
Bettors Beat Pundits - theoneill
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/bettors-beat-pundits/
======
markessien
Bettors simply aggregated the opinions of the pundits, the statisticians and
media, and their sheer number averaged it out. Without access to the media,
the bettors would not have enough information to be as accurate.

What the markets are are just an averaging of more informed opinions - look
what happened when Sarah Palin got picked - the media hyped that up, and the
bettors went with it.

~~~
Prrometheus
The opinion of bettors is not a simple aggregate though. They weight
information based on what they believe to be most credible. A mildly credible
source isn't worth putting at risk.

------
aneesh
I'm not surprised.

There's a selection bias in the people who bet on elections. You only bet if
you think you know something other people don't -- if you're wrong you lose
your money. If you're wrong as a pundit, nothing happens. As they say, the
bettors put their money where their mouth is.

There's an interesting counterargument: people who use prediction markets to
hedge against the outcome they don't want. I don't know how many people
actually do this, though.

