Messages posted by: Strangelove

John, thanks, and thanks to the staff here at Intrade who've lent an ear to our concerns. Opening API access can do no harm, and I thank you for taking action on it.

Thanks for the update, and for giving some attention to this.

Someone posted a thread about this on the financial forum, figured it bears mentioning here as well.

There's been a lot of talk around here lately by several people who are apparently interested in making markets. I can't say I'm not one of them. Lots of us have the expertise and the good fortune to have the resources necessary for making markets. I'm not saying the gent who does it now isn't good at it - but I am saying that to restrict API access and quash the potential for competition *is* bad for any market.

There are people scrambling over each other to make the Dow markets. There's no need for Intrade to relegate itself to an agreement wherein competition is forbidden. People here are ready to help, they're willing to try their hand at making the financial markets stronger.

I'd like to echo the call to open API access. It can't do harm, only good.

There's plenty of sportsbooks out there. I recently used Bodog. Intrade is a singular entity at this time; reassociating it with sports betting will damage its prospects for regulation by the U.S. CFTC. Getting on a formal footing with that organization will greatly benefit volume here.

Agreed.
But back to the subject of API access, restricting it is a silly thing indeed. Bad for everyone.

And I would definitely trade in a 60+ contract. If Intrade does this, it should specify "Dems have 60+ seats, including those who caucus with them" to avoid any hint of ambiguity.

Good point.
Hopefully this contract will be listed.

On the subject of Florida, I don't know where you're coming up with this idea that the FSC was utterly biased Andy. Probably conservative talk radio. SCOTUS found no bias. I'll tend to side with them over Rush Limbaugh.

FSC wanted to recount the entire state because, to repeat this point yet again, selective recounts are an equal protection violation. The only way to count validly is the way Minnesota has done it - to mandate a recount for all counties, not just some. That's where the first study you link to is in error - selective recounts arbitrarily requested by candidates are unconstitutional and invalid. Thus the FSC ordered a statewide recount. That you should claim the FSC is biased because they intended to do what Minnesota is doing now makes absolutely no sense.

Gore won that statewide recount, though it was discovered after the fact, too late to reverse the mistake.

It's this reality, so unfortunate for the legitimacy of the Bush presidency that has been adamantly championed by the farthest right of conservatives, that prompts people who claim to be intimate with our nation's founding principles to end up defending the SCOTUS's gross trangression of its constitutional boundaries.

Gore (D) LOSES a close election in 2000

Well, here's the problem with that - he didn't. Once the votes were counted after the fact, for the sake of the curiosity of the press and the people, it was found that Gore received more votes in Florida than did Bush under the FSC ordered statewide recount. As for the claim of bias, I wrote earlier:

It actually would have remanded the decision back to the FSC (which you don't do if you suspect bias) if it hadn't slit the issue's throat with the time constraint.

Nothing biased about ordering a statewide recount seeing as how selective recounts are an equal protection violation.

My point on SCOTUS overstepping its bounds does still stand.

As for Minnesota, I can't say I'm as well versed there as with Florida's 2000 election, but it seems like they're doing it right, recounting everything, honoring every challenge, trying (as hard as possible) to achieve an impossible level of consistency. Here's the fact: Those two came out just about dead tied. They might as well rotate the seat, it's a wash. But since there aren't any provisions in Minnesota law for a runoff, you have to decide it one way, even if the margin of error is very thin. So they're going about making the decision the right way. Conspiracy theories aside, you have to admit that.

I'm not so interested in Minnesota as I am in Florida. The latter has massive historical significance. It's an example of how the bias not just of a small group of individuals, but of one key individual can greatly alter the course of world events.

I was looking forward to a little banter with you on this topic, Andy. I'm sure you have a difference of opinion, come take the floor.

I won't comment on specifics I'm not familiar with or criticize the current market maker (I really have nothing against him, stopped trading financials a while ago), but to restrict access to the API is bad for the strength of Intrade's markets. Intrade need not subject itself to a non-competition agreement when so many people with the capability to make markets are expressing interest in doing so.

Neochaos, Dissector has sound advice. You absolutely must limit your risk. The only way to go fast enough to win a street race is the judicious use of your brakes. The only way to realize profits is the judicious management of losses.

I know this sounds excessively thrifty, but you should risk no more than 2% to 5% of your available balance on trading financials until you've gotten several dozen trades under your belt. If that means buying or selling only a single contract, so be it.

I'd also suggest staying away from the intraday financials. The price spread will, in the long run, eliminate any potential for profit you may have. The market maker is very rarely wrong, and when he is, he's usually right to a greater degree within a few days.

And yes, do diversify. Explore other markets here, such as monthly gas contracts and other medium time range contracts.

I can see this point in his argument, though - that the Dows are more well known. Now it's been said that the people who trade here are a little more astute than average, and that's probably true, but only to an extent. People just don't think about the S&P, they think about the Dow. It doesn't make sense, but that's the way it is, and it follows here as well. People will always look at the Dow first, then the S&P second, especially considering the premarket trading on the Dow.

Fact of the matter is, we do have a situation where there is an intentional institutional roadblock to competition on the Dow. Competition is healthy for a market, and to limit competition from individuals willing to give market making on the Dow a shot can only be bad for business. jbeyer has made a good argument to the contrary, but I disagree with him because I believe that the crucible of competition will increase the strength of a market and the savvy of its participants, not decrease the strength of a market and drive its participants away in the long run.

Should someone be willing to make the Dow, let them, and let it happen concurrently with others making the Dow. The best man will win, traders will benefit. The losing party is simply the individual who, as it may turn out, was not so well suited to make that market as he previously believed.

If you think the Dow is going to go down, including by less than 25 points, you would just sell DOW.16MAR.HIGHER.

I'm glad to know too, shmoo, and it's nice that Masse makes the info more readily available than it would be through perusing the Irish Companies Registration Office website. It's in bad taste only for the fact that Masse is in a state of constant contention with Intrade, and his intent is not for the general edification of patrons, but to scare them off.

Which he does succeed in to some extent.

That's a good point Andy. I can't help being somewhat more worried though when I consider this against the recent listing of a contract here on Intrade's future viability.

(Although I appreciate the lens being turned inward, as it were.)

As an aside, although it's publicly available information, I believe its posting on that blog is somewhat bad taste.