jorlowitz
07-16-2007, 11:37 PM
Prediction Markets ( "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market") are very cool tools which allow people to bet on real-life events (like, the probability of Guiliani getting the Republican nomination). Simply put, people buy and sell 'contracts' and if an event comes true, the contract pays. They're just one more way technology is harnessing the "wisdom of crowds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_crowds)" and they have been remarkably effective; they have much more accurately predicted the presidential victor in the last 5 presidential elections than traditional polls. So what's THE PROBLEM...??
Well, Slate Magazine recently released their Political Futures Market (http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/), which aggregates the three largest prediction markets (InTrade, Iowa, and News Futures). Of these, InTrade is by far the most comprehensive and trades with REAL money (whereas NewFutures is only play money). Yet, Slate has managed to... guess what? OMIT RON PAUL
That's right, even though Ron Paul is trading in 5TH place among the Republican Candidates with people betting REAL money on the campaign he's nowhere to be found on Slate (http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/republican-presidential-nominee/)(Guiliani: 39.4, Thompson:33.4, Romney:16.1, McCain 3.9, and Paul:2.8). Sure, 2.8 only indicates a 2.8% predicted likelihood of Paul's getting the candidacy, but it's still HIGHER than Gingrich (2.6), Huckabee (1.0), Hagel (0.7), Tancredo (0.3), Brownback (0.2), TThompson (0.1), and Hunter (0.0).
Slate (http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/republican-presidential-nominee/) even included Condoleeza Rice (0.4), and Jeb Bush (0.5) in the rankings! The real irony is that these markets have proven over more than 20 years to be less biased and more accurate than polls. Therefore, whatever concocted excuse Slate might have (i.e polling <1%), it has NO BEARING in a political futures market.
I let them know... perhaps you'll do the same?
Hi folks,
I'll jump to the pitch, since I presume you'll peg anything about Ron Paul's campaign as internet-echo gorged hype:
-Ron Paul is trading higher on In-trade than all candidates besides Guiliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain (G: 38.0 T: 33.4 R: 15.9 M: 4.2 RP: 2.8). He is higher than Gingrich, Huckabee, Hagel, Brownback, Hunter, Thompson, AND Tancredo of whom the only ones who come close are Huckabee with 1.2 and Gingrich with 2.5.
-Ron Paul has more Meetup groups, Youtube subscribers, and Myspace friends than ANY other candidate; he tops McCain in cash on hand, and he has a swarm of passionate supporters who are driving him out of the fringe and into a clear position amongst the top 5 republican presidential candidates.
-Surely his poll performance has been mediocre, but no worse than any of the so-called "second tier" candidates. Besides, aren't prediction marekts about harnessing the wisdom of crowds (internet crowds included) and not just those on Gallop's land-line list?
Thus my question... why is Ron Paul not in your market???
I'd like to see him not missing the next time I visit Slate. Thanks for the very cool feature.
Well, Slate Magazine recently released their Political Futures Market (http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/), which aggregates the three largest prediction markets (InTrade, Iowa, and News Futures). Of these, InTrade is by far the most comprehensive and trades with REAL money (whereas NewFutures is only play money). Yet, Slate has managed to... guess what? OMIT RON PAUL
That's right, even though Ron Paul is trading in 5TH place among the Republican Candidates with people betting REAL money on the campaign he's nowhere to be found on Slate (http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/republican-presidential-nominee/)(Guiliani: 39.4, Thompson:33.4, Romney:16.1, McCain 3.9, and Paul:2.8). Sure, 2.8 only indicates a 2.8% predicted likelihood of Paul's getting the candidacy, but it's still HIGHER than Gingrich (2.6), Huckabee (1.0), Hagel (0.7), Tancredo (0.3), Brownback (0.2), TThompson (0.1), and Hunter (0.0).
Slate (http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/republican-presidential-nominee/) even included Condoleeza Rice (0.4), and Jeb Bush (0.5) in the rankings! The real irony is that these markets have proven over more than 20 years to be less biased and more accurate than polls. Therefore, whatever concocted excuse Slate might have (i.e polling <1%), it has NO BEARING in a political futures market.
I let them know... perhaps you'll do the same?
Hi folks,
I'll jump to the pitch, since I presume you'll peg anything about Ron Paul's campaign as internet-echo gorged hype:
-Ron Paul is trading higher on In-trade than all candidates besides Guiliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain (G: 38.0 T: 33.4 R: 15.9 M: 4.2 RP: 2.8). He is higher than Gingrich, Huckabee, Hagel, Brownback, Hunter, Thompson, AND Tancredo of whom the only ones who come close are Huckabee with 1.2 and Gingrich with 2.5.
-Ron Paul has more Meetup groups, Youtube subscribers, and Myspace friends than ANY other candidate; he tops McCain in cash on hand, and he has a swarm of passionate supporters who are driving him out of the fringe and into a clear position amongst the top 5 republican presidential candidates.
-Surely his poll performance has been mediocre, but no worse than any of the so-called "second tier" candidates. Besides, aren't prediction marekts about harnessing the wisdom of crowds (internet crowds included) and not just those on Gallop's land-line list?
Thus my question... why is Ron Paul not in your market???
I'd like to see him not missing the next time I visit Slate. Thanks for the very cool feature.