WORLDS #1 PREDICTION MARKET GURU IMPLIES THAT THE PREDICTION MARKETS ARE NOT MATURE ENOUGH.
2
Tag Archives: Robin Hanson
WORLDS #1 PREDICTION MARKET GURU DELIVERS THE SPEECH OF THE CENTURY, THEN LOSES HIS VOICE.
–
Combinatorial Prediction Markets – by Robin Hanson
Video + Slides
Slides from Hanson’-s site – PPT file
Folks, this is great stuff. I may blog about it, again, later on —-if I find time.
You can blog about it on Midas Oracle, if you wish. Or comment on it, just below. Do register yourself.
FAMOUS SCIENTIST TO ROBIN HIGH IQ HANSON: Science, which is a very long-term endeavor, does not need your stickin idea about scoreable predictions and track records. Please, go back to minding economic issues in your Ivory Tower, and let us run science our way, on our timing. Thanks. Appreciated.
Overcoming Whatever:
I don’-t really think the comparison with sports/business/weather forecasters really holds up, for a prosaic reason —- in particle physics, the timescale for experiments is years and decades, not days. There is no way to efficiently grade/reward people on the accuracy of their predictions, and correspondingly no real incentive for anyone to make very quantitative predictions.
On the other hand, it’-s not as if there is no incentive to be right. If you devote your life to working out the ramifications of low-energy supersymmetry and it’-s not there, you won’-t get fired (if you have tenure), but on the other hand your life’-s work will be useless. Which is a pretty big incentive.
Posted by: Sean Carroll [from Cosmic Variance] | August 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM
—-
Sean, I don’-t understand the relevance of the timescale to the efficient grading of predictions. Given enough forecasts we can see a signal of accuracy above the noise of luck in individual forecasts. I agree that the longer the timescale the weaker are incentives from any given reward tied to scoring. But I’-m not really focused on incentives in this post – I’-m focused on whether it is reasonable for folks to crow about being vindicated when they weren’-t willing to make scoreable forecasts.
Posted by: Robin Hanson | August 11, 2008 at 12:35 PM
–
Scientists don’-t want to make scoreable forecasts.
Hence, it is impossible to collect track records.
Period.
Robin Hanson’-s idea has no application —-over than vanity blogging.
Let’-s go back to our prediction markets (where traders work, for free, as info collectors).
Let’-s not waste our precious time on fruitless ideas.
–
Track Record Collecting vs. Prediction Markets
Robin Hanson’-s false good idea: collecting track records.
But his post is the living proof that he is wrong:
- Prediction markets incentivize traders in researching issues (reading the experts’- works), making probability bets, and delivering a collective verdict-
- Experts don’-t like to state publicly their home-made probabilistic predictions —-as his post shows.
And if experts are not used to express scoreable forecasts, then, by essence, you can’-t collect anything. Hence, the superiority of the prediction market method.
Another false good idea from Robin Hanson.
–
Subsidizing real-money prediction markets and real-money conditional prediction markets
Should Google subsidize the Lunar X Prize contract on InTrade?
Our good friend Bo Cowgill might have already re-created those prediction markets on Google’-s internal prediction exchange at a marginal cost of zero US dollar. No need for him to “-subsidize”- external prediction markets.
[As an appendix, I precise that I am in favor of opening the enterprise prediction markets to external traders, for some questions.]
–
Subsidizing prediction markets is an old Robin Hanson idea that carries quite a heavy price tag.
Conditional prediction markets is a great idea on the paper. Many people (e.g., Mike Linksvayer) like the idea. However, here is what the uncritical Robin Hanson fanboys blogging on Overcoming Whatever won’-t tell you:
- The first problem is that nobody trades those things.
- The second problem is that subsidizing those conditional prediction markets costs an arm and a leg.
- The third problem is that no major news media outlet has ever quoted the prediction market prices / probabilities generated by those conditional prediction markets.
Peter McCluskey could have rent a French mistress (or a French gigolo) for a full year with all the money he is spending on Robin Hanson’-s idea. Or vaccinated the whole African continent against Malaria. See Peter’-s comment, at the middle of the webpage, here.
Philanthropy and prediction markets are not mixing well —-yet.
–
How Robin Hanson is dealing with his gadfly: He is trying to extirp him off the Web. (I am not sure the gadfly will take the bait. He seems slightly paranoid.)
The FaceBook profiles of the 2 most important men of the field of prediction markets
THE HUMAN GADFLY WHOSE OBJECTIONS ROBIN HANSON IS DUCKING…???…
Silas Barta
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
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
CX717 = “-memory pills”-
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)
–