Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Prediction markets

By Andrew Leigh and Justin Wolfers - posted Monday, 16 July 2007


Outside the political sphere, there are a growing number of web-based prediction markets, often run by companies that provide a range of trading and gambling services. Some prominent examples include Tradesports.com (also known as InTrade.com), Betfair.com, and pseudo-markets (in which participants trade virtual currency) such as Newsfutures.com and Ideosphere.com.

Some prediction markets focus on economic statistics. For instance, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange have launched markets on the likely outcome of future readings of economic statistics, including employment, retail sales, industrial production, and business confidence.

How accurate are prediction market forecasts?

Arguably the most important issue with these markets is their performance as predictive tools. In the political domain, the Iowa Electronic Markets has both yielded very accurate predictions for United States elections, and also outperformed the major pollsters.

Advertisement

In a comparison of election-eve forecasts, the Iowa markets predicted candidates’ vote shares with an average absolute error of 1½ percentage points, while the average forecast error for Gallup polls was 2.1 percentage points.

In Australia, election-eve betting markets correctly predicted that the Coalition would win the 2001 and 2004 federal elections. By contrast, a Coalition win was predicted by the election-eve polls of only two out of three major pollsters in 2001, and only two out of four major pollsters in 2004.

Perhaps more interesting in terms of how well prediction markets can aggregate information is the performance of markets at the level of the individual district. Typically districts are sufficiently small that there is little interest (or funding) for local polling, yet when Australian bookmakers started betting on district-level races, we found that they were extremely accurate.

In 2001, the Centrebet favourite won in 43 out of 47 marginal seats. In 2004, the Centrebet favourite won in 24 out of 32 marginals.

That said, comparing the performance of markets with a mechanistic application of poll-based forecasting may not provide a particularly compelling comparison. A more relevant starting point might be to compare the predictions of markets with those of independent analysts.

For example, a survey of ten experts published on the Sunday before the 2004 federal election found that three thought Mark Latham would win, while seven thought John Howard would win, but with a smaller majority than in 2001. None forecast the true result - a Howard victory with an increased majority. By contrast, the betting market was more confident of a Howard victory in 2004 than in 2001.

Advertisement

In a corporate context, the Hollywood Stock Exchange predicts opening weekend box-office success, and these predictions have been quite accurate. Further, this market has been about as accurate at forecasting Oscar winners as an expert panel.

Some firms have also begun to experiment with internal prediction markets. An internal market at Hewlett-Packard produced more accurate forecasts of printer sales than the firm’s internal processes.

Gerhard Ortner described an experiment at Siemens in which an internal market predicted that the firm would definitely fail to deliver on a software project on time, even when traditional planning tools suggested that the deadline could be met.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in the Melbourne Review.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Authors

Andrew Leigh is the member for Fraser (ACT). Prior to his election in 2010, he was a professor in the Research School of Economics at the Australian National University, and has previously worked as associate to Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia, a lawyer for Clifford Chance (London), and a researcher for the Progressive Policy Institute (Washington DC). He holds a PhD from Harvard University and has published three books and over 50 journal articles. His books include Disconnected (2010), Battlers and Billionaires (2013) and The Economics of Just About Everything (2014).

Dr Justin Wolfers is an Assistant Professor of Economics at Business and Public Policy Department of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Andrew Leigh
All articles by Justin Wolfers

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Andrew LeighAndrew LeighPhoto of Justin WolfersJustin Wolfers
Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy