PredictWise Blog

State of GOP post-second debate

Bookmark and Share

There were four tiers of candidates going into the second GOP debate. One candidate who is most likely to get the nomination, two candidates who are serious contenders, four candidates who are long-shots, and those candidates that are negligible.

1) Most likely: Jeb Bush was a clear winner last night as his stock rose from 35% to 40%. Anything that winnows out tested contenders such as John Kasich or Scott Walker is good for Bush.

2) Second tier: Marco Rubio outshined Donald Trump to take a lead in this tier. Carly Fiorina will likely steal some of Trump's poll numbers in the coming week and Trump needs to be really, really solid in the polls to maintain any shot of actually winning in the end.

3) Very Unlikely: Fiorina is still really unlikely win, but certainly lead this group now. Ben Carson will likely give polling to her, as well as Trump, and the outsider voter will solidify with Trump and Fiorina. Walker and Kasich both tumbled into the fourth tier.

4) Negligible: Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, and Rand Paul now welcome Kasich and Walker.

Sources: Betfair, Hypermind, PredictIt,

How Cash Affects Prediction Markets

Bookmark and Share

This is a guest post by Ben Golden/@BenGoldn who is an Engineer at Cultivate Labs. I added a few comments on the bottom!

When I first heard about play-money prediction markets, I was skeptical that they could be as interesting, useful, or accurate as real-money equivalents.  I'd played enough poker with friends to know that without a financial incentive, hardly anyone took the game seriously.  Would it be different with prediction markets?  I was interested enough in the underlying technology that I wanted to explore further.

It turns out this exact question has been studied empirically.  In 2004, researchers compared play- and real-money forecasts on 208 NFL games and found that the play-money markets were slightly more accurate.  A 2006 analysis found that the performance of play- and real-money markets varied based on different topics.  A 2010 study found that play-money markets are slightly more accurate on the whole, but that in direct comparison when trading volume is equal, real-money markets are more accurate. 

Altogether, it's not clear whether tying money to prediction markets makes them more accurate.  While I initially found this result surprising, I've come to recognize a number of advantages held by play-money, which can partially or completely offset the lack of a financial incentive.

1) Larger potential user pool

Real-money prediction markets present forecasters with legal/regulatory, psychological, financial and user experience challenges that play-money markets largely avoid.  Betfair doesn't allow US residents to participate in most of its markets.  PredictIt does, but has strict limits on how users can participate.  Further, these sites are unappealing to people who don't want, or can't afford to lose money--a 2013 UK study found that only 3 percent of respondents had placed an online bet on an event or sport.  Finally, real-money markets generally employ a double-auction market mechanism that is appealing to those familiar with financial markets, but hard for newcomers to adopt.  By contrast, play-money markets can provide a simpler game-like interface, which is better suited to a wider audience.

The restrictions presented by real-money markets can additionally create bias, as only certain types of person are participating in the market.  By taking real money out of the equation, free prediction markets allow for a larger and more diverse user base, which is known to lead to better forecasts.

2) Less vulnerable to manipulation

One potential concern with real-money prediction markets is the ability for a single well-financed user to manipulate markets to tell a particular story, which reportedly happened during the 2012 presidential election.  It’s much harder to do this in play money markets because individuals can’t control markets by depositing vast sums of money; to grow in influence, they need to establish a track record of successful forecasting.  Real-money markets can combat manipulation by placing limits on how much participants can wager, but in so doing, they also reduce their accuracy advantage, since forecasters’ “skin in the game” becomes limited.

3) Competing attitudes toward risk

When cash is at stake, people who are averse to financial risk are often reluctant to forecast questions where they hold weak opinions based on hunch, instead focusing only on questions where they’ve conducted in-depth analyses.  I've written previously about the importance of capturing both rigorous analysis and users’ intuition and hunches.  Free-money markets, by removing the risk of financial loss, make it easier for forecasters to express their opinions, whereas they might decline to act when real money is in play.

The flip side to this argument is that without financial risk, forecasters may become too insensitive to risk, expressing their hopes (or fears), rather than objective assessments of likely outcomes.  So in different situations, each approach may prove more effective.


While real-money markets have a stronger incentive for users to forecast accurately, play-money markets can foster increased user participation, capturing insight that otherwise would be lost.  Further study is required to determine conclusively which type of market is more accurate, but both approaches have their advantages. 

Further, the competition between real- and play-money markets helps them improve.  Since most prediction markets are public, forecasters can use results from one market to inform their forecasts in another.  Forecasters on Inkling -- a free site -- can look at Betfair, PredictIt, and iPredict, while forecasters on Betfair can use public resources like Inkling, FiveThirtyEight, or Sports Club Stats to guide their decisions.  Since these sources capture different information from different groups users, they produce unique forecasts, which in turn helps both forecasters and observers to better understand and predict the future.

Ben Golden/@BenGoldn is an Engineer at Cultivate Labs.

Comments by David:

When I was in graduate school for economics I would pose questions to colleagues about why markets worked and they would inevitably focus on the money. Incentive compatibility they would shout! But, over time, working with expectation polling, learning about selection bias and opt-in polling, and experimenting with non-monetary incentive methods, I started to think more about the other elements that make prediction markets work. They get the right people, they ask the right questions, and they have the right aggregation methods. Markets can work without money and Ben makes a nice case here for potential advantages of play-money markets.

I pose that real-money markets versus play-money markets is not a case of right and wrong, but one of differences. Larger pools could be good (more dispersed information) or bad (more biased information from less informed people). It is both harder to manipulate play-money (because of equal wealth), but it can also be easier (infinite accounts). And, the shift in risk profile can move from risk-adverse traders in real-money to risk-loving … it is hard to get people to be risk-neutral in the real world! Just like moving from in-person, to telephone, to internet sampling shifts polling, the shift between real and play-money is one of different results, but not necessarily wrong or right as class.

I thank Ben for sending in this piece! I look forward to a robust discussion on this and related topics moving forward. If you have a piece to submit to PredictWise, please email me at

State of GOP pre-second debate

Bookmark and Share

There are four tiers of candidates going into the second GOP debate. One candidate who is most likely to get the nomination, two candidates who are serious contenders, four candidates who are long-shots, and those candidates that are negligible.

1) Most likely: Jeb Bush has held onto this spot for all of 2015. His first debate was weak and he has moved down from around 45% to around 35%, but he is still the commanding favorite.

2) Second tier: Donald Trump has joined the second tier by surviving. The longer he lasts on top of the polling the more he will creep up in the probability of victory. Marco Rubio has been a clear contender to Bush for all of 2015 and a strong first debate (combined with Scott Walker’s less commanding performance) has solidified his hold within this slot.

3) Very Unlikely: Ben Carson, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina are all on the upward swing into very unlikely. Kasich and Fiorina are fueled by strong first debates and Carson by strong polling. Walker joins this group on the downswing.

4) Negligible: Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, and Rand Paul.

Sources: Betfair, Hypermind, PredictIt,

There are two competing crowd sourced data points for the 2016 GOP nomination: polls and prediction markets. Polls provide a snapshot of what the GOP voter would do if the election were today, while prediction markets provide a prediction of what will happen when the GOP voters actually vote in 2016.

Both Trump and Carson do much better in polls than prediction markets, because the markets discount for future success and/or failure, not just current standing. These two outsiders are more likely to stumble in the next few months of campaigning than more vetted and/or tested career politicians. Conversely, Bush is strongly in third place in the polling, making him the most likely benefactor of a late drop by Trump and Carson. If the GOP establishment needs to coalesce around an anti-Trump or Carson, Bush is currently the most likely candidates who can put that together.

Sources: Huffington Post's Pollster,

Jeb Bush continues his slow decline as the most likely Republican nominee nomine. He is still over twice as likely as any other person, but he down close to 35%, from 45% just before the first Republican debate.

Sources: Betfair, Hypermind, PredictIt,

The second level is commanded by Donald Trump and Marco Rubio. Trump is on a positive incline after leading the polls for over two months. But, he is still only 15% likely to win the nomination. Rubio, who went down for bit prior to the first debate, has settled in as the more established alternative to Bush.

Meanwhile, Ben Carson and John Kasich have surged in the polls and they are the clear third tier of possible candidates, with Carly Fiorina just behind. All three candidates got positive reviews from the first debate and this has been reflected in their poll numbers.

Technically Scott Walker is still in that third tier, but is trajectory is down after the first debate.

Hillary Clinton has slid to 70% likely to win the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. This is much lower than her peak of 85% in late June and early July. But, it is still incredibly high for a non-incumbent just after Labor Day.

Sources: Betfair, Hypermind, PredictIt,

Most of her lost probability is going to Joe Biden, not Bernie Sanders. Sanders has increased his probably of victory slightly from high 7-8% to 11-12%, but he is still really unlikely win to the nomination. Biden, who is not even announced, has moved from 1% to 11-12% on the strength of him maybe announcing to run.

Should Biden run, he will likely jump another 10 percentage points, depending on the prior of him running. PredictIt currently has him at 50% to run. If he runs, it should be because he thinks it would be a possible to win, conditions are favorable.