Insider trading?

[TheWorstPlayer]

I assume there are no controls on stuff like insider trading and collusion on WSEX. Are people worried about these things? How susceptible are these markets to pump-and-dump schemes and candidates tanking it on purpose after shorting themselves, etc.?

[_TKO_]

I doubt the kind of people who get onto AI would short themselves. Their incentives are misaligned with losing.

[pete fabrizio]

There's just not enough money in this to make it worth a contestant's while. I would be more worried about a producer leaking results to a friend or something.

[TheWorstPlayer]

no one see the scenario where Taylor takes a dive after massively shorting himself and ends up with a Clay Aiken type contract and million from the market for best of both worlds? and what about pump-and-dump which doesnt need any participant's collusion?

[mynamewastaken]

Problem is it's really hard to take a dive in American Idol. By the time it gets late enough where it could possibly matter your standing in the show is largely out of your control. I actually didn't think Taylor was that good the last few weeks of the show (when he sang Springsteen he sounded particularly amateurish) but there's not much he could have done at that point to lose.

Unless he quit or stabbed Seacrest in the jugular or something, he was going to win irregardless of his performances.

I suppose the mafia could short Taylor like crazy and then have him framed for something? I don't know... seems like a pretty far fetched scenario. Possible != Plausible

[TheWorstPlayer]

Yea, I agree that those participant-involved schemes are unlikely. But it's not like that's the only thing the SEC protects you against in the real market. I think several stock-market related schemes could apply here, too, and there seems to be no protection.

[ImBen]

[ QUOTE ]
Problem is it's really hard to take a dive in American Idol. By the time it gets late enough where it could possibly matter your standing in the show is largely out of your control. I actually didn't think Taylor was that good the last few weeks of the show (when he sang Springsteen he sounded particularly amateurish) but there's not much he could have done at that point to lose.

Unless he quit or stabbed Seacrest in the jugular or something, he was going to win irregardless of his performances.

I suppose the mafia could short Taylor like crazy and then have him framed for something? I don't know... seems like a pretty far fetched scenario. Possible != Plausible

[/ QUOTE ]

irregardless != regardless

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]


irregardless != regardless

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, irregardless = regardless, although it is a "non-standard" version of it. But then again, this argument has been played out dozens of times already on 2+2.

[Kirg]

[ QUOTE ]
Yea, I agree that those participant-involved schemes are unlikely. But it's not like that's the only thing the SEC protects you against in the real market. I think several stock-market related schemes could apply here, too, and there seems to be no protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is protection against this, the betting houses look out for this. Wagering on The Amazing Race has been stopped twice because of insider trading from areas where some of the teams lived.

Link

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yea, I agree that those participant-involved schemes are unlikely. But it's not like that's the only thing the SEC protects you against in the real market. I think several stock-market related schemes could apply here, too, and there seems to be no protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is protection against this, the betting houses look out for this. Wagering on The Amazing Race has been stopped twice because of insider trading from areas where some of the teams lived.

Link

[/ QUOTE ]
That show's not live, though, so it's fairly obvious what the cause is if something weird is going on. But what if dialidol.com just decided to rig it's results and then bet against itself? How would anyone ever know? There don't seem to be any watchdogs... For instance, last season looks like dialidol.com was accurate most weeks but had one or two weeks where it was off. Who's to say that's legit and not purposeful market manipulation?

I'm sure if I thought about it, I could come up with a list of at least 10 different ways to make money in the AI markets which would normally be illegal in the stock market.