Scientists are beginning to understand why these ‘mini Wall Streets’ work so well at forecasting election results — and how they sometimes fail.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Open Science Collaboration Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7, 657–660 (2012).
Open Science Collaboration Science 349, aac4716 (2015).
Dreber, A. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 15343–15347 (2015).
Berg, J. E., Nelson, F. D. & Rietz, T. A. Int. J. Forecast. 24, 285–300 (2008).
Treynor, J. L. Financ. Anal. J. 43, 50–53 (1987).
Almenberg, J., Kittlitz, K. & Pfeiffer, T. PLoS ONE 4, e8500 (2009).
Rosenbloom, E. S. & Notz, W. Electron. Mark. 16, 63–69 (2006).
Servan-Schreiber, E., Wolfers, J., Pennock, D. M. & Galebach, B. Electron. Mark. 14, 243–251 (2004).
Camerer, C. F. et al. Science 351, 1433–1436 (2016).
Related links
Related links
Related links in Nature Research
Psychologists' betting market hints at most reliable research findings 2015-Nov-09
Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test 2015-Aug-27
Counting Google searches predicts market movements 2013-Apr-26
Replication studies: Bad copy 2012-May-16
Related external links
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mann, A. The power of prediction markets. Nature 538, 308–310 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/538308a
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/538308a
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Effect sizes in ongoing randomized controlled critical care trials
Critical Care (2017)