Live data from Hacker News

Prediction markets have an elections problem

asteriskmag.com

31–40 of 201 posts

Re: Prediction markets have an elections problem

#31
post #4

Someone should make a tool to invest against the prediction markets overconfidence without considering the specific predictions

Could you give a specific example?

Do an analysis of odds vs. outcomes to get a sense of typical calibration errors based on characteristics (eg political) and the odds given.

Identify areas of likely incorrect spreads, and invest against them.

Re: Prediction markets have an elections problem

#32
post #21

I worked at a prediction market startup for a while. Even completely rational prediction markets generally have a structural problem with events with likelihoods close to 1.0 or 0.0. This leads to cases where conspiracy type events have much higher likelihoods than they should, leading people to assume the market has lost all rationality when actually it hasn't. For example, imagine if there's an event with a predict…

> Assuming the market uses real money, then on paper someone should be able to make a roughly 2% return by betting that the event won't occur. However, if this market isn't closing for a while (for example for an election at the end of the year), then no-one is incentivised to take the bet and correct the market, because they'll get a much better risk free return just by putting their money in a term deposit and collecting the interesting. And so the market remains un-corrected. Basically prediction markets have an accuracy upper bound determined by the current risk free return.

What if the deposited USD automatically earned interest at the current risk free return (think something like USDC on Aave in crypto land)?

Re: Prediction markets have an elections problem

#34
post #21

I worked at a prediction market startup for a while. Even completely rational prediction markets generally have a structural problem with events with likelihoods close to 1.0 or 0.0. This leads to cases where conspiracy type events have much higher likelihoods than they should, leading people to assume the market has lost all rationality when actually it hasn't. For example, imagine if there's an event with a predict…

It's more than the risk free return. It's also fees. Whatever the fee percentage is, all in, to get a dollar out of the platform and back into cash on a winning bet, plus the risk free rate over the time period, that's your upper bound. Given the comments above about fees it doesn't surprise me at all to see 5-10% mispricing.

Re: Prediction markets have an elections problem

#35
The author does not understand bid-ask spreads, does not understand distortions created by fees, does not understand that the last trade price is not the same as what you can get at present, and just generally does not understand the realities of trading in markets. This article is a zero-information void.

Re: Prediction markets have an elections problem

#36
post #32
post #21

I worked at a prediction market startup for a while. Even completely rational prediction markets generally have a structural problem with events with likelihoods close to 1.0 or 0.0. This leads to cases where conspiracy type events have much higher likelihoods than they should, leading people to assume the market has lost all rationality when actually it hasn't. For example, imagine if there's an event with a predict…

> Assuming the market uses real money, then on paper someone should be able to make a roughly 2% return by betting that the event won't occur. However, if this market isn't closing for a while (for example for an election at the end of the year), then no-one is incentivised to take the bet and correct the market, because they'll get a much better risk free return just by putting their money in a term deposit and coll…

Yeah as far as I’m aware that’s the solution. Though then the market can’t use the deposit to make money for themselves, and needs to rely on other mechanisms like trading fees etc. So really it comes down to how much the market cares about the accuracy of long tail events.

Re: Prediction markets have an elections problem

#37
The 2020 elections were such a shitshow on PredictIt. So many trades were skewed by partisan bias that it was shockingly easy to make money. My favorite trade that year was for some reason the "market" was pricing in a lower turnout in 2020 vs 2016. I grabbed a strip of the over bets at big discounts. I still to this day don't understand what people were thinking with their bets there. A hugely contested election during a pandemic when there was nothing else to do, of course there was going to be huge turnout!

Re: Prediction markets have an elections problem

#38
post #33

Is there any possibility of unwinding the distortion caused by site fees, time-value issues, and other market imperfections to recover the true odds implied by the betting markets, or is it just too complicated for that to be feasible?

Yes, but instead of getting a single number you'll get a range. Like it might be that if the probability of Biden winning the election is anywhere between 49% to 55% then it's not worth betting for him or against him. The worse the imperfections are the wider the interval gets.

Re: Prediction markets have an elections problem

#39

It would be nice to have a site like electionbettingodds.com but with intervals rather than point preditions. Given the betting odds it's possible to calculate upper and lower bounds on the probabilities. Ideally you would take into account the fees and the opportunity cost of having your money locked in the bet. The bounds would be the range in which it wouldn't be possible to make an expected profit by betting eith…

> instead of an absurd point estimate like "Michelle Obama has a 6.90% of winning the election"

A probability distribution is defined over a set of outcomes. If “Michelle Obama winning” is one independent, categorical outcome, then there is one probability associated with that outcome.

> you'd get something like "the probability of Michelle Obama winning the election is between 7.0% and 0.01%"

Stacking another layer of probability on top of probability distributions still results in only one final distribution for prediction purposes.

I think maybe what you’re trying to capture is how your “confidence” about a prediction ties into the evaluation of the reward or penalty. This would just be modulated by adjusting how wide/uniform your probability distribution is and the amount that you bet, but perhaps the websites could add some tools to help people visualize this better.

Re: Prediction markets have an elections problem

#40
post #37

The 2020 elections were such a shitshow on PredictIt. So many trades were skewed by partisan bias that it was shockingly easy to make money. My favorite trade that year was for some reason the "market" was pricing in a lower turnout in 2020 vs 2016. I grabbed a strip of the over bets at big discounts. I still to this day don't understand what people were thinking with their bets there. A hugely contested election dur…

I really enjoyed the market "Will either Biden or Trump concede within 2 weeks of the election?"

As I recall "no concession" was priced at like 40c, at the same time that Biden winning the election was priced at something like 55c-60c. I was pretty sure Trump was not going to concede, period, so this was just a substantially cheaper version of betting "Biden wins". And as it turned out, it also had the advantage that it closed much, much sooner than the actual election market -- thus freeing up my funds to go into those other markets that hung at 85c or so till December.

Post reply on HN