Category Archives: economics

commentary, computer science, economics, events

Applause please

6 Comments

I recently spent two days at an economics workshop. In some ways it felt like visiting a foreign country. For one, the audience doesn’t clap. Especially when the speaker ends with “thank you”, the silence is deafening. I hadn’t realized how instinctual the reaction to applaud had become. Of course, it’s arbitrary whether a community claps or not when one of its members concludes a speech. If a community always claps for every speaker, the signal is meaningless as a gauge of satisfaction, like restaurant patrons tipping 18% regardless of service. In fact, almost surely the speaker is just as grateful to have the attention as the audience is to receive the information. It’s not like a political rally where clapping indicates loyalty. Still, it seems like a nice gesture with near zero cost, so why not? Maybe it’s because computer scientists are generally poor speakers that we like to reassure one another. It reminds me of my first international flight. When we landed, all the passengers cheered — the tradition on international flights at the time and apparently at one time on all flights. It seems that now even international flights do not culminate in a round of applause for the pilot. I find it sad that apparently “don’t clap” is the stable equilibrium.

Second, each session was organized with two presentations followed by a lengthy review given by a “discussant”, usually a senior member of the community. I found the format useful: the discussant highlights the main points of the papers in a different voice, helping to reinforce the message, and provides some of their own opinions and insights. The main drawback is that covering two papers takes a full hour and a half, with almost no time for questions and discussion from the audience.

Luckily, even though some of the rituals were foreign, the language was familiar. It so happens that economists and computer scientists speak a remarkably similar dialect of math. Those of us working on market design are especially close: we inhabit similar circles at meetings, universities, and now industry labs (“mini universities” according to Susan Athey) like Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, and even co-author papers. Al Roth may have inadvertently suggested why. He encourages thinking of economics as engineering. Computer “science”, like the design branch of economics, seems less science than an amalgam of math, engineering, and art.

events, prediction markets, search, yahoo

Where to find the Yahoo!-Google letter to the CFTC about prediction markets

2 Comments

At the Prediction Markets Summit1 last Friday April 24 2009, I mentioned that Yahoo! and Google jointly wrote a letter to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission encouraging the legalization of small-stakes real-money prediction markets, and that Microsoft had recently written its own letter in support of the effort. (The CFTC maintains a list of all public comments responding to their request for advice on regulating prediction markets.)

I told the audience that they could learn more by searching for “cftc yahoo google” in their favorite search engine, showing the Yahoo! Search results with MidasOracle’s coverage at the top.2

It turns out that was poor advice. 63.7% of the audience probably won’t find what they’re looking for using that search.3


Yahoo! versus Google search for "cftc yahoo google"

If some search engines don’t surface the MidasOracle post, I’m hoping they’ll find this.

And back to the effort to guide the CFTC: I hope other people and companies will join. The CFTC’s request for help itself displays a clear understanding of the science and practice of prediction markets and a real willingness to listen. The more organizations that speak out in support, the greater chance we have of convincing the CFTC to take action and open the door to innovation and experimentation.

1Which I hesitated to attend and host a reception for and now regret endorsing in any way.
2In September 2008, journalist Chris Masse uncovered the letter on the CFTC website before Google or Yahoo! had announced it. We should have known: Masse is extraordinarily skilled at finding anything relevant anywhere, and has been a tireless, invaluable (and unpaid) chronicler of all-things-prediction-markets for years now.
3Even Microsoft Live has the “right” result in position 3. Interestingly, Daniel Reeves got slightly different, presumably personalized, results in Google, even less excuse for not knowing what two MO junkies were looking for with that query.
advertising, gambling, ideas, new media, technology, woblomo

An (old) essay on new media

I wrote an essay on “new media” for an entrepreneur friend in February 2004. (My friend launched a new air sports league and .tv channel, hence the emphasis on sports near the end.) I decided to take my own advice and relinquish control. Here it is, with minor re-touches marked and links added. Most of the points remain applicable in 2009. If anything, I’m a little disappointed that, five years later, we haven’t made more progress toward “everything over IP, everywhere”. Sure, Hulu is nice but I still pay obscene amounts to send text messages and watch The Terminator over proprietary pipes.

‘Digital’ means everything and nothing at once. And that’s the point. Music is digital. Movies are digital. Books, news, commentary, communication, ideas, and sexuality are all digital. Even money is digital. Characterizing something as digital conveys no information precisely because most anything can and will be digital. From television to telecom, from Hollywood to Madison Avenue, the transition to digital will take down giants and crown new kings.

Why does digital matter to media? There are three reasons: convergence, copying, and control.

Convergence. Because all content and communication are digital, the delivery mechanism no longer matters. You don’t need a TV to watch television programs. You don’t need a phone to talk to a friend. You don’t need a fax to get faxes or a CD player to hear CDs. All you need is a machine that understands digital and a communications system that carries digital. Today’s best devices for understanding and communicating digital are, respectively, the computer and the Internet. That’s all you need. Tomorrow’s TVs may look and feel and act much like today’s TVs, but rest assured they will be computers in disguise, and they will be connected to the Internet. There’s no inherent reason why Friends should be watched on Thursdays at 8pm on NBC interspersed with commercials. It can, should, and will be watched at the viewer’s leisure, uninterrupted. There is no reason that the biggest “television” phenomenon of 2008 won’t be seen on Yahoo!, for example. [In hindsight, this example was wildly optimistic — and YouTube/2020 now seems more likely — though in 2008 viewers flocked to Yahoo! for the Olympics, the election, and short-form video.] Notions of channels and schedules will be virtually meaningless. We already see this happening with DVRs like TiVo, and the blurring will continue with computer/TVs providing access to movies, music, your photo album, weather, news, and the Web. Cable, phone, and satellite companies are providing Internet access. Internet portals and Internet providers are delivering phone calls, movies, TV shows, [radio,] and email all over the same wires [and wavelengths].

There is now, and will continue to be, fierce opposition to convergence from established players. Cable companies objected vehemently to allowing local stations onto satellite TV. Broadcast networks fear TiVo. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is in a state of panic panicked, suing everyone in sight, including their own customers. Lobbying and lawmaking will slow convergence, but the changes are all but inevitable. While the RIAA and groups like it scramble to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic, opportunists are busy building entirely new ships.

Copying and Control. Once a piece of media content—whether it is a song, a movie, or an article in a scientific journal—is converted into digital ones and zeros, it can be copied (perfectly) and distributed at almost zero cost. Given the decentralized nature of the Internet and the vagaries of international law, once a piece of content escapes there is almost no reining it in. Current media business models rely on tight controls. Control of scheduling. Control of delivery and distribution. Control of store shelves. Control of artists and content creators. Control of consumers’ attention. But digital content resists nearly all attempts at control. Software and hardware copy-protection schemes are hacked or circumvented. High-quality analog copies of digital content are simply impossible to stop. Artists can self-publish their work and distribute it worldwide. Consumers can suddenly find content that’s not broadcast at primetime or placed at eye level in the store.

Note that digital does not mean the end of marketing, influence, and celebrity. Capturing the public’s interest and attention are still necessary. A self-published song does not magically attract listeners. Talent, personality, advertising, branding, and social forces will still play large roles in driving media success in the digital era. But convergence means that any number of players can provide the marketing and distribution needed, breaking current oligopolies, and almost certainly benefiting artists and consumers alike. Successful business models for the next generation of media companies must address the loss of control on all three fronts: content, artists, and consumers. Content will be copied. Artists will self-publish and shop for marketing services. Consumers will view what they want when they want to.

The New Business of New Media

Media is certainly not dead. Certain aspects will probably never change. People yearn for good stories, for entertainment, for escapism, for information. People flock to charisma and celebrity. People communicate insatiably. From a business perspective, there is undeniable value in having and holding the attention of a number of people.

Although the face of tomorrow’s media is impossible to predict, certain sectors are poised to benefit enormously from the emergence of digital, or are at least less susceptible to its problems.

Here are some winning strategies:

Embrace convergence. Convergence offers almost limitless flexibility in delivering and customizing content. Sports fans can watch an event from any camera, watch real-time animated renderings allowing absolute viewer control, interact with video games with parallel story lines, or chat with other fans. News broadcasts can allow viewers to examine any topic to any depth. Toys can react to signals embedded in Saturday morning cartoons. Consumers can create customized “channels” delivering content tailored to their needs and whims. Companies that capture the voicexyz-over-Internet market will be big winners in the new-media world.

Embrace copying. There is no doubt that a large part of the business value of media lies in its ability to influence (usually via advertising), which in turn benefits most from widespread adoption. For a business built on influence, free and unfettered copying should be encouraged rather than litigated. Not everything has to be free. In some cases, people will pay to get content faster. Live events are the most obvious situation where copies are less valuable than originals. People may pay for live feeds of sporting events, for example. In many cases, people will pay for higher-quality content, for example higher-resolution movies or better-sounding music. For example, with a good digital rights management system, pristine digital copies might be sold for a small premium, even while slightly tarnished analog copies (which are essentially unstoppable) proliferate. People may pay a premium for convenience, anonymity, quality assurance, or to obtain versions stripped of commercial messages. Clearly delineated commercials are a problem in a world where time shifting and copying are prevalent: people will simply skip commercials. So commercial messages must be embedded directly in the content, using product placement or endorsements.

Real-time gambling offers a natural source of revenue for sporting events and other live events. Real-time gambling is spreading quickly throughout the UK and Europe, where it is well regulated and taxed. Real-time gambling offers a situation where live feeds are essential, and copies less damaging. In fact, wide dissemination of copies could be valuable as a marketing device to drive interest in the live events and concurrent gambling services.

computer science, economics, fun, woblomo

Pricing the cloud, circa 1968

This article (membership required) is remarkable mostly for the fact that it was published in 1968. (Hat tip to Jonathan Smith.) It describes an experiment in creating an artificial economy to buy and sell computer time in the cloud, an idea that has been kicked around a number of times in the intervening decades but never quite took hold, until recently if you count literal pricing in dollars in EC2. The concept of buying time on your company’s compute cluster in a pseudo currency may come back into vogue as such installations become commonplace and over demanded.

Also check out the hand drawn figure and the advertisement at the end:


COBOL extensions to handle data bases

insurance, prediction markets, woblomo

A tale of two insurance/prediction markets

16 Comments

Chris Masse has the scoop (once again proving how indispensable he is) on a new real-money prediction market coming soon, one of the few with the CTFC’s blessing to operate in the United States: The American Civics Exchange. Their tag line focuses on the insurance angle: “Your greatest financial risks may be hiding in plain sight — market-based solutions for political risk management”.

Meanwhile, Carlos Saieh, a sharp student in Justin Wolfers’ class where I just gave a guest lecture, found an apparent pricing bug in another insurance-oriented prediction market, WeatherBill (proving how indispensable attentive students with laptops and wifi are):


WeatherBill pricing mistake

Let’s see: for a mere $770, you can purchase a contract that pays out at most $700 in the absolute best case, possibly much less. Hmm, let me think about that one.

Finally, a financial contract that makes mortgage-backed securities look good.

commentary, economics, lastanalogs, technology, woblomo

Jamesburg, New Jersey: Per-capita bank branch capital of the world

1 Comment

By 2007, Jamesburg, New Jersey, a town of 6,000, had four walk-in bank branches — Bank of America, Constitution, PNC, and Sovereign — complete with bricks, mortar, tellers, and aura of trust along its quaint “Main Street” downtown corridor.

Apparently that wasn’t enough.

In 2008, Chase Bank and TD Bank broke ground. Thousands of motorists now pass them every weekday morning on their way to the New Jersey Turnpike and again every evening on their way home. If I had a hand in it, I might insert a drive-thru restaurant, of which there are currently none, into the path of commuters. But I don’t and the Invisible Hand chose otherwise: to erect two more banks for a total of six banks within one square mile, or one for every 1000 residents. (To be fair, the surrounding township has 30,000 people, but probably a dozen more banks.)


Six walk-in bank branches within one square mile in Jamesburg, NJ USA

We live in an era of electronic banking when ATMs dispensing paper money seems horribly analog. Walking through a door under a roof of a building representing the shelter for my money to talk to a person is, I’ll admit, occasionally reassuring, and even less occasionally useful. But everyone must admit that this is an activity growing rarer by the day.

So why are bank branches staging a last stand in this small New Jersey town?

Probably because the surrounding community, Monroe Township, is home to several retirement communities whose residents select banks based on the accessibility of branches. (They also buy newspapers and watch ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson at 6:30 and hence commercials for prescription drugs.)

Several new shopping centers have gone up in the area and each seems to have the same collection of stores, anchored by a drug store and a bank.

The data may say that these are profitable investments, but for how long?

Jamesburg would seem to have great potential as a consumer destination: a walkable urban strip in the center of a relatively affluent suburban township, on the bank of a gorgeous lake adjacent to a 675 acre park. Yet it has a few mom and pop shops, one Subway, one Dunkin’ Donuts, and one gas station. And six banks. Go figure.

commentary, gambling, prediction markets, woblomo

KISS prediction markets (lingo) goodbye

6 Comments

The lingo of prediction markets varies widely.

The same “thing” might be called an information market, idea future, virtual stock market, financial market, securities market, event market, binary option, betting exchange, bookmaker, market in uncertainty, or gambling/wagering. Only recently has the name prediction market emerged with some sort of consensus.

To place a prediction in the market, you might do any of the following:

[bid/buy/bet on/back] the “yes” [security/contract/coupon/future/outcome] at [price/probability/fractional odds/decimal odds/moneyline] X

Predicting something won’t happen gets even uglier. You might:

[ask/short sell yes/buy no/buy bundle & sell yes/bet against/lay] at [price/probability/fractional odds/decimal odds/moneyline] X

For example, InklingMarkets uses the “short sell yes” variation:

InklingMarkets' explanation of short selling

So what is the clearest language for prediction markets?

A good guiding principle in this regard is KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid. Or, in more grandiose terms, Occam’s razor. All else being equal, one should choose the simplest and most straightforward option.

By this measure, it seems that betting lingo wins hands down. It’s vastly simpler to say “I bet $10 that Obama will lose” than to say “I short sell three shares of Obama at price 67”. The former is more direct and intuitive. Almost everyone understands what it means to place a bet, including subtleties like risk, uncertainty, and competition. On the other hand, even avid stock traders get tripped up by the concept of selling short.

Every prediction can be stated as: “I bet that outcome O will/won’t happen; I’ll risk $X to win $Y”. Betting for things and against things is symmetric. There is no need to short sell, buy bundles first, etc.

Yet most prediction markets don’t KISS, going with financial terminology instead, reflected even in the name itself. Why? I believe it’s because of the legal and social stigma attached to gambling. It’s a shame that such considerations force vendors to make the technology harder to understand and more complicated to use.

economics, finance, fun, gambling, games, woblomo

Challenge: Derive the Kelly criteria for play money

12 Comments

The Kelly criteria is a money management strategy for gamblers and investors. The strategy says that, when faced with a positive-expectation bet, you should invest a fraction of your budget that is proportional to your expected profit. The more your expect to gain, the more you should risk, but you never risk your entire budget.

The Kelly strategy is optimal in several senses: (1) it minimizes your “doubling time”, or the time it takes to go from having X dollars to having 2X dollars; (2) it minimizes the time it takes to achieve any given level of wealth; (3) it maximizes your long-run wealth.

(It turns out that the Kelly strategy is equivalent to maximizing a logarithmic utility function.)

A key reason the Kelly strategy is optimal is that it is very careful to never take you completely bankrupt: you spend only a fraction of your money, always reserving a bit for tomorrow, however small. This is sound advice when dealing with real money. (Aside: this all assumes you have a strict budget cap, which is not entirely realistic: you can almost always borrow at least some amount, even in today’s economy.)

But what about maximizing your virtual “wealth” inside a play-money game like NewsFutures, InklingMarkets, HubDub, or MediaPredict? The problem is not quite the same, precisely because you cannot really go bankrupt. Almost every game offers an option to “recharge” your account if you go bust. Even if the option is not explicit, you can always just abandon your account and start a new one with a fresh initial bankroll they typically give to new players.

So what is the Kelly criteria for play money? What is the optimal strategy that minimizes your doubling time when you’re always allowed to recharge back to a fixed starting value any time you go bankrupt? The answer is not obvious to me, so I’m crowdsourcing the problem: can readers derive the right rule?

My only conjecture is that it might become optimal to go “all in” on every single bet. But I’m not sure. [Update: I’ve convinced myself this is not optimal. Imagine two sequential bets, the first with minuscule expected profit and the second with huge expected profit: surely you should not go “all in” on the first.]

Note that finding the optimal solution may not just help you win more bragging rights in online games. There is a fascinating sports betting site called CentSports that gives everyone ten real cents to start with. If you can turn that ten cents into twenty dollars, they’ll cut you a check. Moreover, if you ever go to zero, they’ll restore you right back to ten cents. In other words, the system works just like play-money games except the potential for profit is real. So another way to phrase the challenge question is: what strategy in CentSports minimizes the time it takes you to go from ten cents to twenty dollars?

prediction markets, research, woblomo

Should there be a Prediction Market Institute?

4 Comments

There’s a Prediction Market Industry Association (sort of).

Is it time for a Prediction Market Institute dedicated to scientific advancement and engineering innovation in prediction markets?

On the face of it, the concept is ludicrous: there is no “Support Vector Machine Institute”, for example. But a bunch of tech companies have PM research efforts of some sort, including Google, HP, Microsoft, and Yahoo!. Folks at these companies have come together to lobby, to speak, and to exchange academic research results. Would YaHPooglesoft fund such an institute? If not, who? Chris Masse, who adds “PM journalism” to the list of institute goals, is on the case.

advertising, economics, woblomo

Bem+Wom happens: The ALL-ETT wallet anecdote



pocket
mousetrap

Ernie told me about it. Sid and I told Lance who blogged it. Bill Gasarch read it, bought it, loved it, and blogged it again.

And so it goes for ALL-ETT, the ultimate wallet. Bem+Wom: BEtter Mousetrap + Word Of Mouth. It actually works.

It works for Google too:

[Google’s] growth has come not through TV ad campaigns, but through word of mouth from one satisfied user to another

And now, a viral restaurant.

But, beyond anecdote, continuing from the previous post, is this sort of thing worth $15 billion?

Companies with Bem benefit hugely from Wom and will happily pay for it.

And social networks are nothing if not mouths exchanging words, so it’s natural to think of some paid version of Bem+Wom as their killer app. Facebook Beacon is an innovative attempt despite the overblown backlash.

Paying mouths for words is affiliate marketing, a respectable if not Google-sized business. But turning friends (or celebrities) into salespeople induces a threshold of skepticism, as it should. Paid mouths’ faces must be awfully trustworthy, their words especially persuasive to be believed. Is it even “word of mouth” anymore?

Can Bem+Wom be monetized without mucking it up?