If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   In its infinite wisdom, the Federal Government has forced the shutdown of the most accurate predictor of elections, politics, and financial markets ever known   (blogs.wsj.com) divider line 45
    More: Sad, Intrade, open positions, Commodity Futures, Futures Trading, scrutiny, federal government  
•       •       •

5825 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Mar 2013 at 4:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-11 02:44:42 PM  
It produced mixed results: Intrade accurately forecasted President Barack Obama would be re-elected last year; odds on the site showed the U.S. Supreme Court would rule the health care bill unconstitutional, which proved to be wrong.

Or, not so accurate.
 
2013-03-11 03:35:23 PM  
RIP NATE SILVER
 
2013-03-11 03:42:27 PM  
i1019.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-11 03:51:10 PM  

BunkoSquad: RIP NATE SILVER


beat me to it
 
2013-03-11 03:51:53 PM  

DamnYankees: BunkoSquad: RIP NATE SILVER

beat me to it


This.  Something like, "They shut down Nate Silver?"
 
2013-03-11 04:30:51 PM  
Meh.
 
2013-03-11 04:42:39 PM  
Maybe they shouldn't have lied to regulators so many times that they finally had enough of it.
 
2013-03-11 04:49:19 PM  
You'd think Intrade would have been able to predict their own shutdown.
 
2013-03-11 04:50:01 PM  

Speaking of Nate Silver, I was just reading his page a couple hours ago on this very subject, and he doesn't share subby's opinion --

...{T}here are other betting markets and bookmakers who offer odds on the election. Several of these sites are already taking bets on the identity of the 2016 Republican presidential nominee, for instance, along with any number of other races. Most of these sites are not open to Americans. But they tended to perform more rationally than Intrade over the course of the 2012 campaign, with their prices more closely tracking polls, prediction models and news events.

Link
 
2013-03-11 04:50:42 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You'd think Intrade would have been able to predict their own shutdown.


That would have been interesting if they had that bet on Intrade.

"Congratulations, you win! But we can't pay you due to internal investigations...."
 
2013-03-11 04:51:55 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Philip Francis Queeg: You'd think Intrade would have been able to predict their own shutdown.

That would have been interesting if they had that bet on Intrade.

"Congratulations, you win! But we can't pay you due to external investigations...."


FTFM
 
2013-03-11 04:55:35 PM  
Well, it's back to political Halloween masks for me!
 
2013-03-11 04:56:34 PM  
ugh... lots of people getting farked over there
 
2013-03-11 04:57:08 PM  

MacEnvy: Maybe they shouldn't have lied to regulators so many times that they finally had enough of it.


This. I don't know why the sad tag was chosen.
 
2013-03-11 04:57:35 PM  
From the article, it seems like the company wanted to operate as a casino but with the regulations of an investment house.

Which, I suppose, is a bit of progress compared to most investment houses wanting to operate like a casino.
 
2013-03-11 04:59:12 PM  

skullkrusher: ugh... lots of people getting farked over there


true, but I feel much safer now, so . . . totally worth it
 
2013-03-11 05:05:59 PM  

BunkoSquad: RIP NATE SILVER

 
2013-03-11 05:08:33 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: skullkrusher: ugh... lots of people getting farked over there

true, but I feel much safer now, so . . . totally worth it


I haven't heard about any irregularities at InTrade. Shutting them down is probably gonna wind up farking more people than they were farking themselves. If all the markets on InTrade were closed ended - meaning that they were based on a particular event after which all "position" expired, I suppose the damage would be limited but if it was one of the open ended sort of things where people buy and sell celebrities I can see lots of being being screwed.
 
2013-03-11 05:12:46 PM  

St_Francis_P: It produced mixed results: Intrade accurately forecasted President Barack Obama would be re-elected last year; odds on the site showed the U.S. Supreme Court would rule the health care bill unconstitutional, which proved to be wrong.

Or, not so accurate.


To be fair, Roberts' interpretation was quite a curveball (of stupidity).
 
2013-03-11 05:12:52 PM  

St_Francis_P: It produced mixed results: Intrade accurately forecasted President Barack Obama would be re-elected last year; odds on the site showed the U.S. Supreme Court would rule the health care bill unconstitutional, which proved to be wrong.

Or, not so accurate.


They were right for a few minutes at least...

img13.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-11 05:21:35 PM  

skullkrusher: Zeb Hesselgresser: skullkrusher: ugh... lots of people getting farked over there

true, but I feel much safer now, so . . . totally worth it

I haven't heard about any irregularities at InTrade. Shutting them down is probably gonna wind up farking more people than they were farking themselves. If all the markets on InTrade were closed ended - meaning that they were based on a particular event after which all "position" expired, I suppose the damage would be limited but if it was one of the open ended sort of things where people buy and sell celebrities I can see lots of being being screwed.


I have little sympathy for anyone who would "invest" in celebrities in such a manner.
 
2013-03-11 05:29:11 PM  
The whole anti-online-gambling crusade is moronic anyway.  Hopefully sanity will return soon.
 
2013-03-11 05:34:40 PM  
If we got Nate we don't need Intrade.
 
2013-03-11 05:55:09 PM  
Aside from the other dubious parts of the headline, from the sounds of it InTrade shut down on their own because there were financial shenanigans going on internally.
 
2013-03-11 05:58:07 PM  
Seemed to me that Intrade attracted a lot of attention in the 2012 election from large bidders trying to manipulate the share price... maybe an attempt induce changes in the polls in a voodoo sort of way? (in-voo-dooce?)
 
2013-03-11 06:00:20 PM  
Just remember we live in the most free country in the world. Unless you ever want to make a wager with your own money that you personally own.

Another Site to look for odds is betfair.com

also

pinnaclesports.com
thegreek.com
betcris.com
 
2013-03-11 06:15:43 PM  

jigger: St_Francis_P: It produced mixed results: Intrade accurately forecasted President Barack Obama would be re-elected last year; odds on the site showed the U.S. Supreme Court would rule the health care bill unconstitutional, which proved to be wrong.

Or, not so accurate.

To be fair, Roberts' interpretation was quite a curveball (of stupidity).


Well, kind of. The conservative lawyers who thought up the mandate obviously thought it was constitutional, or close enough. The fact that it came back to bite them was just plain ironic and funny.
 
2013-03-11 06:44:38 PM  

jigger: St_Francis_P: It produced mixed results: Intrade accurately forecasted President Barack Obama would be re-elected last year; odds on the site showed the U.S. Supreme Court would rule the health care bill unconstitutional, which proved to be wrong.

Or, not so accurate.

To be fair, Roberts' interpretation was quite a curveball (of stupidity).


Saying that it is inaccurate is a familiar to understand oddsmaking.

Odds are set as to the probability of an event happening or not happening. Some events are 50/50 probability but most events are not.

Two evenly matched football teams on a neutral field would be 50/50 and so the oddsmakers would set a "pick em" line on the game.

Those same teams playing on the home turf of one of either team would probably be a 60/40 probability with the home team being a favorite. The oddsmakers would then handicap the odds for people betting by either putting in a point spread or making the favorite a more expensive bet (and pay plus money on people betting the dog).

So what I'm saying is Intrade had odds up on how the SCOTUS would rule. They took wagers on both sides but you had to bet more on the unconstitutional bet. This doesn't mean they predicted that it would happen, only that it was more likely to happen.

If you go back to when the Patriots beat the Rams in the Super Bowl, the Rams with Kurt Warner were enormous favorites. You could have beat on the Patriots to win straight up and gotten 5x winnings on your bets. Were the oddsmakers inaccurate? There is no way to definitely say this. One can only say that something with a low probability of happening, happened.

I don't know what the odds were on the SCOTUS ruling but let's say that ruling constitutional was 1 out of 4. Things like that happen all the time. It doesn't mean the oddsmaker was inaccurate.
 
2013-03-11 06:44:43 PM  

timujin: This. Something like, "They shut down Nate Silver?"


with a drone strike
 
2013-03-11 06:51:03 PM  
The SEC has a monopoly on gambling.   Intrade should have paid off more politicians and government officials.
 
2013-03-11 07:21:30 PM  
God, too bad the sequester isn't going to shut down the WSJ.

The world would breathe easier without all that noise.
 
2013-03-11 07:49:05 PM  

St_Francis_P: It produced mixed results: Intrade accurately forecasted President Barack Obama would be re-elected last year; odds on the site showed the U.S. Supreme Court would rule the health care bill unconstitutional, which proved to be wrong.

Or, not so accurate.


To be fair, that was a major upset. However, Intrade did get the failure of the Wisconsin Governor's recall by a wide margin when virtually no media outlet would have predicted it (including Fox).
 
2013-03-11 08:06:00 PM  

BunkoSquad: RIP NATE SILVER

 
2013-03-11 08:17:55 PM  

phaseolus: Speaking of Nate Silver, I was just reading his page a couple hours ago on this very subject, and he doesn't share subby's opinion --
...{T}here are other betting markets and bookmakers who offer odds on the election. Several of these sites are already taking bets on the identity of the 2016 Republican presidential nominee, for instance, along with any number of other races. Most of these sites are not open to Americans. But they tended to perform more rationally than Intrade over the course of the 2012 campaign, with their prices more closely tracking polls, prediction models and news events.
Link


So these sites that don't allow Americans behave more rationally?

You don't say.
 
2013-03-11 08:21:41 PM  

whidbey: God, too bad the sequester isn't going to shut down the WSJ.

The world would breathe easier without all that noise.


jeez people, it's been an hour and no one has given W the reaction he needs...

what do you find troubling about this article or was this just another one of your random, pointless, look at mes?
 
2013-03-11 08:43:36 PM  
Looks like the feds would rather shut down independent startup betting from Ireland than go after the criminals on Wall Street. Big effing shocker there.
 
2013-03-11 09:33:39 PM  

St_Francis_P: It produced mixed results: Intrade accurately forecasted President Barack Obama would be re-elected last year; odds on the site showed the U.S. Supreme Court would rule the health care bill unconstitutional, which proved to be wrong.

Or, not so accurate.


Not sure if you fail at reading comprehension or if the mods changed the headline to include the word "most" after you posted.

I'll just assume it's the latter and you understand that "most accurate" is not the same thing as "100% accurate".
 
2013-03-11 11:27:51 PM  

king of vegas: jigger: St_Francis_P: It produced mixed results: Intrade accurately forecasted President Barack Obama would be re-elected last year; odds on the site showed the U.S. Supreme Court would rule the health care bill unconstitutional, which proved to be wrong.

Or, not so accurate.

To be fair, Roberts' interpretation was quite a curveball (of stupidity).

Saying that it is inaccurate is a familiar to understand oddsmaking.

Odds are set as to the probability of an event happening or not happening. Some events are 50/50 probability but most events are not.

Two evenly matched football teams on a neutral field would be 50/50 and so the oddsmakers would set a "pick em" line on the game.

Those same teams playing on the home turf of one of either team would probably be a 60/40 probability with the home team being a favorite. The oddsmakers would then handicap the odds for people betting by either putting in a point spread or making the favorite a more expensive bet (and pay plus money on people betting the dog).

So what I'm saying is Intrade had odds up on how the SCOTUS would rule. They took wagers on both sides but you had to bet more on the unconstitutional bet. This doesn't mean they predicted that it would happen, only that it was more likely to happen.

If you go back to when the Patriots beat the Rams in the Super Bowl, the Rams with Kurt Warner were enormous favorites. You could have beat on the Patriots to win straight up and gotten 5x winnings on your bets. Were the oddsmakers inaccurate? There is no way to definitely say this. One can only say that something with a low probability of happening, happened.

I don't know what the odds were on the SCOTUS ruling but let's say that ruling constitutional was 1 out of 4. Things like that happen all the time. It doesn't mean the oddsmaker was inaccurate.


InTrade worked more like a prediction stock market.  Shares were available to purchase at fluctuating prices depending on how much money you could get someone to sell you the share for.  All shares would settle at a $10 or $0 value when the outcome was determined.  My brother-in-law was actually able to make money during the election cycle by buying Romney shares, I think for about $3.50, just before he announced Paul Ryan, and selling them in favor of Obama shares just after the GOP convention.  In that way, he was able to "ride the Romney wave" just long enough until it became obvious he was all wood chips and glue, and then carry the slightly-cheaper-purchased Obama shares into the election.  He got offers for those shares, people offering to pay $7, $8 and $9 on them as the election got closer, but since the market would settle at $10, and he was pretty certain he would win, he held on to them.

The article makes it sound like InTrade had to shut down because there was enough elements of commodities exchange, without them being a registered commodities exchange.  Likewise, they wouldn't report your winnings or losses to the IRS, which is a big no-no to regulators.

Remember, kids, Al Capone got shut down because he cheated on his taxes, not because of the murder, smuggling, extortion, kidnapping or money laundering.
 
2013-03-12 12:00:27 AM  

HeartBurnKid: The whole anti-online-gambling crusade is moronic anyway.  Hopefully sanity will return soon.


gambling, drugs, prostitution
Pretty much every time have ever tried to write laws to stop people from doing something which is enjoyable we have completely failed.
Worse than failed, we created black markets and pain and suffering for everyone involved.

legalize it, regulate it, tax it and move on

OR start arresting anyone and everyone who bets in office pools on college basketball. starting with cops and politicians.
/god I hate these people are their silly values
 
2013-03-12 03:35:29 AM  
an uncontrolled narrative site

(ie predictions have influence on public behavior - being able to influence public predictions becomes important)

(note the scorn that n. silver got)
(ill be wanting to see if his predictions continue as they have)
 
2013-03-12 06:12:04 AM  

timujin: This. Something like, "They shut down Nate Silver?"


Yup. My very first thought.
 
2013-03-12 08:52:21 AM  

king of vegas: If you go back to when the Patriots beat the Rams in the Super Bowl, the Rams with Kurt Warner were enormous favorites. You could have beat on the Patriots to win straight up and gotten 5x winnings on your bets. Were the oddsmakers inaccurate? There is no way to definitely say this. One can only say that something with a low probability of happening, happened.I don't know what the odds were on the SCOTUS ruling but let's say that ruling constitutional was 1 out of 4. Things like that happen all the time. It doesn't mean the oddsmaker was inaccurate.


My understanding (although my memory of statistics has long since atrophied) is that over a large enough population of examples you can check how accurate they are - for example you could bin together all their bets that implied a chance of between 70-80% of a particular side winning (according to the bettors in aggregate) and see if they were right close to 75% of the time. Oddly enough if in fact they were right nearly 100% when only predicting a 70-80% chance that would suggest inaccuracy itself, as the bets in those cases should have been more one-sided in the betting.
 
2013-03-12 10:04:26 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You'd think Intrade would have been able to predict their own shutdown.


Punch yourself in the nuts. TFA made that joke in the very first sentence.

/Meta joke is meta
 
2013-03-12 10:56:15 AM  
That's all unskewed up!
 
2013-03-12 11:24:03 AM  

ghare: If we got Nate we don't need Intrade.


Intrade helped me turn $200 into $300. Nate can't do that.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report