tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post115522457454199941..comments2007-04-19T22:25:46.464-05:00Lancehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610lance@fortnow.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1173581558297563012007-03-10T20:52:00.000-06:002007-03-10T20:52:00.000-06:00This conundrum is the question motivating the development of information currency. Financial markets for derivative instruments with information as the underlying will make it possible to create a new type of all-source analysis system... but that's not what you will find at http://infoeng.sf.net quite yet. :) <BR/>Thanks for the post!Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08715549273489573543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1155311545855857282006-08-11T10:52:00.000-05:002006-08-11T10:52:00.000-05:00I have run into bigger problems with these futures contracts. Last year, I had the idea that I could look for arbitrage by wagering at different "prediction markets" (aka, casinos.) <BR/><BR/>I found a case last year where I could bet on Karl Rove's indictment (at Tradesports) and bet against Karl Rove's indictment (at Sportsbook) and still make money, in theory. <BR/><BR/>The catch is the wording of the wager at differed between the two sites. The wording at Sportsbook was "Will Karl Rove Resign or Be Fired" and they had a "grading date" (aka judgement day) of 11/15/05. So, based on the proposition, I thought it was a safe bet because I figured Bush and Rove are so arrogant, Rove wouldn't resign or be fired even if Fitzgerald indicted him. <BR/><BR/>You can guess what happened: 11/15/05 came and went, Rove hadn't been indicted (and certainly hadn't resigned or been fired) and Sportsbook refused to pay because he was "still under investigation." So even though the wording of the wager doesn't even mention Fitz's possible indictment, they changed the rules. Finally, they settled when Rove's lawyer indicated that Fitzgerald signaled no charges would be fired against Rove.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1155228389568913342006-08-10T11:46:00.000-05:002006-08-10T11:46:00.000-05:00Hello professor Lance Fortnow,<BR/><BR/>The intent and the letter of the contract should always coincide, no matter what.<BR/><BR/>In the "current news" prediction markets, TradeSports felt obligated to cite the name of the source of information for expiry, so as to kill any dispute in the egg.<BR/><BR/>The contrary has happened. Naming in advance *the* source for expiry is *the* source of the problem here.<BR/><BR/>TradeSports is a bet settlement judge. You are a good judge if you are educated, open minded, and curious. A judge should be free to use whatever source of information he/she sees fit.<BR/><BR/>Happy week,Chris. F. Masse .COMnoreply@blogger.com