tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999963944248120727.post713057063612051797..comments2010-05-24T04:01:03.530-07:00Comments on Many Ideas: ExChange in the WeatherLeDoporehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13847811219191643234noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999963944248120727.post-13939264679690247782008-01-04T19:17:00.000-08:002008-01-04T19:17:00.000-08:00Nope, I was wrong, it's not a fixed amount, you ea...Nope, I was wrong, it's not a fixed amount, you earn the difference between the standing you bought it at and 100. So if you bought a "newsstock" at 45 and the event happens, you earn 65 credits. Obviously the stock cannot rise above 100 or fall below 1.Knaldskallehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09422833562183339649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999963944248120727.post-4717033037381566852008-01-04T19:13:00.000-08:002008-01-04T19:13:00.000-08:00Amazingly, I just found a newspaper website that ...Amazingly, I just found a newspaper website that has a "newsgame", where you can "bet" on (buy stocks in) a coming headline. "Temperature will drop below -10 centigrades in January" or "Obama wins Democratic candidacy" and "Hillary wins Democratic candidacy". If you get it right (within a certain time limit) you win a fixed amount of currency, that you can then buy more "stocks" with (no actual money is involved). The current standings are 50, 68 and 60 respectively. These standings reflect the cost of a share, so the more certain or popular a given event is, the more expensive it is to bet on. Unfortunately it's not an English speaking paper...Knaldskallehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09422833562183339649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999963944248120727.post-53996771858249909282007-03-19T18:59:00.000-07:002007-03-19T18:59:00.000-07:00You're right that the predictions are going to ref...You're right that the predictions are going to reflect a bias if the people willing to bet systematically have a skewed viewpoint. <BR/><BR/>However, if that's the case, then you'd be able to make money by betting against the skew. Therefore, as long as there are at least a few greedy but minimally-skewed people out there willing to bet, they're going to be able to make money and improve predictions at the same time by betting against the skew.<BR/><BR/>You make a good point that this method is never going to overcome chaos theory and give perfect predictions. It's just a way to publicize the best predictions out there by rewarding the most accurate forecasters.LeDoporehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13847811219191643234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999963944248120727.post-61987143511239473052007-03-19T16:51:00.000-07:002007-03-19T16:51:00.000-07:00I don't get this. Just because I'm willing to put ...I don't get this. Just because I'm willing to put my money where my 'aching elbow' is, that doesn't mean that I'm any good at predicting the weather, it just means that I'm willing to gamble with my money. <BR/><BR/>Even if we put all the best weather stations in the world to predict the weather, that doesn't mean that they'll get it right - nor does it mean that because they get it wrong that they're useless, it just means that weather might bee too complex a phenomenon to reliably predict (unlike political elections). <BR/><BR/>Just because Hillary's stock is currently at 40%, doesn't mean that there's a 40% chance that she'll win, it means that the fools(?) who're playing that game overall think that there's a 40% chance, but if the number of people playing is small there's a very good chance that the "predictions" they're making is wrong - especially if non-US people can play, since they'll be able to skew the results (being able to play, unable to vote)... See what I mean?Knaldskallehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09422833562183339649noreply@blogger.com