How gamblers can make a better world

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
There needs to be a neutral decision maker stating what the outcome of the bet was. For example, it would be bad if the house had an interest in the outcome, because the market can only function if bettors believe that the house is neutral. Therefore, the house should simply create the market and take a small fee from each wager. Also, it would be bad if the pollster at Pew were allowed to bet on the outcome of a Pew poll.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much betfair to a tee, I'm not even sure if they didnt run a market on finding WMD.

Regards Mack




Dynasty edit: Fixed title

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There needs to be a neutral decision maker stating what the outcome of the bet was. For example, it would be bad if the house had an interest in the outcome, because the market can only function if bettors believe that the house is neutral. Therefore, the house should simply create the market and take a small fee from each wager. Also, it would be bad if the pollster at Pew were allowed to bet on the outcome of a Pew poll.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much betfair to a tee, I'm not even sure if they didnt run a market on finding WMD.

Regards Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

This idea goes back AFAIK to Robin Hanson's idea futures.

[Sherman]

I thought this article provided a very interesting idea. However, I feel that it cannot work for most things for the reason the author already mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
In all cases, the question needs to be designed in such a way that the bettor does not have an incentive to do something horrible to cause the outcome to be one way or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having people make wagers on very consequential outcomes (e.g. the death of people) will inevitably lead to people changing their own behaviors to "help" those outcomes occur.

For example, say there is a wager that the average global temperature will rise 1 degree centrigrade in the next year. The entire year will be filled with gamblers doing their best to ensure that their bet wins. That means some people will be running their air conditioners all the time, and others will never run them. There are obviously many more examples.

In any case, this sort of wagering will lead to behaviors which will not be good for humanity as a whole.

This just one hypothetical example. I am sure there are many more examples where this sort of wagering will lead to very unhealthy outcomes for society.

Sherman

[EWillers]

While a decent idea, it seems that the public (at least the US public) isn't really keen on it.

DARPA plans for futures betting in 2003

[Collin Moshman]

Very thought-provoking article. I especially like that William explicitly addresses the many logistical difficulties that would accompany this type of gambling.

The only part I think is slightly misworded is the opening:

"Most gambling literature is focused on discussions of how gamblers can help themselves, by placing winning bets. This article has a different focus. This article discusses how the gambling community can help everyone."

Entrepeneurs would not look to offer such wagers as a "public good," rather if they could make a profit from doing so. Individuals would look for +EV bets, the house would get its take, etc., just like all other forms of gambling.

But the 2+2 community is filled with resourceful and entrepenurial individuals, and perhaps somebody reading this will one day bite these difficult logistical bullets and give it a go -- which could indeed have very interesting ramifications.

[RoundTower]

I'm not convinced that "policymakers being better informed" will really make the world a better place. They will still tend to act in their own best interest.

What makes a difference is the public being better informed, and holding their (elected) representatives responsible for their decisions. At the moment the voting public in the western world is not particularly well informed. Not that there isn't enough information out there, but that the average person isn't exposed to it or doesn't seek it out.

That said, I am interested in an exchange of this sort, as a gambler rather than as a humanitarian. Intrade is another example of a site that does some of this.

[rrrorrim]

Hey, cool idea. Like a survival-of-the-fittest to find those people who are best at predicting our future (and what better motivator than money).


Imagine we had a website for futures gambling...

-It should be exclusive, kept under 50,000 people. And the details of wagers should not be available to the general public. This way, it doesn't have a significant impact on the outcome of events.

-How to decide who gets in? Firstly, it should be mid-stakes and higher. Dead money is not the priority here; discovering people who are skilled at prediction is. Secondly, for obvious reasons we don't want many policy-makers in the pool of players, so there has to be another filter to decide who gets in: The Futures Gambling website should be in league with major poker websites. The bulk of the Future Gamblers player pool should be consistent poker winners, to be chosen by the poker websites.

-The consistent Futures Gambler winners could become the most trusted advisors in the world (which, of course, could lead to some very dangerous situations down the road.... but that's another post)

[JennPKRpro]

Gamblers take the risks which evolve the human race to new levels. Gamblers unite!

[m wilson]

I agree manipulation is a risk, but not quite in the way you're suggesting. I don't see heavy betting on a wager like whether or not the avg. global temperature will rise by 1 degree. A bettor running his AC nonstop would have to be expecting to win a lot of money in return. And the non-AC user must have his own definite idea of how his lack of use impacted the climate. It's like betting on a butterfly flapping. The kind of manipulation you're thinking of would be limited to a smaller arena, I think. I hated this article for other reasons.

Some social questions mentioned in the article suggest that the author believes bets will help expose cause-and-effect relationships, thus clarifying the correct way to proceed. That's nonsense.

Generally, to hope to affect public policy by way of gambling on vital social/world questions seems an excellent way to muddle the truth, affect outcomes by measurement, confuse the already confused, and ultimately ruin the world.
Some questions mentioned in the article are extremely difficult to answer with credibility, and some which seem "over" are still being seriously argued. There's no reliable information forthcoming from such an experiment -- particularly in current questions on Iraq the author brings up. The administration offers certain numbers of casualties; a news article states very different numbers. There is truth, but by adding stakes and weights to the search he's making it harder to find, not easier.

If we affect a particle by bombarding it with photons in order to describe its location precisely, what if we threw money at it? That would really, really, really slow it down, because all particles like money. It'd swerve if it had to, and stoop to pick up the money.

mickey