"prediction-markets" via gtzi in Google Reader

How Close is Close

2012-06-01T03:45:54Z

Your team is down by a couple of baskets going into the final minutes of the game. Is it time to panic or is it still anyone’s to win? Plenty have certainly come back from apparently dire situations. Just last month the Lakers beat the Thunder in double overtime after being down by 11 points with four minutes on the clock. In fact, such comebacks have led the renowned sport statistician Bill James to conclude that with four minutes remaining it’s not really over unless the gap is at least 19 points.^[1] Spectacular reversals of fortune may be rare, but conventional wisdom holds that a lot can and does happen in that last quarter.

“An NBA team leading by twice the square root of minutes left in the game has an 80% chance of winning.”

As explained by Moneyball author Michael Lewis, “one statistical rule of thumb in basketball is that a team leading by more points than there are minutes left near the end of the game has an 80% chance of winning. If your team is down by more than 6 points halfway through the final quarter, and you’re anxious to beat the traffic, you can leave knowing that there is slightly less than a 20 percent chance you’ll miss a victory.” While that’s a compelling heuristic, an analysis of over 7,000 games over the last six seasons reveals that it only holds for a few short minutes, losing accuracy even by the six-minute mark in Lewis’s example. A better rule of thumb is that a team has an 80% chance of winning if they lead by twice the square root of minutes left. Going into the final quarter (12 minutes) of the game, for example, that 80% threshold is achieved at $2\sqrt{12} \approx 7$ points. By comparison, the standard heuristic suggests a substantially larger gap of 13 points is required to achieve an 80% chance of success.

Why does the square root rule work? Basketball games can be reasonably well modeled as a series of independent one-minute rounds consisting of approximately one possession for each team. In each interval, the score differential between the teams changes by about two points, with each team roughly equally likely to win that round. In statistical terms, the intervals are approximately mean 0 with standard deviation 2. The central limit theorem then shows that with $t$ minutes remaining, the score gap changes approximately according to a normal random variable with mean 0 and standard deviation $2\sqrt{t}$. (By contrast, the rule of thumb Lewis cites implicitly — and incorrectly — assumes randomness increases linearly in time.) Since it is unlikely a team will make up a one standard deviation deficit (i.e., $2\sqrt{t}$ points), a lead of at least that much is relatively safe.

It’s perhaps surprising that a seemingly modest seven-point deficit is difficult to recover from with a full quarter of play remaining. Granted, coming back 20% of the time is not exactly a snowball’s chance in hell (more like the chance of sunshine in Juneau, in December), but it’s certainly not an enviable position to be in. The data further show that even starting the fourth quarter down just five points does not bode well, with only a 1 in 4 chance of success.

At least anecdotally, there appears to be a general sense that entering the final stretch down a few points is not a big deal; it’s still a “close” game and anything can happen. Understanding the effects of such deceptively minor deficits, however, could lead to better strategic play. For example, a team that correctly recognizes their low likelihood of success may attempt riskier plays so as to increase the randomness of the game and in turn boost their chance of winning. Alternatively, realizing the point gap amassed in the first three quarters is in fact quite consequential, teams may increase their intensity of play earlier on. But who really knows if such armchair statistical strategies would actually work in practice? Certainly not me — I’ve never even played a proper game of basketball — but that hasn’t stopped me from blogging about it before!

Footnotes

[1] Strictly speaking, James’s rule was intended for college — not professional — basketball, but I suspect he would arrive at a similar estimate for NBA games.

Illustration by Kelly Savage. Data obtained from BasketballValue.com. Thanks to Kiran Limaye, Dave Pennock, Matt Salganik, and Sid Suri for teaching me that basketball is the one in which you try to put the round thing into the hanging box.

NEST-TN, INCITE Co-Investment Fund, DLA Piper and Golden Seeds invest in Consensus Point, Prediction Market Leader

2012-06-01T03:05:31Z

Nashville, TN – May 31, 2012 Consensus Point, the provider of the Huunu prediction market software, announced today it has completed its financing round led by Relevance Capital’s NEST-TN, LLC, a TNInvestco fund, with an impressive group of investors, including Golden Seeds, DLA Piper, and the Tennessee Technology Development Corporation (TTDC) INCITE Co-Investment Fund. The capital will accelerate further development of the product offerings of their Huunu prediction market, as well as provide resources to expand their global user base in new markets.

Consensus Point, a Nashville-based prediction market company serving market research, media, and consulting firms, leveraged the Tennessee Technology Development Corporation (TTDC) INCITE Co-Investment Fund to match investments by NEST-TN and CP Investment Partners. Consensus Point also received investments from well known Golden Seeds and DLA Piper Venture Funds.

“Consensus Point is very grateful to have support from such outstanding investors and to be able to fuel our growth through TNInvestco and the INCITE Co-Investment Fund, created to stimulate innovation-based economic development and grow the creation of knowledge-based jobs in Tennessee,” said CEO Linda Rebrovick. “We look forward to returning value and creating jobs for our shareholders.”

Consensus Point is a leading provider of “crowd-sourced” prediction market technology and has worked with enterprise clients, such as GE and Motorola, to speed innovation and improve their decision making process. In recent weeks, the company launched its new Huunu prediction market platform, designed to improve engagement of consumers in market research and market intelligence. Huunu provides a new way for market researchers to ask questions and get richer, more insightful answers.

As one of the technology startups in Tennessee to be headed by a female CEO, Consensus Point is pleased to have received investment from women-led and owned investment firms, Golden Seeds and Relevance Capital. Golden Seeds, dedicated to delivering above market returns through the empowerment of women entrepreneurs and the people who invest in them, invests solely in women-owned and women-led businesses. “Consensus Point is rapidly expanding into market research and market intelligence organizations and is well-positioned to grow rapidly,” said Sandra Kresch, Managing Director of Golden Seeds in New York. “We are proud to add them to our portfolio of women-led companies.”

“Nest-TN is excited to partner with such a reputable syndicate of investors in this transaction. We believe greatly in Linda and her team at Consensus Point and look forward to watching them continue to build a dynamic business,” said Fran Marcum, CEO of Nest-TN. “We are honored to invest in a woman-led business right here in Tennessee.”

Five baseline assumptions on seed accelerators

2012-05-20T17:49:14Z

There has been an explosion of new seed accelerators recently, and with that comes an explosion of press interest, blog articles, and more. I was even interviewed for a recent article by the Wall Street Journal, though my quotes were all cut. (Speaking of which, I learned a lot of about media through that experience. Sometimes it doesn’t matter what the writer/journalist thinks, the editor really calls the shots and enforces a point of view.)

I want to lay out the five baseline assumptions that I make when explaining seed accelerators:

All accelerators improve the chances of startup’s success
There is a wide spectrum to how much help an accelerator gives a startup due to reputation, deal flow, quantity/quality of applicants
The best seed accelerators are started in order to do better investing, and partners really make money through follow-on investments
A lot of seed accelerators will fail, and there’s no problem with that
Entrepreneurs should understand what they’re selling to an accelerator (but not worry about it too much)

And here’s why:

All accelerators improve the chances of startup’s success

While I don’t think that every startup should go through an accelerator, I do believe that going through any accelerator improves the probability that that a startup will be successful. It’s very straightforward: the whole point of the accelerator is to provide tools, mentorship, connections, and support to startups so they can be successful. Perhaps I’m a bit of an optimist, but I would be surprised if any startup coming out of an accelerator would say that the program didn’t hurt their chances for success or provided them with zero value.

Unfortunately, this is a very difficult data point to test. I’ve assembled a lot of information about the status and success of over 1100 startups that have been through nearly 100 accelerators across the globe, but capturing the data for the entire startup ecosystem that hasn’t gone through an accelerator is damn near impossible.

There is a wide spectrum to how much help an accelerator gives a startup due to reputation, deal flow, quantity/quality of applicants

I doubt this is a controversial point. The degree of acceleration that startups get by going through Y Combinator is significantly different than many of the newest accelerators. For example, YC companies have a very high rate of getting follow-on funding, and their alumni network is unparalleled. Newer programs don’t have anything like this.

When it comes to understanding the seed accelerator ecosystem, the best metaphor is the US university educational system. There are some programs that are clear leaders; like Y Combinator / TechStars and the Ivy League. There’s massive demand to get into these handful of programs, and they attract the very best startups. Once inside, you have some of the best access to people in industry and massive advantages because of that credential. And because they’re so good, they attract the best people with the best chance of long-term success.

There are also more regional accelerators, like the state university system. They tend to be more attractive for people looking to stay closer to home. Some of these have the capacity to be real powerhouses, but many are just average. But even though I call them “average”, by graduating from the university/accelerator, you have a better chance of long-term success than if you did it all on your own.

Finally, I like seeing the growth of vertical-specific accelerators like RockHealth and Imagine K12, which are like professional schools. They provide real benefits for companies in verticals that have very specific needs and very specific markets. It’s no wonder you see companies like Agile Diagnosis go through Y Combinator and then later on also decide to go through RockHealth. As I mentioned in my thesis three years ago, I believe these specialized accelerators are where some really great and successful programs can and will be built.

The best seed accelerators are started in order to do better investing, and partners really make money through follow-on investments

When I interviewed Paul Graham and David Cohen for my thesis back in 2009, one thing was very clear to me. They started Y Combinator and TechStars in order to do angel investing better. In short, Y Combinator and TechStars were primarily founded to make money. This aligns the program and the startups; the startups want to create successful businesses, and the program partners want to make money which can only happen if those businesses are successful. Because they’re judging and assisting startups solely on their product/market fit and potential, I believe they have the greatest chance of generating the exits required to become profitable.

I’m personally not a fan of accelerators that are started for the purpose of, say, “kickstarting the startup ecosystem in Northeast Montana.” They usually get some government funding or grants from organizations that they’ve convinced to fund them. In short, these programs are often funded for ego. Now I don’t think these programs should die, because of the very first point above. (Any program will improve a startups’ chance of success.) But the incentives are not necessarily aligned in this situation. Startups still want to create successful businesses, but accelerators want to prove they’re doing good things for the community. I believe that these programs will not typically generate startups with exits that will make the program profitable long-term, so the program will need to go back to their investors to continue.

No accelerators that I know of do any follow-on funding, though some programs are able to offer convertible loan notes of small size. This limits the profits that the accelerator will eventually earn. But this hides the fact that the partners of the programs DO invest in follow-on rounds individually through their own personal angel investing. For example, I understand that many/most of the YC partners invest in YC companies, though from what I’ve been told they don’t lead any follow-on rounds. (Probably partly for signaling effects, and partly because they have a lot of demands on their time.) So while the accelerators’ stake is initially 5-10%, it’s diminished with each round of funding. The partners who invest personally are able to continue to invest in future rounds, and while I have yet to do an in-depth analysis here, I believe that’s where the partners REALLY make their money.

Leading on from that, what an accelerator really brings to program partners is deal flow. So even if a program is marginally profitable or unprofitable, the founders/partners could effectively use it as a loss-leader for much more profitable follow-on investing.

A lot of seed accelerators will fail, and there’s no problem with that

I’m modifying this phrase from Pascal Finette’s blog post. A number of accelerators are started for the wrong reasons (ie, not strictly to make money) so I believe that they do not have a bright long-term future. I agree with Pascal that the money many programs earn from exits will never be able to make up for the costs of the program, and many will eventually close.

Seed accelerators failing isn’t bad! Even if an accelerator that’s trying to kick-start the startup ecosystem in north-east Montana runs for two years and then dies, that’s two years of startups that have been trained and two years of connections between startups and investors and mentors. Sure, while it could have potentially had a better outcome, that’s not a bad result. From my data, just under 10% of the seed accelerators I’m tracking have already failed. (Though some have been resurrected in other forms.)

Who really loses when an accelerator dies? It’s not the startups; they’ve already gone through and had their experience. The only people that lose are the investors behind the program, and they should have understood what they were getting into before they began.

Entrepreneurs should understand what they’re selling to an accelerator (but not worry about it too much)

When I was speaking to the journalist from the Wall Street Journal, she mentioned her editor was very concerned about the cost of these programs, that startups are giving away too much equity. I believe this line of thinking is short-sighted and wanted to briefly explain why.

The default end-state for a startup is failure. The reason for an accelerator’s existence is to help prevent failure, and they take a small equity stake in companies in order to align their incentives. The accelerator only ever “wins” when their startups “win”. Paul Graham has (of course) written on this topic, and made an easy mathematical argument. You should be willing to give up X% equity if afterward the business has a (100/(100-X))% better chance of success. So if you sell 10% of your equity to an accelerator, you’re better off provided that your business is (100/90 = 1.11) 11% better off than before you went through the program. I think with the vast majority of matches between startups and accelerators this price is most definitely worth it.

There is a market “price” / valuation for different programs, and entrepreneurs should recognize what they’re selling. For experienced entrepreneurs to go through a new accelerator is perhaps not worth the cost, because it could duplicate their existing experience, adding no real value. That’s why these programs should (and do) specialize in new entrepreneurs. Top-tier programs are able to add value even for experienced entrepreneurs, so it’s not uncommon for founders to go through Y Combinator even after starting and successfully exiting a previous YC company.

Summary

Seed accelerators are great opportunities. For beginning entrepreneurs virtually any program would improve their startup’s chances for success. For beginning program founders, I would suggest that you deeply examine your motivations, and what could/would happen if the program doesn’t get the exits you expect from the first 1-3 years of startups.

There will be more programs founded, and a lot more startups going through them in the next few years. I hope the information here provides a good framework for discussing seed accelerators in the future.

RE: RE: Wisdom of the Unwashed?

2012-05-31T23:31:43Z

Hi Leonard –

Yes, many subtle shades of gray, a matter of degree. They don’t seem to be pursuing the dangerous zero-sum game. Rather, people higher on the scale of science knowledge and numeracy are just more (gradually) skeptical. They are particularly skeptical of dubious political machinations to address hyped-up, bogus ‘dangers.’ That comports with my experience…

Re: [PMCluster.com] Re: RE: Wisdom of the Unwashed?

2012-05-31T09:28:48Z

It may simply be that the more educated segment of the population include "consider the source" in their conclusions alongside the 'scientific' data.

If Al Gore announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed a significant percentage of the U.S. population would not have believed him.

OBTW, we have absolute confirmation that bin Laden, Ghadaffi and Sadam Hussein are all dead --- word from Chicago just last week that all three have registered to vote.

Re: RE: Wisdom of the Unwashed?

2012-05-31T07:09:36Z

Dangers mean risks. They are probabilities of the possible outcomes and the influence of the change that's happening. "Believing" is a non-zero number simply believing that a risk exists. Believing the number is zero, well, I wouldn't belittle those that came to that conclusion, but i'd certainly be interested in exploring their model...

RE: Wisdom of the Unwashed?

2012-05-31T04:34:47Z

Hi Dave –

You joining the tea party then John?

I’m already in the Herbal Tea Party.

One party us enough for me.

[link]

-j

Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 11:10 AM

RE: [PMCluster.com] Wisdom of the Unwashed?

2012-05-31T02:02:11Z

no--posted by this guy below

also caplan at gmu--portrayed liberals as econ-illiterates

______________________________ __
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 1:58 PM
To: prediction-markets@googlegroup s.com; tfon@googlegroups.com; complexity-science@googlegroup s.com

You have to be pretty dumb to believe in the dangers of climate change –

Wisdom of the Unwashed?

2012-05-31T00:58:03Z

You have to be pretty dumb to believe in the dangers of climate change -

[link]

".as one moves up the scale of science knowledge and numeracy, people become
more skeptical, not less."

The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy On Perceived Climate

Beta testers wanted for our new iOS app

2012-05-30T16:07:00Z

We’re about a week away from distributing a private build of an Inkling iPhone app.

Functionality is pretty basic right now: simple trades, tracking your positions and performance numbers, listing questions and searching for them, and the leaderboard for highest worth portfolios.

We’re starting off catering to simple users with this app, then we’ll get to power users in future versions. The app will work for both our public site and any of our client sites.

Contact me directly: adam@inklingmarkets.com if you’d like to get a beta build and give us feedback. We have the right to say no if we think you're sketchy or one of our competitors. :)

Understanding the impacts of a risk occurring

2012-05-30T15:33:00Z

Recently, we have had several clients inquire about using Inkling to understand not only the likelihood of a risk occurring but the potential impact of that risk.

Prediction markets handle this nicely because of the flexibility you have in asking the question and also the fact they output a quantitative value to your question.

For example, we can ask:

"If risk X occurs, what will happen?"

Impact A
Impact B
Impact C

In this instance, the question type in Inkling would allow for multiple possible right answers so each impact can be judged individually. If the risk does not occur (the impacts cannot be assessed,) each impact would be cashed out at 0.

We can also directly correlate the occurrence of a risk (or any other event) with impacts. To do so, we simply multiply the chances of the impact and the risk to understand the likelihood the impact will occur in association with that risk.

For example, we can ask: "Will risk X occur?" and let's say the current price is $75, representing a 75% chance the risk will occur. In a separate question, we can ask "Will impact X occur if risk X occurs?" and let's say the current price is $25, representing a 25% chance the impact will occur.

Multiplying (.25 * .75) the two, we get ~.19 or a 19% chance Impact X will occur.

Assessing the impacts of risks is important for decision makers to understand as it will directly influence what they may or may not want to do to mitigate a risk. For example if the likelihood of a risk is high but only non-harmful impacts have a high probability of occurring, it may not be necessary to mitigate the risk. But if the reverse is true, mitigating that risk may take on a higher priority.

SemTechBiz Kicks off This Sunday, June 3 in SF!

2012-05-30T02:25:56Z

<[link]> Description: webmediabrands.com

<[link]> Description: semanticweb.com

Description: mediabistro.com
<[link]
f> <[link]> Description: facebook

REMINDER: Suits and Spooks LA Early Bird Registration ends June 1

2012-05-30T00:09:52Z

Hi All,

For those of you who may be interested in hearing Rob DuBois (Navy SEAL),
Jonathan Hutson (Satellite Sentinel Project), Nada Bakos (Project Grey
Goose), and our other speakers at Suits and Spooks LA at the Bel Air Bay
Club on June 29th, the early bird registration ends on June 1. The Los

Communispace is “investing” in prediction markets.

2012-05-29T16:11:22Z

We’d like to share a recent blog posting by our partners at Communispace, discussing their initial prediction market test using the Consensus Point Huunu platform. Communispace found Huunu to be not only engaging but highly accurate as well, matching the results of a much larger study that they had done.

Want to know more? Read the blog and download the white paper.

New Market: Exact opening weekend box office returns for the Dark Knight Rises

2012-05-28T01:06:40Z

Intrade has opened a market for the opening weekend box office returns (to the nearest $100,000) for the Dark Knight Rises. This market can be found under Entertainment > Box Office Returns.

IMPORTANT:

This market is not a typical Intrade market that will settle at $10.00 or $0.00. Please read the following market rules very carefully and make sure you understand how this market works before you buy or sell shares. Trades will not be reversed based on a misunderstanding of the market rules. If you have any questions about this market please contact help@intrade.com before trading.

How This Market Works:

This market is for the opening weekend box office gross for The Dark Knight Rises (as reported by Box Office Mojo). The market will be settled according to how much The Dark Knight Rises takes in at the North American box-office in its opening weekend. The Dark Knight Rises is currently scheduled for a July 20th, 2012 release.

Shares are traded in $0.01 increments, each representing $100,000 of box office gross. Each million dollars of box-office gross is therefore valued at $0.10.

The box-office gross (rounded to the nearest $100,000) will be multiplied by $0.10 to determine the final settlement price of the market. For example: If the box-office gross is $234,587,100 this will be rounded to $234.6 million and multiplied by $0.10 to get the final settlement price of $23.56.

When trading shares the box-office gross (to the nearest $100,000) is multiplied by $0.10 to determine the price of the shares. A share price of $21.33 for example, represents a box-office gross of $213.3 million ($213.3 million * $0.10).

Maximum/Minimum Share Pricing & Margin Requirements:

The maximum box-office gross that can be traded is $280 million, therefore the highest share price possible is $28.00. The minimum box-office gross that can be traded is $140 million, therefore the lowest share price is $14.00. If the box-office gross is greater than $280 million, the market will be settled at $28.00. If the box-office gross is lower than $140 million, the market will be settled at $14.00.

As with other markets you are required to cover the maximum potential loss when making a trade. Please be aware that rather than trading from $0 to $10, this market trades from $14.00 to $28.00. The minimum and maximum prices described above will be used to calculate your potential loss. For example, if you buy shares at $20.00, the cost will be $6.00 per share to cover the maximum potential loss ($20.00 - $14.00 = $6.00). Conversely, if you sold shares at $20.00, the cost would be $8.00 to cover the maximum potential loss ($28.00 - $20.00 = $8.00).

Buying Shares:

You will buy shares if you expect the box-office gross will be HIGHER than the current share price. If the box-office gross is higher than your share price you will make a profit. If the box-office gross is lower than your share price you will suffer a loss. For example:

You buy shares at $23.50 (box-office gross of $235.0 million). The box-office gross is $265.0 million and the market is settled at $26.50. Your profit will be $3.00 per share.

You buy shares at $23.50 (box-office gross of $235.0 million). The box-office gross is $180.0 million and the market is settled at $18.00. Your loss will be $5.50 per share.

(Short) Selling Shares:

You will sell shares if you expect the box-office gross will be LOWER than the current share price. If the box-office gross is lower than your share price you will make a profit. If the box-office gross is higher than your share price you will suffer a loss. For example:

You sell shares at $23.50 (box-office gross of $235.0 million). The box-office gross is $200.0 million and the market is settled at $20.00. Your profit will be $3.50 per share.

You sell shares at $23.50 (box-office gross of $235.0 million). The box-office gross is $245.0 million and the market is settled at $24.50. Your loss will be $1.00 per share.

Reading is fun, not mental

2012-05-28T01:29:00Z

... the lowest reading-level result on any writing sample that I tested came from people I am certain are the dumbest writers on the internet: the folks who left comments on Yahoo! Sports articles. They wrote at a 3.3 grade level.--Ben Blatt

New Market: Exact opening weekend box office returns for the Dark Knight Rises

2012-05-25T02:00:42Z

Intrade has opened a market for the exact (in millions of dollars) opening weekend box office returns for the Dark Knight Rises. This market can be found under Entertainment > Box Office Returns.

IMPORTANT:

This market is not a typical Intrade market that will settle at $10.00 or $0.00. Please read the following market rules very carefully and make sure you understand how this market works before you buy or sell shares. Trades will not be reversed based on a misunderstanding of the market rules. If you have any questions about this market please contact help@intrade.com before trading.

How This Market Works:

This market is for the opening weekend box-office gross for The Dark Knight Rises (as reported by Box Office Mojo). The market will be settled according to how much The Dark Knight Rises takes in at the North American box-office in its opening weekend. The Dark Knight Rises is currently scheduled for a July 20th, 2012 release.

Each million dollars of box-office gross is valued at $0.10. Therefore, the box-office gross (rounded to the nearest million) will be multiplied by $0.10 to determine the final settlement price of the market. For example: If the box-office gross is $234,567,100 this will be rounded to $235 million and multiplied by $0.10 to get the final settlement price of $23.50.

When trading shares each million dollars of box-office gross is multiplied by $0.10 to determine the price of the shares. A share price of $21.30 for example, represents a box-office gross of $213 million ($213 million * $0.10).

Maximum/Minimum Contract Pricing & Margin Requirements:

The maximum box-office gross that can be traded is $280 million, therefore the highest share price possible is $28.00. The minimum box-office gross that can be traded is $140 million, therefore the lowest share price is $14.00. If the box-office gross is greater than $280 million, the market will be settled at $28.00. If the box-office gross is lower than $140 million, the market will be settled at $14.00.

As with other markets you are required to cover the maximum potential loss when making a trade. Please be aware that rather than trading from $0 to $10, this market trades from $14.00 to $28.00. The minimum and maximum prices described above will be used to calculate your potential loss. For example, if you buy shares at $20.00, the cost will be $6.00 per share to cover the maximum potential loss ($20.00 - $14.00 = $6.00). Conversely, if you sold shares at $20.00, the cost would be $8.00 to cover the maximum potential loss ($28.00 - $20.00 = $8.00).

Buying Shares:

You will buy shares if you expect the box-office gross will be HIGHER than the current share price. If the box-office gross is higher than your share price you will make a profit. If the box-office gross is lower than your share price you will suffer a loss. For example:

You buy shares at $23.50 (box-office gross of $235 million). The box-office gross is $265 million and the market is settled at $26.50. Your profit will be $3.00 per share.

You buy shares at $23.50 (box-office gross of $235 million). The box-office gross is $180 million and the market is settled at $18.00. Your loss will be $5.50 per share.

(Short) Selling Shares:

You will sell shares if you expect the box-office gross will be LOWER than the current share price. If the box-office gross is lower than your share price you will make a profit. If the box-office gross is higher than your share price you will suffer a loss. For example:

You sell shares at $23.50 (box-office gross of $235 million). The box-office gross is $200 million and the market is settled at $20.00. Your profit will be $3.50 per share.

You sell shares at $23.50 (box-office gross of $235 million). The box-office gross is $245 million and the market is settled at $24.50. Your loss will be $1.00 per share.

Weekly Box-Office Markets now listed Friday

2012-05-25T08:59:22Z

Starting today, our weekly box-office returns markets will be listed on a Friday and not Monday.

Weekly Box-Office Markets now listed Friday

2012-05-25T08:59:22Z

Starting today, our weekly box-office returns markets will be listed on a Friday and not Monday.

Winner of the next Greek legislative election (scheduled 17 June 2012)

2012-05-22T02:42:04Z

Intrade has opened a market for which party will win the highest percentage of the popular vote in the next Greek legislative election (scheduled 17 June 2012). This market can be found under Politics > Greek Politics.

As always, please ensure you read and understand the market rules before you make any trades. Please contact us at help@intrade.com if you have any questions.