Do these "superforecasters" lose something when they are wrong? Do they have "skin in the game"?
I'm a big fan of predication markets (e.g. Polymarket, PredictIt) for exactly that reason – proper incentives are there.
I'm a big fan of predication markets (e.g. Polymarket, PredictIt) for exactly that reason – proper incentives are there.
This was made very clear during a couple of big world events (stuff like major elections, ...), where I was watching simultaneously financial markets, dedicated event betting markets and prediction markets. Conclusion was that financial markets is where the real super-forecasters work.
Hopefully they stop being hindered and become more popular so liquidity increases though. It'd be much more useful for everyone if a portion of sports and other gambling spending can be redirected towards them.
The problem is that prediction markets is typically about very rare stuff, that happens once or twice a year.
You typical sports punter doesn't have the patience for this kind of long bets.
> Hopefully they stop being hindered and become more popular so liquidity increases though
That's just a US problem (as always). In the rest of the world there are no major blocks to create prediction markets. In some form, they already exist - BetFair has election betting, ...
It's been a while since I've read it, but the book (Superforcasting) also had an additional section elaborating on a comparison against prediction markets.
From memory, the core thesis of the GJP is that some individuals are good at making forecasts, and this accuracy is not domain specific or require insider information. Once measured, more weight is put onto those who make better opinions. As an analogy consider asking 100 chess players for the next move in a game - those with a higher elo are more likely to find a better next move. Conventional prediction market doesn't have this kind of "long term weighting", instead relying on individuals to bet according to their confidence (which may not always correspond to their accuracy).
Of interest is this article (https://mikesaintantoine.substack.com/p/scoring-midterm-elec...) which compared PredictIt, FiveThirtyEight and Manifold Markets (a prediction market with play money, so in theory no "proper" incentives). Even with the "proper incentives" it did no better Manifol Markets and a decent bit worse than 538.
So basically "boosting" or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplicative_weight_update_m...?
So, Meta's business model?
I don't know anything about that organization and I come to HN to learn about things like this. So if you do know something about it, please share your knowledge.
This recent study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7333631/) seems to at least partially reproduce the and corroborate the original results?
I'd love to see a predication market
You see some of this in sports betting, but it is distorted by fans, and sport-outcomes are not really important.
A lot of people are attracted to gambling - possibly everyone, to some degree, and for a wide enough description of "gambling" - even when there's no money involved. Put even a small monetary reward in and you'll get loads of people taking part just for fun, in most cases.
So how do prediction markets avoid this?
Whether this is worsgamblers than othe