pageok
pageok
pageok
Breaking News:
Both the Tradesports betting site and the Slate Miers-O-Meter are predicting that Harriet Miers will not be confirmed. Well, I guess that does it.
magoo (mail):
I'm glad we avoided that constitutional crisis over the documents. Whew!
10.27.2005 6:03pm
Peter (mail) (www):
I always thought that Slate's thing was stupid... if they were so confident, Tradesports was there for them to profit from the market's misreading of the true situation. I thought it was just lawyers spewing opinions... as a law student I can't wait to do it myself! Oh well, at least they were only off by 75%
10.27.2005 6:22pm
Paul.H (mail):
Mcconnell, Clement and Jones are the board leaders for next pick. Tradesports next SCOTUS pick.
10.27.2005 6:38pm
Hoosier:
Why not MITCH McConnell? I think I know his take on free speech and campaign finance reform.

So the Court would reverse at least one bad decision.
10.27.2005 7:28pm
Paul N (mail):
I don't get it - Orin cites Tradesports when it provides information, but then he mocks it when he feels it does a bad job of predicting outcome?

Hindsight is irrelevant when it comes to market, because the future is not yet determined. You might conclude that markets are inefficient or don't convey information well as a whole, but you can't conclude that markets are stupid because in a couple of cases its estimates of the future turned out to be off.

The White Sox won the World Series in 4 games - does that mean it was WRONG for someone to bet on the Astros to win the World Series for .40 on the dollar? Of course not.
10.27.2005 7:56pm
talboito (mail) (www):

Hindsight is irrelevant when it comes to market, because the future is not yet determined.


Huh?
10.27.2005 8:16pm
OrinKerr:
Paul,

Just curious -- when did I cite Tradesports as a source of helpful information on the Supreme Court? I don't remember when I did, but my apologies if I have been inconsistent.
10.27.2005 9:32pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
I'll take "none of these."
10.27.2005 9:53pm
Rhadamanthus (mail):

The White Sox won the World Series in 4 games - does that mean it was WRONG for someone to bet on the Astros to win the World Series for .40 on the dollar? Of course not.



It doesn't mean it was wrong for them to bet the money, it does mean that they got their prediction totally and utterly wrong.

I think Orin's point, rather than being an attack on Tradesports was a dose of realism aimed at the weight that is given to Tradesport over issues that may actually have substantive relevance.
10.28.2005 9:48am
Rhadamanthus (mail):

The White Sox won the World Series in 4 games - does that mean it was WRONG for someone to bet on the Astros to win the World Series for .40 on the dollar? Of course not.



It doesn't mean it was wrong for them to bet the money, it does mean that they got their prediction totally and utterly wrong.

I think Orin's point, rather than being an attack on Tradesports was a dose of realism aimed at the weight that is given to Tradesport over issues that may actually have substantive relevance.
10.28.2005 9:48am
Paul N (mail):
Orin,

I was referring to your Oct 21 post (link here), where you say "Tradesports betting on Miers today has the chances of her being confirmed in the 20% range, down about 40 points from yesterday." which you appear to use as evidence supporting a Tipping Point in the Miers battle.

It's true you did say that this was "perhaps, a sign of nothing at all" - your skepticism is evident from that aside.

I agree that the market may trade at some distorted value (Miers = .30) relative to reality (Miers = 0), but when non-insiders like me have to form an opinion about what is likely to happen in the future, I think that in the long run it will be more accurate to trust the market than to trust the instinct or research any one pundit or group of pundits. The reason, of course, is that if a pundit is confident enough to put his money where his mouth is, he will sway the market price to reflect his information.
10.28.2005 10:00am