3, I mean) for the same two reasons (but which work positively, this time):

  1. Uninformed traders will be able to trade their opinions. Most of the US citizens have an opinion (positive or negative) on the US Congress politics and the federal legislations.
  2. Informed traders (hopefully, the market makers) will be able to follow some advanced indicators (in the Washington D.C. media, for instance) pertaining to this upcoming legislation (if any).

Once again, it shows that John Delaney&#8217-s InTrade is the King of the Prediction Markets &#8212-and that BetFair-TradeFair is painfully playing catch-up.

Here&#8217-s the InTrade contract statement for the US &#8212- (USA agrees before end of 2009 to reduce CO2 emissions by 10% or more by year 2025):

A contract will settle (expire) at 100 ($10.00) if the United States agrees before the end of 2009 to reduce CO2 emissions by the amount specified in the contract by the year 2025 (relative to the 1990 emissions baseline).

A contract will settle (expire) at 0 ($0.00) if the United States DOES NOT agree before the end of 2009 to reduce CO2 emissions by the amount specified in the contract by the year 2025 (relative to the 1990 emissions baseline).

Any reduction target must be part of a United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) [*] agreement reached before the end of 2009. Any agreement to reduce CO2 emissions made outside of the UNFCC will not be considered for expiry purposes.

A reduction target does not have to be ratified for the contracts to be expired – only agreed to under the UNFCC. [*]

Expiry will be based on official and public announcements from US officials or the UNFCC Secretariat, as reported in three independent and reliable media sources.

Due to the nature of this contract please also see Contract Rule 1.7 Unforeseen Circumstances.

The Exchange reserves the right to invoke Contract Rule 1.8 (Time Protection) if deemed appropriate.

Any changes to the result after the contract has expired will not be taken into account – Exchange Rule 1.4

Please contact the exchange by emailing [email protected] if you have any questions regarding this contract before you place a trade.

Important:
Please contact the Exchange if you have any query or uncertainty (including how it may be settled) about this Contract, the Rule above or the Contract Rules before you trade.

There are 4 other contracts (E.U., Russia, Japan, and China+India).

[*] There are 3 &#8220-C&#8221-s actually. Those Irish bozos are not even able to spell it correctly. &#8211-&gt- UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). Look at the logo, below.

UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)

&#8212-

UPDATE: Mike Linksvayer&#8217-s comment&#8230-

They’d be even more interesting if offered in combination with electoral outcomes and more yet if offered in combination with climate outcomes. I’m happy to see BINLADEN+MUSHARRAF contracts recently added, but volume is almost nil. Intrade (or someone new) will need better technology to be really socially interesting — be a source of many contingent probabilities. Many explicit combination contracts is just unworkable. I’m also happy to see Intrade offering several multi-year contracts, of which the climate ones are a good example. I believe the Google Lunar contract is currently the longest term one, expiring in 2012. I’m rooting for Intrade and for something better to come along, simultaneously. :)

UPDATE #2: I have just found out, this Sunday afternoon, thanks to a tip from Ralf Martin, that the InTrade global warming prediction markets were set up in collaboration with the London School of Economics&#8217- Centre for Economic Perfomance.

UPDATE #3: InTrade have corrected the spelling on Saturday, December 15, 2007.

NEXT: The London School of Economics chose InTrade-TradeSports over BetFair-TradeFair for floating event derivatives on global warming.

Previous blog posts by Chris F. Masse:

  • Since YooPick opened their door, Midas Oracle has been getting, daily, 2 or 3 dozens referrals from FaceBook.
  • US presidential hopeful John McCain hates the Midas Oracle bloggers.
  • If you have tried to contact Chris Masse thru the Midas Oracle Contact Form, I’m terribly sorry to inform you that your message was not delivered to the recipient.
  • THE CFTC’s SECRET AGENDA —UNVEILED.
  • “Over a ten-year period commencing on January 1, 2008, and ending on December 31, 2017, the S & P 500 will outperform a portfolio of funds of hedge funds, when performance is measured on a basis net of fees, costs and expenses.”
  • Meet professor Thomas W. Malone (on the right), from the MIT’s Center for Collective Intelligence.
  • Tom W. Bell rebuts the puritan and sterile petition organized by the American Enterprise Institute (which has on its payroll Paul Wolfowitz, the bright masterminder of the Iraq war).

Small comforts of prediction markets

No Gravatar

Yesterday I had dinner with a friend I hadn&#8217-t seen for a few years. I asked what he&#8217-d been doing, apart from being a nerd, and he said he&#8217-d been spending too much time following the U.S. presidential campaigns (actually just the Ron Paul campaign, but that&#8217-s not particularly relevant here). I realized that I don&#8217-t do this anymore. It could be because I&#8217-m maturing, but I&#8217-ll give credit to prediction markets.

Most of the yapping in the media is about the horse race and personalities, which I don&#8217-t care about, other than the status of the former. Instead I check prices at Intrade most days, which gives me a more accurate and much more concise status update than any amount of time spent reading or watching commentary.

Furthermore, betting that candidates I detest will win and against candidates I mind less, even in small amounts, really helps me not waste time thinking (mostly distressed thoughts) about the election.

So thank you prediction markets for the time and peace of mind!

If Musharraf goes, should we celebrate?

No Gravatar

Benazir Bhutto made a compelling case in the Sunday New York Times that she would be a better partner for the West than Musharraf. As she noted, $10 billion in U.S. aid since 2001 has not resulted in the elimination of Al Qaeda&#8217-s base there. There seems to be substantial reason to believe that Pakistan and its intelligence service are part of the problem, not the solution.

But would Musharraf&#8217-s fall be good news? It&#8217-s not obvious, since we don&#8217-t know who will replace him (i.e., Bhutto or someone more anti-Western). And even if it&#8217-s Bhutto, we don&#8217-t know how much help she&#8217-ll be once in office.

Intrade has just listed a contract that may help provide an answer. In addition to adding Musharraf to their foreign leader departure series (as Chris noted yesterday), they also added a parlay for Musharraf leaving and Osama being captured (at my suggestion). So if these contracts turn out to be liquid, we&#8217-ll be able to get a market-based estimate of the correlation between Musharraf and a reasonable summary statistic for whether outcomes in Pakistan are good for the West.

Of course, the usual caution about correlation and causality applies here. If Osama is caught tomorrow, it probably helps Musharraf keep his job. The longer term conditional probabilities should be less contaminated by this problem and the difference betweens between the prices of the long and short dated contracts might be used to contract a clean(er) estimate of a causal effect.

This seems like the most interesting geopolitical decision market to come along in a little while. But it&#8217-ll only work if it&#8217-s liquid. So those of you with Intrade accounts, put up an order or two. Your country needs you.

Price for Pakistani National General Election Date at intrade.com

Price for Pervez Musharraf (Pakistan) (Rule 1.8 Applies) at intrade.com

Price for Osama Bin Laden at intrade.com

The Giuliani manipulator buyer is back

No Gravatar

Judging from his hours, he&#8217-s based in the US.

We see you on the bid again, and your cosmetic offers as well. You are the whale in this market, but it&#8217-s a small pond. Be careful.

More details on this strange trading later&#8230-

Addendum:

Exhibit A: a view of trading known as &#8220-market profile&#8221- from March 1st through the 7th. Price is on the y-axis and volume is on the x-axis, instead of time. What typically develops on these charts are sideways normal-distribution-like patterns, which is unsurprising by the central limit theorem. Often, a jump to a new mean corresponds to an event. The pattern below is unheard of in liquid markets, except in risk-arb and other &#8220-peg&#8221–ish situations.

Giuliani Volume@Price 3/1/07-3/7/07

What first comes to mind is that the exchange is manufacturing volume with bogus &#8220-wash&#8221- trades, but the first time 33.3 printed (which is where half of the volume for March occurred as of yesterday), the price had been in the teens, and 33.3 marked an all-time high for the contract. This doesn&#8217-t make sense as fake volume nor some sort of internal initialization trade relating to TEN&#8217-s restructuring.

Yesterday&#8217-s trading suggests that a single buyer is pushing the market up and is currently successfully holding it at 40 while posting offers to appear as a passive market-maker. 1-2000 buy orders remained near 40 until about 10pm EST yesterday and returned this morning, EST. In these thin markets, this is quite a lot especially considering the high price level &#8212- and it is high since it&#8217-s almost a year before the first primary. Of course the recent buyer might be unrelated to whoever caused the anomaly at 33.3. To be continued..

Addendum:

After taking the weekend off, our buyer was back by 10am EDT this morning. He has to defend 33.3 which shouldn&#8217-t be too difficult considering that there are only 3 major candidates. Truth be told, 40 isn&#8217-t that high for this contract, and the price does more-or-less reflect recent polls, but this guy is awfully confident. There is a fine line between a manipulator and an overconfident trader who is too large for the market.