PDA

View Full Version : iPredict - just a National Party or rightwing propaganda tool?



elZorro
17-08-2014, 12:46 PM
While reading Nicky Hager's "Dirty Politics" book the other day, I saw it confirmed that at least one National Party stalwart (Cameron Slater) deliberately uses ipredict (https://www.ipredict.co.nz)(Victoria University's political betting website) to boost the chances of a preferred event happening. The important thing to note here, is that anyone can suggest the topics that iPredict runs bets on. Once set up, just a few players (or one) can make a convincing impression, with not much cash involved.

Nicky Hager made that comment, that a lot of politically minded people seem to place undue relevance on the iPredict numbers, when they can be pushed around easily sometimes. Cameron Slater was effectively being paid by aspiring National Party safe electoral seat candidates, to do this betting.

The iPredict site itself, says that the rule of numbers means that anyone trying to game the system will be pulled back by the other participants. That sounds like true economic theory, a great model, but what happens in real life I wonder?

Does anyone on this thread have any experience with the site?

fungus pudding
17-08-2014, 12:54 PM
While reading Nicky Hager's "Dirty Politics" book the other day, I saw it confirmed that at least one National Party stalwart (Cameron Slater) deliberately uses ipredict (https://www.ipredict.co.nz)(Victoria University's political betting website) to boost the chances of a preferred event happening. The important thing to note here, is that anyone can suggest the topics that iPredict runs bets on. Once set up, just a few players (or one) can make a convincing impression, with not much cash involved.

Nicky Hager made that comment, that a lot of politically minded people seem to place undue relevance on the iPredict numbers, when they can be pushed around easily sometimes. Cameron Slater was effectively being paid by aspiring National Party safe electoral seat candidates, to do this betting.

The iPredict site itself, says that the rule of numbers means that anyone trying to game the system will be pulled back by the other participants. That sounds like true economic theory, a great model, but what happens in real life I wonder?

Does anyone on this thread have any experience with the site?

All parties play that game. Have a look at the conservatives.

elZorro
17-08-2014, 01:13 PM
All parties play that game. Have a look at the conservatives.

I'm sure they'll be betting on getting above 5%, or on winning one seat. Fairly predictable. ACT in Auckland, the same. Those bets will be fiercely protected until the election. Going on the 2011 election, iPredict will bring out press releases once a day or so, closer to the election. At the moment they're only once a week.

Labour and National have a far more wide spread of bets that they'd have to cover - every electorate, the party vote shares, etc. And then the personality bets add to that.

When you buy bets on most of these wagers, you'll see that there are very even-looking spaces between the bet values, and usually they are in clean multiples of 1 or 10 bets. These are mostly computer generated. You buy these off Victoria University, the bets cost them nothing, and in amongst it there will be some real buy/sell bets from other participants. If the wager has very steep-looking changes in its timeline or it's flat-lining (bets cannot be searched backwards for more than 3-4 weeks) then there are not many people betting on that wager. Similar to shares.

blackcap
17-08-2014, 01:21 PM
While reading Nicky Hager's "Dirty Politics" book the other day, I saw it confirmed that at least one National Party stalwart (Cameron Slater) deliberately uses ipredict (https://www.ipredict.co.nz)(Victoria University's political betting website) to boost the chances of a preferred event happening. The important thing to note here, is that anyone can suggest the topics that iPredict runs bets on. Once set up, just a few players (or one) can make a convincing impression, with not much cash involved.

Nicky Hager made that comment, that a lot of politically minded people seem to place undue relevance on the iPredict numbers, when they can be pushed around easily sometimes. Cameron Slater was effectively being paid by aspiring National Party safe electoral seat candidates, to do this betting.

The iPredict site itself, says that the rule of numbers means that anyone trying to game the system will be pulled back by the other participants. That sounds like true economic theory, a great model, but what happens in real life I wonder?

Does anyone on this thread have any experience with the site?

I play on the site. Liquidity is poor but generally if you price things wrong with large enough volume you do get slammed. And it reacts very quickly to new news. Hagars book and launch had an effect pushing National from about .83 to where it is now at .78.

winner69
17-08-2014, 01:32 PM
Thanks for reminding me ..forgot about the 500 bucks sitting there

Now how shall I spend (invest) it

elZorro
17-08-2014, 01:51 PM
Thanks for reminding me ..forgot about the 500 bucks sitting there

Now how shall I spend (invest) it

I had a look at the rules, some important ones.

No. 1. Each person is only allowed to open one iPredict account. Very important. Not allowed to have control over another account.
No. 2. Each person is only allowed to have $2500 invested at the most, in a given 6 month period. This means they can sell some bets and buy others, but the net cash going into the iPredict account can't exceed $2500 over 6 months.
No. 3. If you reach this limit, then you have to wait for the anniversary of your first payment into your account for the previous 6 months, and whatever that payment was, you can then bring in more funds to that level. This means that the few punters who are working hard to change the wagers around, will be putting in $2500 at the start of each 6 month period to have the most flexibility. It's not so important for new entrants now, because the election is only 5 weeks away.

elZorro
17-08-2014, 02:54 PM
There are now about 7964 traders on iPredict. Sounds impressive? Some have returns on investment of over 1000%, but just 30 of them. However, in terms of Net Worth, those players don't tend to rank highly. "Economist" is one who does.

Currently, the biggest net worth trader is "MBW", on $22,000 odd. It drops off sharply. There is a predictable bunch of traders with a net worth near $2500, but by the time we're down to the 100th trader in terms of net worth, that figure is just over $600. Which means that the top 100 traders have about $300,000 of value invested in the site wagers.

When iPredict state that their results are the culmination of over 7000 traders, that is not strictly correct. I would think that the top 100 "investors" would be the major force on the results. There are plenty of iPredict traders who don't seem to bet much, and generally there are under 100 traders on the site at any one time.

elZorro
17-08-2014, 03:59 PM
I think it's time to have a look at who is behind iPredict. The software has probably been written at Victoria University, one of the aims being to offer a predictive service for businesses. It would have cost a bit to develop and maintain. Part of the rationale for having the shadow computer-generated buy/sell bids is to add liquidity to the wagers, and in theory enough punters wade in to each pool so they can reduce that.

Ipredict Ltd is 100% owned by Victoria Link, in turn owned 100% by Victoria University.

The directors of Ipredict Ltd are:

Prof Lewis Evans, Professor of Economics, Victoria University, based in a Lambton Quay building opposite the Beehive. He would be an Economist then.

Ian McIntosh, Manager of Research and Commercial & IP, based in the research office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor's office, Alan MacDiarmid Bldg, Wellington.

Prof Neil Quigley, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), MacDiarmid Building, Victoria University. Was Professor of Monetary Economics.

Prof. Quigley is interesting (http://www.iscr.org.nz/f278,9088/Curriculum_Vitae_of_Neil_Clayton_Quigley_June_2013 _for_ISCR.pdf), in that he is still actively involved in two think-tanks in Canada.

One is called The Institute for Policy Analysis, University of Toronto.

The other is called the C D Howe Institute, Toronto. This think-tank is apparently right-wing. (http://thinktank.wikia.com/wiki/C.D._Howe_Institute)

He also has numerous important positions, besides being on the board of Victoria Link. He's on the board of Treasury Advisory Group, and a director of the Reserve Bank. Most of these positions have been taken up in the last few years.

elZorro
17-08-2014, 04:50 PM
W69, I'm getting around to it. I'm like Cameron Slater, drip feeding the info. Only I intend for all of it to be true.

The picture I'm building up is of some well-resourced people, backed by a University, developing a great looking website and betting database, for political events. By the election of 2011, the iPredict website was being featured on Stratos TV, and it ended up being the most accurate poll prediction for the elections.

As I said, each week leading up to the elections the iPredict website has a time-line drawn across it, and a text report is generated. This is then spilled out to the media, and it doesn't get picked up much by the press until very close to the elections. Electoral candidates and MPs pay a lot of attention to it before then, though.

It has come to my attention that there has been a change in how those weekly reports are closed off.

Have a look at a report close to the 2011 elections.

http://pacific.scoop.co.nz/2011/09/ipredict-election-update-45-nats-above-50/

At the end of each of these reports up until the 2011 election, the text was:


iPredict is owned by Victoria University of Wellington. Details on the company and its stocks can be found at www.ipredict.co.nz (http://www.ipredict.co.nz/) The company is providing full election coverage this year, with contract bundles for the party vote and for every electorate race in the country now available for trading, along with other contract bundles on a wide range of economic, political and social issues. The weekly political snapshot is taken at a random time each week to avoid market manipulation by political parties or activists. This week’s was taken at 9:10am today.

So, the closeoff time is random, and there is direct mention that it avoids market manipulation. We are not told who actually closes off the report, but you'd assume it was someone at Victoria University. I'm happy with that.

In 2014, iPredict started on a new series of reports, starting back on #1.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1401/S00038/ipredict-ltd-2014-election-update-1.htm

Now the note on the bottom of the report says:


iPredict Ltd is owned by Victoria University of Wellington. Details on the company and its stocks can be found at www.ipredict.co.nz (http://www.ipredict.co.nz/). The weekly political update is prepared by Exceltium Ltd on a pro bono basis.

Note that the actual time the report was closed off, is not given. This was corrected by report #2, with no other changes.

Here is the latest report, we're up to #30.

http://community.scoop.co.nz/2014/08/ipredict-election-update-3/

The final comment is:


iPredict Ltd is owned by Victoria University of Wellington. Details on the company and its stocks can be found at www.ipredict.co.nz (http://www.ipredict.co.nz/). The weekly political update is prepared by Exceltium Ltd on a pro bono basis and is based on a snapshot taken at a random time each week. This week’s was taken at 7.53 am today.


Exceltium, Exceltium (http://www.exceltium.com/team), where have I heard that name? It is a relatively small firm, majority owned by Matthew Hooton.

Pro Bono means:
Pro bono publico (English: for the public good; usually shortened to pro bono) is a Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language) phrase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrase) for professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment or at a reduced fee as a public service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_services). It is common in the legal profession and is increasingly seen in architecture, marketing, medicine, technology, and strategy consulting firms. Pro bono service, unlike traditional volunteerism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteerism), uses the specific skills of professionals to provide services to those who are unable to afford them.
Pro Bono Publico is also used in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) to describe the central motivation of large organizations such as the National Health Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service), and various NGOs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization), which exist "for the public good", rather than for shareholder profit.


Which is great for Victoria University, but isn't that a bit like having a fox in charge of the henhouse?

Sgt Pepper
17-08-2014, 05:13 PM
The latest 3 news Poll ... GAME ON ( poll taken before The Book launch) one very worried John Key.

elZorro
17-08-2014, 05:23 PM
The Hooten connection has been public knowledge for a while and debated in political circles

Keep digging ....other interesting connections

Looks like centrebet in Oz haven't opened betting yet. The betting over there on a bigger scale always projects the outcome weeks out

W69, that's all I've got, except I note that Cameron Slater has mentioned this situation before, in his blogs. Presumably he's betting on one candidate, and Matthew is betting on another.

Oh, and one other observation.

Sometimes, there are major unusual iPredict bets placed just five minutes or so before the closeoff. These bets can be in strange areas, the sort of bet that you can't expect to win much with, but which will pull down another part of the same pool. Funnily enough, they are always to the benefit of National or the right.

If I see any more of these occurring, I will make sure I take screenshots of those, and in any case all of these events will be on the transaction records, if Victoria University would like to check how the pro bono reporter has been going.

One solution in the best interests of the democracy of NZ, would be to change the site and personnel where this closeoff is done, to a more neutral setting.

elZorro
17-08-2014, 06:05 PM
Matt Burgess was the manager of iPredict in 2011, and here are some interesting figures about how the predictions market site was going then. It won't be too different now.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10760913

Whale Oil on Hooten and iPredict.

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/05/matthew-hooton-use-ipredict-promote-mates/

blackcap
17-08-2014, 06:10 PM
The Hooten connection has been public knowledge for a while and debated in political circles

Keep digging ....other interesting connections

Looks like centrebet in Oz haven't opened betting yet. The betting over there on a bigger scale always projects the outcome weeks out

Winner,they have been running a book for quite a while now, and I have got some bets on already with them. Last week they closed the book, I think with the Hagar book etc being out.
They started 3 months ago at about 1.25 National, 3.50 or so Labour. This shortened into 1.10 National, 7.00 Labour about 2-3 weeks ago (I took some Labour at 6's) then they went out again to before the closed they had National 1.20, Labour 4.00. Am awaiting with interest what their new book will be when it opens.

winner69
17-08-2014, 06:39 PM
Tom Waterhouse has Nats at $1.16

Foregone conclusion

https://www.tomwaterhouse.com/elections/7145995/d/winning-party-party-of-prime-minister

elZorro
17-08-2014, 07:37 PM
Tom Waterhouse has Nats at $1.16

Foregone conclusion

https://www.tomwaterhouse.com/elections/7145995/d/winning-party-party-of-prime-minister

You mean Australians know more about our politics than we do?

I see what you mean about other partners -

Matthew Hooton jacked up a deal with UMR, but Victoria still owns the site itself.

All the iPredict bets are now handled by a staffer in the Exceltium offices, since 2012. Matt Burgess was also right-wing, he got himself a job working for Bill English.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/%E2%80%98right-wing-ipredict-bed-%E2%80%98labour-umr-ck-112469

Radio interview for iPredict, early this year.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/player/ondemand/1628071943-robert-quigley-mcbride--ipredict2014-update

Cuzzie
17-08-2014, 07:46 PM
While reading Nicky Hager's "Dirty Politics" book the other day, I saw it confirmed that at least one National Party stalwart (Cameron Slater) deliberately uses ipredict (https://www.ipredict.co.nz)(Victoria University's political betting website) to boost the chances of a preferred event happening. The important thing to note here, is that anyone can suggest the topics that iPredict runs bets on. Once set up, just a few players (or one) can make a convincing impression, with not much cash involved.

Nicky Hager made that comment, that a lot of politically minded people seem to place undue relevance on the iPredict numbers, when they can be pushed around easily sometimes. Cameron Slater was effectively being paid by aspiring National Party safe electoral seat candidates, to do this betting.

The iPredict site itself, says that the rule of numbers means that anyone trying to game the system will be pulled back by the other participants. That sounds like true economic theory, a great model, but what happens in real life I wonder?

Does anyone on this thread have any experience with the site?
Just gossip then.

Cuzzie
17-08-2014, 07:46 PM
You mean Australians know more about our politics than we do?

I see what you mean about other partners -

Matthew Hooton jacked up a deal with UMR, but Victoria still owns the site itself.

All the iPredict bets are now handled by a staffer in the Exceltium offices, since 2012. Matt Burgess was also right-wing, he got himself a job working for Bill English.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/%E2%80%98right-wing-ipredict-bed-%E2%80%98labour-umr-ck-112469More loonie left gossip.

elZorro
17-08-2014, 08:10 PM
More loonie left gossip.

Cuzzie, you'll need to read all the posts, there is something going on, that's for sure. However, I can only approve about the idea of iPredict linking up with a more solid industry player like UMR. Stephen Mills, the NZ director, looks fairly friendly too.

http://umr.co.nz/our-people/stephen-mills

Edit: It looks like ipredict didn't link up though.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7831956/iPredict-hit-by-run-of-problems



Now if I can just see a change to a more neutral report closeoff procedure, and a sustained check that no traders open up additional iPredict accounts using aliases, then I'll be happy. I'm watching.

elZorro
17-08-2014, 09:03 PM
OK, this is interesting. Matthew Hooton may be waiting until after the elections to start up a new neo-liberal party. The other partner mentioned here, Alan McDonald, who was GM after a business merger between the two, left Exceltium in April 2014.

http://yournz.org/2013/12/05/hooton-promoting-new-party/


Exceltium runs two offices, the main one in Auckland, but a more recent branch sited not too far from the Beehive.

elZorro
18-08-2014, 07:49 AM
Matt Burgess (linkedin profile (http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=5834390&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=_ZZt&locale=en_US&srchid=780379711408307932116&srchindex=1&srchtotal=256&trk=vsrp_people_res_name&trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A780379711408307932116%2CVSR PtargetId%3A5834390%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary)) left iPredict from the CEO spot, to become a senior economic advisor to Bill English, in 2012. He must have some tertiary qualifications, but these are not mentioned.

It's at about this time, that day-to-day control of iPredict appears to have moved to the Exceltium offices. The site is still hosted by Victoria University, but according to whois, the administrator is Matt@ipredict.co.nz

Here's one of the futures market trades that a left-wing supporter might be interested in. However, the full terms imply that the chances of iPredict paying out on this one, are slim.


Judging Criteria

The contract concerns Mr Key's statement that the first he heard Kim Dotcom's name was when he was briefed by the Solicitor General the day before the raids on Mr Dotcom's mansion which occurred on 20 January 2012.

The statement can be found after 2 mins 8 seconds at http://www.3news.co.nz/Who-knew-what-about-Kim-Dotcom/tabid/367/articleID/252734/Default.aspx.

For the purposes of this contract, Mr Key's use of the word "heard" will be taken to have meant "knew of".

The contract pays $1 if evidence becomes publicly available before 1 January 2015 which a reasonable person would believe proves, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Key knew of Kim Dotcom's name before 19 January 2012.

The evidence, and proof of its veracity, must be published or broadcast in a new bulletin or section A of at least three of TVNZ, TV3, RNZ, NewstalkZB, RadioLIVE, New Zealand Herald and Dominion-Post.

The contract will NOT pay $1 if evidence proves only that Mr Key knew of the name Kim Schmitz and does not clearly provide evidence that Mr Key knew of the name Kim Dotcom prior to 19 January 2012.

Evidence could include written documents, video or audio recordings, electronic documents, webpages and/or text messages.

It is not enough for this contract to close at $1 for evidence to become available that proves only that Mr Key heard Mr Dotcom's name in passing, such as at an event at which he may have been present where a number of names were mentioned in a speech. The evidence must indicate that Mr Key could reasonably have been expected to have become conscious of Mr Dotcom's name so that he would be likely to recall it in future.

In trading this contract, traders therefore acknowledge a degree of subjectivity in the contract and agree that iPredict's judgment on all aspects of the contract will be final.

In setting the closure price, future public statements on this topic by Mr Key and media commentary will be taken into account, but, as noted above, iPredict's judgment will be final.

All dates and times are NZ Time.

elZorro
18-08-2014, 07:43 PM
In this Michelle Hewittson interview, some background on Matthew Hooton (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11224018). I'll have to have a look through my "Hollow Men" book again. He's right, I've forgotten about it.

I have no doubt that Exceltium have been able to get themselves into a powerful position as far as iPredict goes. Even to be able to choose when to close off the weekly report is useful, but if I'm right, and the transaction records show that a trader (or traders) with knowledge of the closeoff time often adjusts it to their liking first, then it's a relatively serious thing.

Especially closer to the election date, when the general public will be more likely to look for the result, and it could sway their opinion just before voting. Most people like to be on the winning side.

Here is another leftie trade on iPredict, and this time the situation is clearcut, with a bit of money coming in over the last day or so (not mine). Note that if this event doesn't occur, the payout is nothing. It's a bit of fun though, right?

elZorro
18-08-2014, 08:10 PM
This trade is one that attracts a lot of attention, especially today by the look of it. The figure is used to predict the chance of National winning the election. I think this is a bit simple, because a percentage figure like that, could have been a weighted average of several of the trades that have a bearing on election party vote results. In any case, the impact of the "Dirty Politics" book is obvious. Either people are selling down their trades on this future, or buy trades are being made on the other side (Labour, Greens, Other), to pull the chart down. Big volume today.

"ipredict" the weekly closeoff will be earlier in the week :)

winner69
18-08-2014, 08:28 PM
eZ said -. Either people are selling down their trades on this future, or buy trades are being made on the other side (Labour, Greens, Other), to pull the chart down. Big volume today.

It can only be the trades for the this contract bringing the line on the chart down. This contract is only about Nats winning (you get paid a $1) or Nats losing (noreturn)

The line on this chart has nothing to do with punters buying the Labour win / that is another pool.

Interesting the volumes today for a Labour PM (trending up so buyers) is higher than for a Nat PM (trending down so sellers)

winner69
18-08-2014, 08:40 PM
EZ - whatever whatever way you look at it the smart money is saying it is inevitable Key will be PM and Labour might get 30% of the votes. It's all over

Whoops Nat PM just shot up to $0.7041 .....somebody keen but then a loser sold out for .6855 (good buying was that thanks).

elZorro
18-08-2014, 09:39 PM
eZ said -. Either people are selling down their trades on this future, or buy trades are being made on the other side (Labour, Greens, Other), to pull the chart down. Big volume today.

It can only be the trades for the this contract bringing the line on the chart down. This contract is only about Nats winning (you get paid a $1) or Nats losing (noreturn)

The line on this chart has nothing to do with punters buying the Labour win / that is another pool.

Interesting the volumes today for a Labour PM (trending up so buyers) is higher than for a Nat PM (trending down so sellers)

Hi W69, this is something that I learned the hard way: some of the 0 or $1 contracts are linked in pools as you say. The one I showed is linked to Labour having the PM, or Other having the PM after the election. If a lot of trades go in for Labour over a short time, then within a few seconds or minutes, the other two sides of the pool get re-rated. They get pulled down, and it shows up as a trade on those contracts, but it wasn't an actual trade in that field. The combined probability almost always ends up being very close to 1 for all of the sides of the contract.

For this reason, like with shares, it's best not to simply buy lots of units at once, should you be keen on the odds . You end up buying all of ipredict's computer-generated sell bids, the price goes sky-high, only to quickly rebalance automatically within a few seconds or minutes, and then another lot of computer bids are generated. It's like their own little money-making machine. 'Little and often' seems to be the best, with a bigger effect on the opposing trades in the pool, for less cash.

elZorro
18-08-2014, 10:50 PM
Maybe iPredict data will be shown on TV, closer to the election. See 2011.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1111/S00055/ipredict-episode-6-bomber-mp-david-parker-matthew-hooton.htm

elZorro
19-08-2014, 07:03 PM
Ok, at 5.36pm, the weekly report for iPredict #31 was released. Any gains that National had made since mid May 2014 have been lost, as far as their chances of having the PM in power. As I say, that is just one metric.

On the party vote area, Labour would form the government with the Greens and NZFirst, but would at this stage also need IMP. National would not be able to form a coalition with enough seats. NZ First are also predicted to favour teaming up with Labour, or to help neither main party.

This is a major change in a week, and it's just starting.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1408/S00319/ipredict-2014-election-update-31-nats-take-hit.htm

The closeoff procedure is reported to be as normal, done at 7.35am this morning.

elZorro
20-08-2014, 05:58 PM
iPredict may be reacting to this thread: they have posted a rare comment (https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=blog)of their own yesterday. Here it is in full.


Tuesday, August 19, 2014 Prediction Market Manipulation (https://www.ipredict.co.nz/blog/?p=1773)

Posted by admin (https://www.ipredict.co.nz/blog/?author=1) at 12:44 pm
Tagged: 2014 (https://www.ipredict.co.nz/blog/?cat=90) and manipulation (https://www.ipredict.co.nz/blog/?cat=23). no comments (https://www.ipredict.co.nz/blog/?p=1773#comments). iPredict’s accuracy relies upon the aggregation of information held by our traders. In the 2008 and 2011 New Zealand general elections, iPredict enjoyed a 79% and 82.4% success rate when compared to traditional political polls (you can read a blog post on our 2008 accuracy here (https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipredict.co.nz%2Fapp.php%3 Fdo%3Dipredict_perf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFtTXzewlX5am-gqP5p6mmnAjIDPg)). However, unlike traditional political polls, iPredict relies on the wisdom of its traders in order to predict outcomes. As iPredict is a public prediction market, a threat exists of potential manipulation on iPredict, which could affect our accuracy.iPredict has in the past suspected that attempts have been made to manipulate our stocks, and we have been open about this fact. While iPredict has been aware of suspected cases of manipulation, it has been difficult to prove as someone attempting to manipulate a stock and someone with bad or partisan information are very similar.Despite potential manipulators succeeding in creating small jumps in the price of a stock, instances of suspected manipulation have resulted in a counter reaction from other traders. One example of attempted manipulation occurred during the 2011 General Election, a blog on that can be found here (https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipredict.co.nz%2Fapp.php%3 Fdo%3Dblog%26page%3D%253Fp%253D1008&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF5A5mWp1WL-tWuzH5zFFJt8yyyWw). There has, to the best of our knowledge, never been a successful attempt to manipulate a stock.The reason for these attempts failing is that a potential manipulator provides the one thing that affects the accuracy of our predictions more than any other: liquidity. It requires an investment by a potential manipulator to shift the price of a stock; this investment will create a reward for any trader who counters the manipulation attempts on the stock. By the simple act of trying to manipulate the market, they insure that there is sufficient liquidity in the stock to bring in other traders who can ruin their attempts at manipulation. The more money invested, the more traders will be drawn to the stock.Research carried out by George Mason University found that “previous models have found that increases in noise trading [whether that is manipulation,or uninformed trading] can increase the accuracy of thin markets, by increasing the rewards to informed trading.” Opera and Hanson’s paper titled “Manipulators Increase Information Market Accuracy,” goes on to say “that concerns about manipulators reducing average price accuracy are misplaced.” According to Strumpf’s 2004 research of randomly placing $500 trades on the Iowa markets, the price impact from these tacit manipulations were only temporary.The best response to attempts to manipulation iPredict actually came from our traders. With regards to potential manipulation, one trader said: “The good thing about an open prediction market is you can fix it by placing orders in the opposite direction, facilitating the transfer of wealth from our good friends pockets into your own.”
References:Hanson, Robin, and Ryan Oprea. “Manipulators increase information market accuracy.” George Mason University (2004).
Wolfers, Justin, and Eric Zitzewitz. Five open questions about prediction markets. No. w12060. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2006.



My comments on this would be that, sure, as long as the liquidity is high, the predictions should be fairly accurate. It's the leadup to the election date that I have a problem with. During that time, the few traders who are exercising their $2500 limits can have a lot of say on the results each week. By the time the election draws near, the trends and percentages are established to some extent by these monied inputs, and people will make voting (and canvassing) decisions on those. Their blog did not address the issue of the closeoff being done by someone on Exceltium's staff, at this person's chosen and flexible time.

When the Exceltium company is majority owned by someone who is clearly fairly right-wing, that isn't acceptable.

Acknowledged: I have seen at least one big trade being placed a few minutes before the update closeoff previously, but didn't spot anything with Update#31.

Cuzzie
20-08-2014, 09:07 PM
And the Nats gain 2.5%








(http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1408/S00118/national-and-nz-first-rise-in-roy-morgan-poll.htm)


National and NZ First Rise in Roy Morgan Poll (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1408/S00118/national-and-nz-first-rise-in-roy-morgan-poll.htm)Wednesday, 20 August 2014, 3:08 pm
(http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1408/S00118/national-and-nz-first-rise-in-roy-morgan-poll.htm)Article: (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1408/S00118/national-and-nz-first-rise-in-roy-morgan-poll.htm)NZ Election Data Consortium (http://info.scoop.co.nz/NZ_Election_Data_Consortium)




:)

elZorro
20-08-2014, 09:15 PM
Here is an important battleground on iPredict: who will NZFirst side with? When the pundits show us who is likely to gain power, any close count between the big three (NLG) means NZF will probably have the say.

Winston is naturally fairly disappointed with National's discovered behaviour of late. The man who forced the Winebox Enquiry, who was a laywer, he wouldn't consider stooping this low I shouldn't think.

If Labour and the Greens combined have more party votes than National, or are even close, he should be siding with the Left on this occasion. iPredict trades are strongly indicating that will be the case.

Cuzzie
20-08-2014, 09:27 PM
Here is an important battleground on iPredict: who will NZFirst side with? When the pundits show us who is likely to gain power, any close count between the big three (NLG) means NZF will probably have the say.

Winston is naturally fairly disappointed with National's discovered behaviour of late. The man who forced the Winebox Enquiry, who was a laywer, he wouldn't consider stooping this low I shouldn't think.

If Labour and the Greens combined have more party votes than National, or are even close, he should be siding with the Left on this occasion. iPredict trades are strongly indicating that will be the case.
Morally he deserves to to be with the loonie left EZ, but you know he will always go where he can get the best deal if he is to be king maker.

elZorro
21-08-2014, 07:45 PM
I can say what I like now, for a bit anyway..I have to agree with Cuzzie a bit here, Winston did take the baubles of office once or twice. I hope he'll take the high road this year, in the interests of democracy and a fair go. Labour (and the Greens) have done the hard yards in opposition, and have workable policies too.

I can report that iPredict is still offering good bankable odds, if you agree with me that a Labour coalition will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. I think the Hager book and the revelations behind it will prove insurmountable, once the press complete their investigations and probing. They're probably not too impressed about being put in a slow queue behind Whale Oil and KiwiBlog, no matter what their political persuasions.

iPredict seems to have a bug in the software, as when I traded in a low-volume area today, an artefact of 1500 or so trades was created, making one of my purchases a crazily high value, over $22 per share. It affected my portfolio chart, the trend chart for the share(s), but not my cash balance.

blackcap
21-08-2014, 08:25 PM
I can say what I like now, for a bit anyway..I have to agree with Cuzzie a bit here, Winston did take the baubles of office once or twice. I hope he'll take the high road this year, in the interests of democracy and a fair go. Labour (and the Greens) have done the hard yards in opposition, and have workable policies too.

I can report that iPredict is still offering good bankable odds, if you agree with me that a Labour coalition will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. I think the Hager book and the revelations behind it will prove insurmountable, once the press complete their investigations and probing. They're probably not too impressed about being put in a slow queue behind Whale Oil and KiwiBlog, no matter what their political persuasions.

iPredict seems to have a bug in the software, as when I traded in a low-volume area today, an artefact of 1500 or so trades was created, making one of my purchases a crazily high value, over $22 per share. It affected my portfolio chart, the trend chart for the share(s), but not my cash balance.

Hey ElZorro, I see you are having a play at Ipredict, good on you. I have been there since the Australian election last year. But I see you are getting Labour at about .35 right now or in decimal odds that equates to 2.85 (1/.35). Seriously over at Betfair.com you can now, right now get odds of 3.75 or in decimal terms about .27 on Labour (means you can save plenty if you buy Labour there) I have already taken all that I can and am maxed out with my $2500 so nothing left for me to arbitrage if you were wondering what my motives were :). If you want to check it out its sub heading "politics" under the "All Sports" banner. To date $12,000 AUD has been traded on that market, not a huge amount but not inconsequential either.

elZorro
21-08-2014, 10:05 PM
Hey ElZorro, I see you are having a play at Ipredict, good on you. I have been there since the Australian election last year. But I see you are getting Labour at about .35 right now or in decimal odds that equates to 2.85 (1/.35). Seriously over at Betfair.com you can now, right now get odds of 3.75 or in decimal terms about .27 on Labour (means you can save plenty if you buy Labour there) I have already taken all that I can and am maxed out with my $2500 so nothing left for me to arbitrage if you were wondering what my motives were :). If you want to check it out its sub heading "politics" under the "All Sports" banner. To date $12,000 AUD has been traded on that market, not a huge amount but not inconsequential either.

Cheers, I'll have a look. Sounds like a complicated betting system..

winner69
22-08-2014, 07:49 AM
Cheers, I'll have a look. Sounds like a complicated betting system..

Easier than iPredict .....just like the TAB

Banksie
22-08-2014, 08:10 AM
But I see you are getting Labour at about .35 right now or in decimal odds that equates to 2.85 (1/.35). Seriously over at Betfair.com you can now, right now get odds of 3.75 or in decimal terms about .27 on Labour (means you can save plenty if you buy Labour there)

I play ipredict, but for me it is not about waiting for the results. I just play the movements. I do it for fun not money, as it is not liquid enough to make big wins.

blackcap
22-08-2014, 08:20 AM
Easier than iPredict .....just like the TAB

Tis easier Winner, and the Ipredict site used to get me stumped now and then. But once you get your head around the 1 divided by probability = standard odds it becomes easy enough to understand.

elZorro
25-08-2014, 07:54 PM
Here's an interesting API, or addon for iPredict. It allows you to see all the participants, not just the top 100. It looks like there are quite a few who have put $50, $20, $10 and so in here, and forgotten about it. Also quite a few who have a very low balance, and not many with over say $500 in their account. This means that anyone starting out now with $2500 available, can have a lot of fun between now and the election. You can also see all the bets on any trades, not just a few either side, and you can go way back in time to see the 100 or 200 day trend.

http://api.howison.co.nz/

Banksie
30-08-2014, 03:00 PM
According to Slater he did have some influence on what is run on iPredict. Anyone can suggest a prediction via the forums - so is he just talking up his influence?

I have also arranged with Matthew Hooton for iPredict (https://www.ipredict.co.nz) the prediction markets to have a new stock released so people can invest on the probability of Adam Feeley getting the sack before Christmas or leaving. These stocks [Email cuts off]

Source http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11316677

elZorro
30-08-2014, 03:11 PM
According to Slater he did have some influence on what is run on iPredict. Anyone can suggest a prediction via the forums - so is he just talking up his influence?

I have also arranged with Matthew Hooton for iPredict (https://www.ipredict.co.nz) the prediction markets to have a new stock released so people can invest on the probability of Adam Feeley getting the sack before Christmas or leaving. These stocks [Email cuts off]

Source http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11316677

I was just going to post about the same thing, Banksie. Here's the leaked email anyway.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11316677

So the right-wing bloggers get a push to work on a certain politician or state servant, positively or negatively, and one method is to get Matthew Hooton to authorise a new stock relating to that. And then Matthew Hooton gets to choose when to close off a weekly report on that stock, and others. Am I the only person in the world who thinks that maybe, just maybe, some of these key iPredict players don't stick to the $2500 limit over 6 months, one account per person? Who polices that? Does Victoria University do it, or has control been ceded to Exceltium?

elZorro
31-08-2014, 09:37 AM
Matthew Hooton was being quizzed by Susan Wood about iPredict, on Q&A this morning. Was it my imagination or was he flushing red with shame on occasions? When he was asked if he'd been up to any dirty tricks himself, he paused for ages, before saying he's been a PR person for 20 years, but no, nothing on the scale of Judith Collins, Slater et al.

Some of the other panel members had a quip about him being an ACT type of person as though there was more behind that, which he sort of agreed with.

craic
06-09-2014, 08:48 AM
I-predict - Crosby Texter -National dirty tricks - how many more excuses can you find to account for the failure of the Labour Party? How about poor leadership, poor candidates, poor policy, and a fair amount of infighting?

Joshuatree
06-09-2014, 09:02 AM
The point craic is ; if we put our party preferences aside ,do you really think its acceptable to use underhand,possibly illegal, Mudslinging and Dirty at best tactics to remain in power in a democratic world. Is it honourable, fair,equitable and above board.? Can one trust a party that does this ?

winner69
06-09-2014, 09:14 AM
iPredict saying election all over and Nats win by a mile

elZorro
06-09-2014, 09:16 AM
iPredict saying election all over and Nats win by a mile

Have you run out of cash yet, W69? I reckon that about 10 people push that poll around, most of the time. Note that National now has a 74% chance of winning, they were well over 80% a few weeks ago.

blackcap
06-09-2014, 10:54 AM
Have you run out of cash yet, W69? I reckon that about 10 people push that poll around, most of the time. Note that National now has a 74% chance of winning, they were well over 80% a few weeks ago.

Sorry to blow that bubble ElZorro, but Centerbet have Labour at 5.00 (20%) and National at 1.13 (88%)
Betfair have National at about 1.22 and Labour at 5.50. Thats where the real action is.

blackcap
13-09-2014, 10:36 AM
Just managed to get $13.50 on Labour this morning over at betfair.com. Looks like its all over bar the shouting.

Banksie
19-09-2014, 09:02 AM
If you have positions on iPredict, note the following:

Following advice from the Electoral Commission, iPredict will suspend trading on all New Zealand political contracts between 11:59pm on Friday 19 September and 7pm on Saturday 20 September.

https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=forum&page=read.php%3F1%2C33205

winner69
21-09-2014, 09:18 AM
So once again betting markets pretty reliable indicator of what's going to happen.

Best poll there is

fungus pudding
21-09-2014, 09:38 AM
So once again betting markets pretty reliable indicator of what's going to happen.

Best poll there is

Last Roy Morgan was pretty good.

nextbigthing
21-09-2014, 09:58 AM
Key reckons David Farrar was bang on

elZorro
04-06-2015, 05:51 PM
iPredict is still writing a report most weeks on the political scene.

If you have a look at this one, it doesn't say who closed it off, or when that happened, which is a bit rude, because it's a dynamic situation. Looking at some of the quoted data, it was possibly closed off just before the report time, around 2.50 pm today. In which case, there were a few small bets placed just inside the closeoff period, which had the effect of ensuring National looked to be moving along OK. The week before, something similar happened. Important shorting bets for the stability of National's position are in place. Are these real, or artefacts, and who is paying for them?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1506/S00039/ipredict-ltd-new-zealand-weekly-economic-political-update.htm

As I've said before, the owners of iPredict need to take charge here. If the rights of all those thousands of traders on the site is to be protected, if the site is truly to be an indication of political opinion in NZ, then why is the closeoff done by some rabid right-wing outfit at a time that no-one is advised of, and how can people be certain that the odds are not changed immediately before the report time?

blackcap
04-06-2015, 05:58 PM
iPredict is still writing a report most weeks on the political scene.

If you have a look at this one, it doesn't say who closed it off, or when that happened, which is a bit rude, because it's a dynamic situation. Looking at some of the quoted data, it was possibly closed off just before the report time, around 2.50 pm today. In which case, there were a few small bets placed just inside the closeoff period, which had the effect of ensuring National looked to be moving along OK. The week before, something similar happened. Important shorting bets for the stability of National's position are in place. Are these real, or artefacts, and who is paying for them?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1506/S00039/ipredict-ltd-new-zealand-weekly-economic-political-update.htm

As I've said before, the owners of iPredict need to take charge here. If the rights of all those thousands of traders on the site is to be protected, if the site is truly to be an indication of political opinion in NZ, then why is the closeoff done by some rabid right-wing outfit at a time that no-one is advised of, and how can people be certain that the odds are not changed immediately before the report time?

I don't understand what the problem is. If they are manipulating the odds to better their narrative then surely I as a punter can take advantage to their detriment? Or am I reading you wrong?

elZorro
04-06-2015, 06:10 PM
I don't understand what the problem is. If they are manipulating the odds to better their narrative then surely I as a punter can take advantage to their detriment? Or am I reading you wrong?

Blackcap - as exposed in Dirty Politics, this site is being used to bolster the chances of electoral candidates, the press will pick up on these reports each week, and politicians also look at the data. With such a lot of bets available, it covers a lot more fields than normal polls. But in between elections, when the pressure is off, these weekly closeoffs are being manipulated, and probably by people like Farrar, Hooten, and Slater. They are never going to let Labour, the Greens or NZ First look like they have a chance in 2017, unless a lot of cash comes in to swamp out their bets, and who knows how many accounts they have, and who is paying for it. A few thousand dollars of National's leftover campaign funds would make a big dent in the other parties' efforts.

I won't be happy with the integrity of iPredict, and neither should you, until a neutral third party is performing the closeoff. But surely that should have been the situation anyway. Victoria University are the owners, have they no integrity either?

blackcap
04-06-2015, 10:36 PM
Blackcap - as exposed in Dirty Politics, this site is being used to bolster the chances of electoral candidates, the press will pick up on these reports each week, and politicians also look at the data. With such a lot of bets available, it covers a lot more fields than normal polls. But in between elections, when the pressure is off, these weekly closeoffs are being manipulated, and probably by people like Farrar, Hooten, and Slater. They are never going to let Labour, the Greens or NZ First look like they have a chance in 2017, unless a lot of cash comes in to swamp out their bets, and who knows how many accounts they have, and who is paying for it. A few thousand dollars of National's leftover campaign funds would make a big dent in the other parties' efforts.

I won't be happy with the integrity of iPredict, and neither should you, until a neutral third party is performing the closeoff. But surely that should have been the situation anyway. Victoria University are the owners, have they no integrity either?

Well its time for you and I to take advantage and make some cash then if these prices are being manipulated. But I think you overestimate the importance of these closeoff results as this forum was the first i had heard of it and I am no news virgin by any means. So maybe they are doing some manipulation but in the end I do not think it will influence the average voter.

elZorro
05-06-2015, 06:21 AM
Well its time for you and I to take advantage and make some cash then if these prices are being manipulated. But I think you overestimate the importance of these closeoff results as this forum was the first i had heard of it and I am no news virgin by any means. So maybe they are doing some manipulation but in the end I do not think it will influence the average voter.

Not a bad idea, Blackcap. I've had a look, and there was a lot of interest from the media in the iPredict bids during the Northland by-election. In this case, the other bids did manage to swamp out the National bids, and they collapsed for about the last 2-3 weeks, giving advance notice that Northland would probably swing to Winston Peters. I think the only reason this happened was that internal and external polling showed that National were on a hiding to nothing, and in that case no-one was prepared to stump up any significant cash on National's side.

http://yournz.org/tag/ipredict/

Once iPredict started to show a NZFirst win, it would have given enormous confidence to Winston Peters (not that he's short of that), and everyone in his campaign team. So in this case, iPredict did help the process of democracy. But if you have a look at the bids around the party vote (2017) for the major parties at the moment, you'll see it's going to be expensive to drop National's percentage vote, for example, because it's heavily protected. Who wants to spend money on bets this far away from an election? Only politicos.

elZorro
19-09-2015, 08:31 AM
The National Party were using Crosby-Textor at least right up until the 2014 elections. Every time I post the confirmation I was sent just before the election, it gets removed off this thread. By whom? Who is checking this thread, and deleting the truth? Let's see how long this post lasts.

Daytr
19-09-2015, 08:52 AM
Roy Morgan poll has a Labour/Green coalition ahead of National 46 to 44 EZ.
I sent an email to Winston Peters saying I didn't vote for him in the bi-election just to re-elect John Key, so I want to know prior to the 2017 election which parties he would form a coalition with if necessary.

blackcap
26-11-2015, 11:08 AM
Well their goes ELZOrros conspiracy theory. National to close the Ipredict site.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/74438852/ipredict-to-close-after-govt-refuses-antimoney-laundering-law-exemption

winner69
26-11-2015, 11:20 AM
Well their goes ELZOrros conspiracy theory. National to close the Ipredict site.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/74438852/ipredict-to-close-after-govt-refuses-antimoney-laundering-law-exemption

Ha ha

I laundered 50 bucks through them

Must not forget to try and get the 200 back

So like the TAB more money being gambled overseas

Stupid stupid

Hoop
26-11-2015, 11:49 AM
Yeah I laundered $50 as well. Between the 2 of us we must have triggered the Government's panic button...eh?.. Pity to see it go...one of the few places one could go to, to get a "honest" majority view of things ..It's amazing how quickly the media crap disappears when the money is where the mouth is..

blackcap
26-11-2015, 11:59 AM
Ha ha

I laundered 50 bucks through them

Must not forget to try and get the 200 back

So like the TAB more money being gambled overseas

Stupid stupid

Yeah this is a stupid decision by the govt. They just do not get it. Im sure the TAB put some pressure on them. But really look at the liquidity in Ipredict. It was just a bit of fun with a spare $100. Sometimes those in power are just too precious or just cannot be bothered understanding what the real issue is. Bridges in my opinion is a tool.

elZorro
12-01-2016, 10:25 PM
Well, there goes El Zorro's conspiracy theory. National to close the Ipredict site.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/74438852/ipredict-to-close-after-govt-refuses-antimoney-laundering-law-exemption

Blackcap, after looking at this carefully, I think you're wrong about what's happening here. National didn't close the site down, in fact they're still operational months later, but no new money is allowed in. Prof Neil Quigley, who was chairman of the board and now VC at Waikato Uni, was one of the keen founders of iPredict. He's fairly right-wing. His son is/was involved with coding the new Predictit site, that's where they're hoping to take the customers to.

iPredict doesn't do much in the way of press releases at the moment, or in this part of the electoral cycle usually. If they had, they would have had to admit occasional strong probabilities of a left-wing coalition taking the next general election. In 2014 they stopped any chance of a press release like that, by allowing Matthew Hooton to compile the reports from his own business premises, and often some important and unusual bets would be made in National's favour immediately prior to the report, if they were needed.

Now if iPredict had to ask everyone betting on the site to prove just who they were, and if they actually checked for double-up or multiple accounts, they'd have to boot quite a few accounts off the site I would think. Each account has the ability to spend $2500 in 6 months, to keep National looking sweet for the next election. The right-wing team has more money generally, so they used iPredict and multiple accounts to help sway the elections since 2008, but mainly by bending the rules. Just a few people are doing most of the big betting on the NZ political futures.

If Vic Link, Victoria University and the part-time iPredict staffers thought they needed to be ambivalent about the prediction reports, then why didn't they find a more obviously neutral reporting 'team' than Exceltium. Since the reports were often modified versions of the previous report, they would only have taken a competent person say 2 hours to do, then send to the media channels with normal email mail-outs, not an expensive task. But the people in charge of iPredict thought it was a good idea to let Matthew Hooton have that god-like control of the reporting, and they deliberately left those lax membership rules in place. That's because they knew what sort of prediction results they were looking for.

The new rules enforced by the anti-money laundering legislation were going to make it a lot harder to keep up the pretence, and of course most parliamentarians already knew what was going on with iPredict. It has done its dash, National's helpers will have to try some other PR stunt for 2017.

blackcap
13-01-2016, 07:15 AM
Blackcap, after looking at this carefully, I think you're wrong about what's happening here. National didn't close the site down, in fact they're still operational months later, but no new money is allowed in. Prof Neil Quigley, who was chairman of the board and now VC at Waikato Uni, was one of the keen founders of iPredict. He's fairly right-wing. His son is/was involved with coding the new Predictit site, that's where they're hoping to take the customers to.

.

Hi ElZorro, good to have you back by the way :)

It was still a National party decision that forced the hand of Ipredict. I see they are looking to migrate the platform offshore and "merge" with their US site.
As an aside, Prof Neil Quigely was my finance lecturer for a year (or was it economics) at Victoria many years ago and I did enjoy his lectures.... :)

elZorro
13-01-2016, 08:44 PM
Hi ElZorro, good to have you back by the way :)

It was still a National party decision that forced the hand of Ipredict. I see they are looking to migrate the platform offshore and "merge" with their US site.
As an aside, Prof Neil Quigely was my finance lecturer for a year (or was it economics) at Victoria many years ago and I did enjoy his lectures.... :)

Thanks for the welcome back BC. We'll see how long I last, as I appear to have the wrong political bent, as far as the controlling forces on ST go. I do try to stay polite, and they'll need a very good excuse to ban me again.

Prof Quigley might have been a good lecturer, and he's certainly involved in a few powerful boards and groups. As new VC at Waikato Uni, he's made his mark so far by being the first to charge staff and students for car parking on campus. Waikato was built in the 60s on an old farm on the outskirts of town, and while town reached out to the campus over the years, they never had a shortage of parking spaces. They have a few huge open spaces still. The new rules are effectively a pay decrease for staff, and a fee increase for students, if they bring cars to the campus. The car parks are still potholed, some have stayed the same for several years. So where is the money going, or is it a symptom of user pays, and decreasing central govt funding on education per student?

This doesn't affect me personally, but iPredict's policies do. I want VicLink to play fair with this site for the rest of its limited life. They know exactly what I mean, and I'll keep giving them stick until I see some changes.

elZorro
26-01-2016, 06:32 PM
Now I think I can see what the game plan is with iPredict.

VicLink have not closed it down, they haven't made any concrete moves towards PredictIt, and they are simply holding the National Party funds in there, and activists are using them to push the next election polls wherever they want to. When John Key said he'd stay on for the next election recently, some bets came out of nowhere and increased National's chances of winning the next election. So that was cash sitting on the sidelines, not withdrawn, waiting for the chance to make a push. Of course National-leaning funds will have been far higher than Labour-leaning funds at the instant they set up the new rules. So from now until the next election in 2017, iPredict will say exactly what the National Party want it to say. They haven't been reporting any positions for months, but before too long I think they will, and it'll be a "landslide for National". Hurrah!

If VicLink seriously think that there is any educational merit or validity in this site now, then they need to have their heads read. Why should students be involved in helping to run this farce of a site? Is the board of iPredict completely immune to how this looks?

Unwind the site, get everybody paid out as though their recent bets since the closure notice had no effect, at the rates that were in place then, OR let the cash flow back in, and remove all the invalid multiple accounts as per govt rules. You evil sods.

winner69
05-02-2016, 09:43 AM
Betting on politics is fascinating

Betfair has seen a large amount of money on Rubio to get the Republican nomination. The money started coming in during October when Rubio got the support of Paul Singer Now favourite ..hmm

The money men are behind Rubio with their millions - he will be their man to save them billions.

blackcap
05-02-2016, 03:33 PM
Betting on politics is fascinating

Betfair has seen a large amount of money on Rubio to get the Republican nomination. The money started coming in during October when Rubio got the support of Paul Singer Now favourite ..hmm

The money men are behind Rubio with their millions - he will be their man to save them billions.

Did you see it on Monday or was it Tuesday as the votes were being counted how Rubio went from 3.20 to 1.80 in pretty quick time and Trump went from 1.95 to about 4.00 within the space of an hour or two. That for me was fascinating. I think you are right about Rubio, the money men will support him and I think he will get the nod in the end.

elZorro
26-02-2016, 06:44 AM
Found a fascinating set of documents about ipredict's attempts to get past the money-laundering act. Released by the OIA.

https://fyi.org.nz/request/3415/response/10845/attach/4/20151221%20Final%20documents.pdf

iPredict's argument was that users were restricted in how much they could spend in a lifetime, but they failed to mention that there was no check on each user's identity. Someone at the Ministry of Justice figured that out. Another couple of points in here: iPredict allowed a mechanism where a "sponsor" could feed money to users, who were perhaps employees, so they could "add liquidity" to some stocks that were aligned with their interests. That was a valid source of funds. In other words, it was perfectly OK for the National Party to feed funds to employees, who would then juggle these political event stocks. Labour could have done it too, if they had any money spare, which of course they didn't have. iPredict also used graduate students to help work the site. They did analyse trades from users, that was part of the research interest. Only trouble is, technically they didn't have a clue who these users were, unless they popped their heads up and told staff by email, but it would have been interesting to see how many users mapped onto each individual bank account. That's a data field I'd like to see.

blackcap
26-02-2016, 06:51 AM
iPredict's argument was that users were restricted in how much they could spend in a lifetime, but they failed to mention that there was no check on each user's identity.

I don't know about that ElZorro... I know that because there was no check on my identity when I signed up....

elZorro
26-02-2016, 07:52 AM
I don't know about that ElZorro... I know that because there was no check on my identity when I signed up....

Exactly, Blackcap. If you wanted to have a few email addresses and use a few different bank accounts, you could easily bypass the user limits, there's no way iPredict staff could have figured it out for sure.

Here's proof about the real story behind the closing of iPredict. The Ministry of Justice staff were surprised that iPredict gave out that closing notice too. That's because iPredict had by that stage decided they needed to close it down, for other reasons. They could have complied without any major cost, and the major sticking point was only careful identification of the user identities, something that could have been coded into the software, or clipped in using RealMe.

Was this more likely linked to the departure of Prof Neil Quigley, the longstanding chairman of the board of iPredict, and were some people at Victoria University both pleased to see him go, and surprised that Waikato University took him on as VC?

craic
26-02-2016, 09:22 AM
Did you see it on Monday or was it Tuesday as the votes were being counted how Rubio went from 3.20 to 1.80 in pretty quick time and Trump went from 1.95 to about 4.00 within the space of an hour or two. That for me was fascinating. I think you are right about Rubio, the money men will support him and I think he will get the nod in the end.

I am happy to offer you a $100 even money bet that Trump wins the nomination on the usual conditions, that is that he makes it to the final, alive and well - I don't want to lose my money just because some crackpot with a gun decides to intervene.

blackcap
26-02-2016, 09:33 AM
I am happy to offer you a $100 even money bet that Trump wins the nomination on the usual conditions, that is that he makes it to the final, alive and well - I don't want to lose my money just because some crackpot with a gun decides to intervene.

Haha I like a good bet so now and then Craic, but unfortunately for you I am on the money so to speak and Trump is now a 1.39 shot so no way will I be accepting that bet :)

fungus pudding
26-02-2016, 09:45 AM
Haha I like a good bet so now and then Craic, but unfortunately for you I am on the money so to speak and Trump is now a 1.39 shot so no way will I be accepting that bet :)

It's a frightening though that the loose canon, Trump, is on the verge of becoming the most powerful man in the world. If I was an American voter I'd vote for Clinton, reluctantly. It's always a case of voting against the one you want least. I think so many republicans will that I just can't see Trump winning.

craic
26-02-2016, 10:04 AM
It's a frightening though that the loose canon, Trump, is on the verge of becoming the most powerful man in the world. If I was an American voter I'd vote for Clinton, reluctantly. It's always a case of voting against the one you want least. I think so many republicans will that I just can't see Trump winning.

Then you might like to take the bet?

fungus pudding
26-02-2016, 10:26 AM
Then you might like to take the bet?

No. I'll sit this dance out thanks. My mother warned me .............

elZorro
03-05-2016, 07:12 AM
Ipredict continues to limp on, with no new money coming in of course, no new positions to trade, and some predictions that go well into the future. The iPredict bank account appears to have plenty of idle cash sitting in them from punters, as this list of the top 100 by funds invested, shows. Many show NC (not trading most likely), so if you see your moniker on here, you can join the rush to the exits and cash up, like I have.

iPredict has no chance of accurately predicting the 2017 election anymore, as most of the money left in there has probably originated from the National Party coffers.

elZorro
09-05-2016, 06:23 PM
iPredict seems to be offline. Oops.

fungus pudding
09-05-2016, 06:50 PM
Ipredict continues to limp on, with no new money coming in of course, no new positions to trade, and some predictions that go well into the future. The iPredict bank account appears to have plenty of idle cash sitting in them from punters, as this list of the top 100 by funds invested, shows. Many show NC (not trading most likely), so if you see your moniker on here, you can join the rush to the exits and cash up, like I have.

iPredict has no chance of accurately predicting the 2017 election anymore, as most of the money left in there has probably originated from the National Party coffers.


I don't know about that but at least they've decided to donate any surplus to the National party.

elZorro
19-05-2016, 06:55 AM
I don't know about that but at least they've decided to donate any surplus to the National party.

What do you mean, FP? The last of the money is pretty well stuck in there until after the 2017 elections I would think. But the National Party would have proxy accounts that they funded for employees and helpers, to make the stats look good.

winner69
09-06-2016, 11:28 AM
I had $50 odd sitting in there and with their impending demise thought i may as well lose it

So a few weeks ago took OCR to remain Unchanged. Had fun cleaning out all the sellers from 25 cents to 55 cents and started a run - insiders were punting etc ha ha

No my problem is bigger - have heaps more to lose (before donating it to whoever)

blackcap
09-06-2016, 11:32 AM
I had $50 odd sitting in there and with their impending demise thought i may as well lose it

So a few weeks ago took OCR to remain Unchanged. Had fun cleaning out all the sellers from 25 cents to 55 cents and started a run - insiders were punting etc ha ha



Classic, nice move there winner.

elZorro
09-06-2016, 05:29 PM
I had $50 odd sitting in there and with their impending demise thought i may as well lose it

So a few weeks ago took OCR to remain Unchanged. Had fun cleaning out all the sellers from 25 cents to 55 cents and started a run - insiders were punting etc ha ha

No my problem is bigger - have heaps more to lose (before donating it to whoever)

You don't have to donate the money anywhere, W69. The withdrawal system is still working fine, use their online system for that. I'm just saying that the National Party accounts won't be getting pulled out until after the 2017 election, there's still a pretence to keep up. If you are hanging in there, you could bid up the odds of John Key falling on his sword sometime in 2017. Just after the election, when Labour-Green get into office, would be my bet.

777
09-06-2016, 05:47 PM
If you are hanging in there, you could bid up the odds of John Key falling on his sword sometime in 2017. Just after the election, when Labour-Green get into office, would be my bet.

And then you fell out of bed and woke up.

fungus pudding
09-06-2016, 06:35 PM
And then you fell out of bed and woke up.


el Zorro's lament

"And I fell out of bed
hurting my head
from things that I'd said
I started a joke
that started the whole world laughing
Oh if I'd only seen
that the joke was on me"

elZorro
09-06-2016, 07:50 PM
Nope, you're wrong there, FP, the 2017 elections will be a lot closer than you think.

elZorro
24-07-2016, 06:23 PM
In late 2014, the top 100 traders all had over $600 of net value in iPredict. By last week, the 100th ranked trader in terms of net worth was just above $350. Money continues to exit the site.

However, from what I can see, some of the remnant money held in iPredict isn't doing much. Here are four traders who haven't done any trading for two years and have no change in their net worth, so they are not investing at all - maybe they should pull out their cash.

nzikey $ 949.62
pedro $1,108.66
felix $1,322.45
Shotover $1,924.73

Of course iPredict 'don't know' who these traders are, but they at least know their bank account details.

elZorro
04-08-2016, 06:07 AM
I had $50 odd sitting in there and with their impending demise thought i may as well lose it

So a few weeks ago took OCR to remain Unchanged. Had fun cleaning out all the sellers from 25 cents to 55 cents and started a run - insiders were punting etc ha ha

No my problem is bigger - have heaps more to lose (before donating it to whoever)

W69, did you notice that iPredict's site has been down for a few days now. They're spending a lot of effort on it, for sure. :t_down:

Major von Tempsky
04-08-2016, 09:23 AM
Funny, I've never seen any discussion of it in the media or heard any voters discuss it. Does it really matter? I don't gamble except to buy charity raffle tickets, I don't class my sharemarket investments as gambles but careful investment choices.

fungus pudding
04-08-2016, 09:29 AM
Funny, I've never seen any discussion of it in the media or heard any voters discuss it. Does it really matter? I don't gamble except to buy charity raffle tickets, I don't class my sharemarket investments as gambles but careful investment choices.

I don't think it matters to anyone but eZ, whose paranoia seems to extend to the advertising agency that National uses and this betting site which I understand belongs to one of the universities. 'The whole world's a massive plot against Labour'.

elZorro
06-08-2016, 04:12 PM
I don't think it matters to anyone but eZ, whose paranoia seems to extend to the advertising agency that National uses and this betting site which I understand belongs to one of the universities. 'The whole world's a massive plot against Labour'.

I'm not paranoid, this is real, FP. Anyway, iPredict is still down, good job. I think VicLink are embarrassed about how the site is being misused and abused by the Nats and sundry neoliberals.

FYI, Crosby-Textor isn't an advertising agency. They are brutal neoliberal campaign strategists. Just ask John Key straight up if he's using them, I'm sure he'd be backpedalling pretty fast, and you won't get a quick answer on that one.

fungus pudding
06-08-2016, 04:54 PM
I'm not paranoid, this is real, FP. Anyway, iPredict is still down, good job. I think VicLink are embarrassed about how the site is being misused and abused by the Nats and sundry neoliberals.

FYI, Crosby-Textor isn't an advertising agency. They are brutal neoliberal campaign strategists. Just ask John Key straight up if he's using them, I'm sure he'd be backpedalling pretty fast, and you won't get a quick answer on that one.

Why on earth you link ipredict to any outfit or political party beats me - it's available to everyone, or was. It's being replaced by predictit by the looks of another posting today. Same sort of thing - Victoria university run.

This crowd you go on about might not be an advertising agency - possibly a public relations outfit. So what? Any organisation of any size uses a PR firm, apart from those who can't afford them. It's hardly a crime. I understand Labour uses an in house cheaper alternative, Matt McArten, presumably because the union fees won't stretch far enough to do anything properly. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

777
06-08-2016, 08:24 PM
My guess is 99% of the population have never heard of the iPredict nor Crosby-Textor let alone associate them with the National party.

fungus pudding
06-08-2016, 08:30 PM
My guess is 99% of the population have never heard of the iPredict nor Crosby-Textor let alone associate them with the National party.

That's about it.
I should add that I consider myself reasonably aware of political matters - and the only mention of Crosby Texter I've ever heard is from eZ.s grizzling. It's plainly absurd to get upset about an organisation using a professional PR firm which I assume Crosby T are..

elZorro
07-08-2016, 06:39 AM
That's about it.
I should add that I consider myself reasonably aware of political matters - and the only mention of Crosby Texter I've ever heard is from eZ.s grizzling. It's plainly absurd to get upset about an organisation using a professional PR firm which I assume Crosby T are..

Here's a post of mine from the C-T thread on ST, 2014.


Mark Textor was the co-founder from Crosby-Textor who has been talking with John Key's office in the past. In recent times, he has been listed as one of the 10 most powerful people in Australia.

From Wikipedia, which is usually right..

Commentary and evaluations

Business Review Weekly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Review_Weekly) (BRW) included Textor in its list of Australia's 50 Most Influential People in Australian Business (2000). The Australian Financial Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Financial_Review) (AFR) also named him as one of the 10 most powerful people in Australia in 2007. He was the youngest figure honoured in both the BRW and the AFR lists in 2000 and 2002. These publications recognised Mark's ability to delve deeper into the critical factors that drive consumer, investor and voter behaviour; and devise strategies and tactics to influence it.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Textor#cite_note-9)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Textor#cite_note-10)
In 2012, Crikey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crikey)'s The Power Index described Mark as "the most domineering, divisive pollster this country's ever seen - and the most powerful... He's a genius at transforming raw research into compelling communication  —  someone who presses people’s emotional buttons, identifies points of division, and boils complex issues down to their core”.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Textor#cite_note-power-11)
In November 2013 he attracted attention in Australian media for a series of controversial tweets directed at Indonesian Foreign Affairs Minister Marty Natalegawa, whom he likened to a 1970s Pilipino [sic] porn star, also questioning his ethics. Mr Textor, who has been described as one of the most influential people in Australia, has himself advocated the use of Twitter by prospective employers as a way of gauging a person's true character. Claiming to have received death threats, he deleted the tweets and then the twitter account.

So that's the question, has John Key or the party continued with contracting Mark Textor and his team in the leadup to the 2014 election? Is that the source of the party slogans "Working For New Zealand" and "Keep the Team That's Working" when the stats say otherwise?



Of course National were using Crosby-Textor right up until the 2014 elections at least, and I'm fairly sure they are still doing so.

blackcap
07-08-2016, 07:58 AM
Here's a post of mine from the C-T thread on ST, 2014.



Of course National were using Crosby-Textor right up until the 2014 elections at least, and I'm fairly sure they are still doing so.

ElZorro, you may make a big song and dance about C-T but could I not do the same about Matt McCarten or any other spin merchant Labour are using with the same justification? Tis a pity that Labour uses "less influential" firms as otherwise they may be doing a lot better. I am pretty sure National is using C-T right now as well and they are fully justified in doing so. Didn't Crosby just receive a knighthood as well recently? Must be an honorable sort of person methinks.

fungus pudding
07-08-2016, 08:35 AM
Here's a post of mine from the C-T thread on ST, 2014.



Of course National were using Crosby-Textor right up until the 2014 elections at least, and I'm fairly sure they are still doing so.

Fancy that. what seems to be a highly effective, well thought of, PR firm is disliked by an online blogger who publishes something called Crikey, founded by the disastrous Mark Latham. Waste your paranoia on more worthwhile targets eZ.

777
07-08-2016, 09:07 AM
Never heard of Crikey either.

fungus pudding
07-08-2016, 09:15 AM
Never heard of Crikey either.


Not quite as well known as the Business review and other publications that rate C-T. But eZ has heard of them. He's obviously tripped over their name, as anyone would who spends every waking moment feeding their paranoia, trolling through everything ever published to find some trivial point against Key or National.


From eZ's post:
Business Review Weekly (BRW) included Textor in its list of Australia's 50 Most Influential People in Australian Business (2000). The Australian Financial Review (AFR) also named him as one of the 10 most powerful people in Australia in 2007. He was the youngest figure honoured in both the BRW and the AFR lists in 2000 and 2002. These publications recognised Mark's ability to delve deeper into the critical factors that drive consumer, investor and voter behaviour; and devise strategies and tactics to influence it.[9][10]
In 2012, Crikey's The Power Index described Mark as "the most domineering, divisive pollster this country's ever seen - and the most powerful... He's a genius at transforming raw research into compelling communication  —  someone who presses people’s emotional buttons, identifies points of division, and boils complex issues down to their core”.[11]

winner69
07-08-2016, 09:36 AM
Never heard of Crikey either.

You have led a sheltered life

777
07-08-2016, 10:19 AM
You have led a sheltered life

While I can only imagine the quality of the content I am happy to have done so.

fungus pudding
07-08-2016, 10:35 AM
While I can only imagine the quality of the content I am happy to have done so.

You're obviously not spending enough time scouring overseas, minor, irrelevant publications. Neither am I or anyone else I know. We should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves.

blackcap
07-08-2016, 02:10 PM
Here we go... inevitable maybe but no need for Ipredict soon...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/82762215/tab-deal-could-mean-sharper-odds-chance-to-bet-on-political-events

fungus pudding
07-08-2016, 02:15 PM
Here we go... inevitable maybe but no need for Ipredict soon...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/82762215/tab-deal-could-mean-sharper-odds-chance-to-bet-on-political-events

Urgent. Keep eZ away from any ropes, swimming holes, exposed electrical wiring or tall buildings.

elZorro
07-08-2016, 02:34 PM
Urgent. Keep eZ away from any ropes, swimming holes, exposed electrical wiring or tall buildings.

I'm fine if the TAB wants to provide a political betting platform. At least it won't be so small an operation that Matthew Hooten, Whaleoil and a few others can completely hijack it with a few thousand dollars a year, and then report, as and when they like, on the odds that they'd already jiggered around with just beforehand. I spent enough on that site to know that's the truth.

The reason you couldn't find much mention on the web about that C-T quote is that it has been expunged from the Wikipedia article on Crosby-Textor, since. It now only says all the positive stuff C-T staffers could muster. They've obviously taken a look at the resource and decided to make sure it's only a good look for them. They are attempting to rewrite history.

fungus pudding
07-08-2016, 03:03 PM
I'm fine if the TAB wants to provide a political betting platform. At least it won't be so small an operation that Matthew Hooten, Whaleoil and a few others can completely hijack it with a few thousand dollars a year, and then report, as and when they like, on the odds that they'd already jiggered around with just beforehand. I spent enough on that site to know that's the truth.

The reason you couldn't find much mention on the web about that C-T quote is that it has been expunged from the Wikipedia article on Crosby-Textor, since. It now only says all the positive stuff C-T staffers could muster. They've obviously taken a look at the resource and decided to make sure it's only a good look for them. They are attempting to rewrite history.

Life's such a worry. Take a break eZ. Have a kit-kat.

elZorro
07-08-2016, 03:34 PM
Life's such a worry. Take a break eZ. Have a kit-kat.

Don't be so patronizing.

fungus pudding
07-08-2016, 04:04 PM
Don't be so patronizing.

I wasn't offering to pay for it.

elZorro
07-08-2016, 04:48 PM
I wasn't offering to pay for it.

OK, wrong sentence structure?

"Don't be a patronising git". It's now an adjective, it's correct.

westerly
07-08-2016, 06:20 PM
ElZorro, you may make a big song and dance about C-T but could I not do the same about Matt McCarten or any other spin merchant Labour are using with the same justification? Tis a pity that Labour uses "less influential" firms as otherwise they may be doing a lot better. I am pretty sure National is using C-T right now as well and they are fully justified in doing so. Didn't Crosby just receive a knighthood as well recently? Must be an honorable sort of person methinks.

David Cameron awarding a knighthood to Crosby attracted almost as much criticism as his "retiring honours list " is receiving at the present time.
Evidently receiving an award is not necessarily a sign of an honourable person.

westerly

fungus pudding
07-08-2016, 06:57 PM
OK, wrong sentence structure?

"Don't be a patronising git". It's now an adjective, it's correct.

I'm still not paying.

elZorro
12-08-2016, 06:35 AM
iPredict is back up and running, sort of. Someone has been playing with the code, and there is now an ROI graph with errors in the RHS axis labels, and the whole forum link is missing. Maybe they didn't like some of the comments, so they fixed that.

Wsp
07-11-2016, 08:58 PM
http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/86134649/shut-down-in-nz-ipredict-creators-run-huge-predictions-market-for-us-election

elZorro
01-12-2016, 09:45 PM
As at today, iPredict has stopped trading, and all portfolios are valued as at midnight 30th November, and you can pull out all of your cash by following the website account actions and supplying a bank account number.

http://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=message

Yes, we could all have donated the money to Victoria University, but we often bought their fabricated offers with real cash, and in addition they let Matthew Hooten et al play with the site to bolster National's chances before reporting, or generally create mischief. The National Party would also have spent some of their advertising money via staff members on the site, this was perfectly acceptable in their opinion. And no-one needed to spell out who they were. Perfect for manipulating public opinion, and when enough cash finally made its way onto the site from lefties, and/or Nicky Hager found them out, they shut further incoming funds off, pretending the government shut them down. No, they realised the game was up, and it was going to cost a fair bit of new cash to keep up the pretence.

Good riddance, to whoever were the real neoliberal forces behind iPredict.

blackcap
02-12-2016, 06:54 AM
As at today, iPredict has stopped trading, and all portfolios are valued as at midnight 30th November, and you can pull out all of your cash by following the website account actions and supplying a bank account number.

http://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=message

Yes, we could all have donated the money to Victoria University, but we often bought their fabricated offers with real cash, and in addition they let Matthew Hooten et al play with the site to bolster National's chances before reporting, or generally create mischief. The National Party would also have spent some of their advertising money via staff members on the site, this was perfectly acceptable in their opinion. And no-one needed to spell out who they were. Perfect for manipulating public opinion, and when enough cash finally made its way onto the site from lefties, and/or Nicky Hager found them out, they shut further incoming funds off, pretending the government shut them down. No, they realised the game was up, and it was going to cost a fair bit of new cash to keep up the pretence.

Good riddance, to whoever were the real neoliberal forces behind iPredict.

I think you are reading a bit too much into it there ElZorro...

So they are going ahead and fixing and manipulating US minds now too... a small little outfit from NZ?

elZorro
02-12-2016, 08:15 AM
I think you are reading a bit too much into it there ElZorro...

So they are going ahead and fixing and manipulating US minds now too... a small little outfit from NZ?

iPredict haven't reported to the media on the political bets for ages, sure they were always keener close to the NZ elections, when it was done daily. They were probably surprised at the level of betting from Americans on their elections, it would have been a good sideline earner. But far from being a research project, I think iPredict was mainly aimed as a boost for National/Act chances, using cheap student labour and Vic Uni funds.

Why else would they hand over the arms' length reporting to Matthew Hooten? Why couldn't they simply change the rules to get proof that each account was owned and only accessed by a unique individual? They said this would cost far too much. Not true. They couldn't change it because it would have shown up all the fraudulent multiple accounts. These multiple accounts were used to place big-looking pro-National bids safely in the margins of NZ political bets, then that account's money was also used up elsewhere in other big bets. But the large holding bets that were no longer covered with funds, remained in place until they were tested with bets from the other side. If there weren't enough funds in the account to honour the bet, the bid simply disappeared, with no impact on the person who placed it with no intention of honouring it. Because they weren't often tested, National's position always looked very secure, and gave the impression they would bolt in at the next election. It's rumoured that one or two people tested this theory out during the Northland by-election, betting on Winston against all apparent odds, to make over $1500 each. The prop-up bids on National's candidate melted away during the onslaught, they'd already figured out he wasn't going to win against Winston, but iPredict was being used as a marketing method.

fungus pudding
02-12-2016, 08:18 AM
As at today, iPredict has stopped trading, and all portfolios are valued as at midnight 30th November, and you can pull out all of your cash by following the website account actions and supplying a bank account number.

http://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=message

Yes, we could all have donated the money to Victoria University, but we often bought their fabricated offers with real cash, and in addition they let Matthew Hooten et al play with the site to bolster National's chances before reporting, or generally create mischief. The National Party would also have spent some of their advertising money via staff members on the site, this was perfectly acceptable in their opinion. And no-one needed to spell out who they were. Perfect for manipulating public opinion, and when enough cash finally made its way onto the site from lefties, and/or Nicky Hager found them out, they shut further incoming funds off, pretending the government shut them down. No, they realised the game was up, and it was going to cost a fair bit of new cash to keep up the pretence.

Good riddance, to whoever were the real neoliberal forces behind iPredict.

It's time for that Kit Kat eZ. I'm still not paying, but they're not expensive.

elZorro
23-12-2016, 06:33 AM
It's time for that Kit Kat eZ. I'm still not paying, but they're not expensive.

Maybe some proper independent outfit should start up a proper predictions site, to do what iPredict miserably failed to do. It would report frequently all through political terms, it would have an independent reporting agent, there would be only one account per person, with similar limits on contributions per person. If more than one person mapped onto the same bank account, a flag would be raised. It would be illegal for political parties to fund employees or agents to put bets on the site (even if it couldn't be enforced, it would be in the rules).

Meanwhile, funds continue to bleed out of the site, except for some prominent accounts with quite a bit of cash in them. Maybe these were in fact the market-making accounts, and are owned by Vic Link or maybe even the National Party. There are a few that have not traded since 2014, I don't suppose the owners will be around to withdraw the cash.

MBW? Matt Burgess was the Vic student who instigated the iPredict concept. Since March 2012, he has been the Senior Economic Advisor to Bill English.

http://www.viclink.co.nz/news/taking-a-chance-on-the-world-stage/

fungus pudding
23-12-2016, 07:19 AM
Maybe some proper independent outfit should start up a proper predictions site, to do what iPredict miserably failed to do. It would report frequently all through political terms, it would have an independent reporting agent, there would be only one account per person, with similar limits on contributions per person. If more than one person mapped onto the same bank account, a flag would be raised. It would be illegal for political parties to fund employees or agents to put bets on the site (even if it couldn't be enforced, it would be in the rules).

Meanwhile, funds continue to bleed out of the site, except for some prominent accounts with quite a bit of cash in them. Maybe these were in fact the market-making accounts, and are owned by Vic Link or maybe even the National Party. There are a few that have not traded since 2014, I don't suppose the owners will be around to withdraw the cash.

MBW? Matt Burgess was the Vic student who instigated the iPredict concept. Since March 2012, he has been the Senior Economic Advisor to Bill English.

http://www.viclink.co.nz/news/taking-a-chance-on-the-world-stage/

This university betting outfit should definitely be outlawed. They make the Klu-Klux-Klan and Isis look positively angelic.

elZorro
15-03-2017, 06:34 AM
This university betting outfit should definitely be outlawed. They make the Klu-Klux-Klan and Isis look positively angelic.

They outlawed themselves, FP. Or Victoria University decided it wasn't a great look to have an offshoot of the National Party's electioneering machine under their umbrella.

Here is most of the top 100 investors left in the coffers of iPredict. MBW is gone, the biggest one left is Margo on $5,851.72, and then it quickly drops away. Since early December 2016, 67 of the top 100 traders have cleaned out their accounts.

blackcap
15-03-2017, 06:58 AM
Cleaned out my account about 6 months ago. No new markets coming on board so less to bother with. I look forward to being able to use their platform in the US when and if that is allowed.
But fret not El Zorro. The TAB are going to be allowed to be taking bets on NZ politics soon..... so that will spark interest again and get you talking conspiracy :)