Go Back   MajorWager Forums > MW - Online Sportsbooks > Mess Hall
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Mess Hall Online Sportsbook Discussion

LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2008, 03:50 PM
Rogthedodger Rogthedodger is offline
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,871
Default The Case for Decrimininalization of Prediction Markets...By Jay Graziani

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 "betting exchanges" 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:

The concept behind using prediction markets as a decision-making tool is simple. "Shares" 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 "terrorist strike market", unveiled a little too close to 9/11 to be palatable to the general public. The official name was the "Policy Analysis Market", 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 "grotesque" and "stupid", 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 "gambling". 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 "no-action letter" 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&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&P 500 will close at on a particular date. Distancing prediction markets from "illegal" 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.

Jay Graziani
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2008, 04:57 PM
j j is offline
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,558

Interesting stuff. It's not going to change hearts and minds in a mass way. But there's no doubt that useful information is produced when people are allowed to buy and sell uncertainty, and if enough policy wonk types start to see the light it can't be a bad thing for sports bettors.

Here is a link to the article in the magazine Science that to which Jay refers.

Here is another link to a podcast of another of the authors (Cass Sunstein) chatting about prediction markets and related topics.

EveryZing - EconTalk*-*Sunstein on Infotopia, Information and Decision-Making
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2008, 07:25 PM
Rogthedodger Rogthedodger is offline
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,871

Thanks, j....appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2008, 08:57 PM
drunkguy drunkguy is offline
MW Mod & Writer, Jay Graziani
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 8,678
Send a message via MSN to drunkguy Send a message via Yahoo to drunkguy

strange timing, but just got this email

sounds like there is going to be some action on this issue in the near future


Hello dear Midas Oracle members,

This is a mass e-mail to all the people registered on Midas Oracle. See at the
bottom of this e-mail for how to opt out.

As you all know, the CFTC has released a "concept release" on what they call
the "event markets" ---which I translate by "non-hedgeable event derivative
CFTC’s Concept Release on the Appropriate Regulatory Treatment of Event Contracts | Midas Oracle .ORG
73 FR 25669

For the legal background on this, see the Arnold & Porter lawyers:

The CFTC is expecting comments from us:
Jason Ruspini will answer SOME of these CFTC questions. — 12 days left, Jason. | Midas Oracle .ORG
</title> <script id="ssInfo" type="text/xml" warning="DO NOT MODIFY!"> <ssinfo> <fragmentinstance id="fragment1" fragmentid="cftcHeader2" library="server:CFTC000041"></fragmentinstance> <fragmentinstance id="fragment2" fragmentid="cftcCSS" library="s

Notably, Vernon Smith has already provided a comment:
WEB EXCLUSIVE: What Vernon Smith told the CFTC about the social utility of the event derivative markets —the so-called “prediction markets” | Midas Oracle .ORG

The legal framework of the CFTC will not cover prediction markets on sports
(triple alas), and prediction markets that can be used for hedging
(HedgeStreet-like prediction exchanges are already regulated by the CFTC).
However, one thing still up in the air seems to be whether the CFTC should allow
FOR-PROFIT prediction exchanges ---unlike the Iowa Electronic Markets, which is
not for profit, as you all know.
IEM - Iowa Electronic Markets - The University of Iowa
CFTC’s no-action letters to the Iowa Electronic Markets (IEM) | Midas Oracle .ORG

We favor FOR PROFIT prediction exchanges, but some forces are at work to push
for NOT-FOR-PROFIT prediction exchanges only:
The American Enterprise Institute’s proposals to legalize real-money prediction markets in the United States of America | Midas Oracle .ORG
Reg-Markets Center

If you share our views, maybe you could write to the CFTC, or support Jason
Ruspini ( ) who is drafting a response to the CFTC, or
somebody else who would write to the CFTC to support these views.
COMMENTS TO THE CFTC: What to expect from Tom W. Bell and Jason Ruspini | Midas Oracle .ORG


Chris Masse
Midas Oracle .ORG - Prediction Markets For All

Last edited by drunkguy : 06-27-2008 at 09:38 AM.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
arrest in ten-year-old cold case...RAMSEY MURDER CASE jag Mess Hall 80 07-10-2008 07:15 AM
Prediction Ironlock Mess Hall 3 08-05-2005 04:35 PM
Prediction mauroder Soccer and Tennis 3 08-30-2002 09:54 PM
NFL Markets BETINTERNET.COM Mess Hall 0 06-26-2001 12:22 AM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:19 PM.

Please be advised that if you are wagering over the internet, this is illegal in many jurisdictions. A wagering site may be operating legally at their location but it may still be illegal for you to wager from your location. We suggest you check on the legal situation from any jurisdiction in which you may wager.

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6