![]() ![]() Tetlock’s book Superforecasting: the art and science of prediction has caused a stir on both sides of the Atlantic, with Boris Johnson’s chief aide Dominic Cummings being a fan. But even if he does lose, the power of the crowd to predict events is something that has become fashionable of late and is unlikely to go away. Given the size of the gap between the poll-based forecasts and the betting markets this year, a Trump victory could be excellent PR for the betting markets’ supposed abilities to predict the future. For example, the first US presidential debate saw Joe Biden’s chances improve by over five per cent on the Betfair Exchange market.” Other set-piece campaign events also tend to result in big swings in the odds, with Betfair finding that the biggest movements in this year’s cycle occurred during each party’s convention. “There are swings in betting markets based on polls, but also based on many other events. “Bettors on the Exchange take into account reams of data, such as current affairs, historical trends, debates, and, yes, polling data,” explains Betfair spokesperson Darren Hughes. Research by the Betfair Exchange has found that events such as debates tend to move their markets more than outlying poll results do, for instance, suggesting that bettors are considering other information as well. This year’s odds are slightly different, however, because they are more upbeat on Trump’s chances than the polls and forecasting models. The same could be said of Trump’s win in 2016, an outcome that the betting markets – possibly driven by the polls and forecasting models – didn’t see coming. If there was information beyond the polls in 1948 to suggest that Truman might win, bettors in the election markets did not see it coming,” the authors write. “Even when the polls were inaccurate (e.g., 1948) the market followed the polls. Erikson and Christopher Wlezien in the journal Political Studies found that betting on US elections became less accurate as a predictor of their outcomes from 1936 onwards, as polling became more widespread. The proliferation of modern polls could be partly to blame. In 2016, the markets went the wrong way on Brexit and on the presidential race: one bookmaker, Paddy Power, famously paid out more than $1m on a Clinton victory weeks before polling day. You can still find successes – like the better chance of victory given to the UK Conservative Party in the 2015 election that that given by the polls – but there are also some big misses. Though it is still technically possible for US citizens to wager their money online with a foreign bookmaker, most bettors on US politics are not American and may not, therefore, predict the outcomes of American political races as accurately.īetting markets’ powers of prediction also appear to be waning. The fact that it is still illegal for US bookmakers to offer political betting could also play a part here. Big bets backing Mike Bloomberg during the Democratic primaries, for instance, could help explain the brief period when he was considered the favourite. They can be manipulated, intentionally or otherwise, by the size and volume of bets being placed and the demographics of those betting. Yet betting markets can also be poor barometers for election outcomes. ![]() Science and Technical Research and Development.Infrastructure Management - Transport, Utilities.Information Services, Statistics, Records, Archives.Information and Communications Technology. ![]() ![]() HR, Training and Organisational Development.Health - Medical and Nursing Management.Facility / Grounds Management and Maintenance. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |