ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Betting boolean-style: a framework for trading in securities based on logical formulas
Full text PdfPdf (311 KB)
Source Electronic Commerce archive
Proceedings of the 4th ACM conference on Electronic commerce table of contents
San Diego, CA, USA
Pages: 144 - 155  
Year of Publication: 2003
ISBN:1-58113-679-X
Authors
Lance Fortnow  NEC Laboratories America, Princeton, NJ
Joe Kilian  NEC Laboratories America, Princeton, NJ
David M. Pennock  Overture Services, Inc.
Michael P. Wellman  University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGEcom: ACM Special Interest Group on Electronic Commerce
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 4,   Downloads (12 Months): 42,   Citation Count: 1
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/779928.779946
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We develop a framework for trading in compound securities: financial instruments that pay off contingent on the outcomes of arbitrary statements in propositional logic. Buying or selling securities---which can be thought of as betting on or against a particular future outcome---allows agents both to hedge risk and to profit (in expectation) on subjective predictions. A compound securities market allows agents to place bets on arbitrary boolean combinations of events, enabling them to more closely achieve their optimal risk exposure, and enabling the market as a whole to more closely achieve the social optimum.The tradeoff for allowing such expressivity is in the complexity of the agents' and auctioneer's optimization problems.We develop and motivate the concept of a compound securities market, presenting the framework through a series of formal definitions and examples. We then analyze in detail the auctioneer's matching problem. We show that, with numevents events, the matching problem is co-NP-complete in the divisible case and complete in the indivisible case. We show that the latter hardness result holds even under severe language restrictions on bids. With events, and numevents securities, the problem is polynomial in the divisible case and NP-complete in the indivisible case. We briefly discuss matching algorithms and tractable special cases.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Kenneth J. Arrow. The role of securities in the optimal allocation of risk-bearing. Review of Economic Studies, 31(2):91--96, 1964.
 
2
Peter Bossaerts, Leslie Fine, and John Ledyard. Inducing liquidity in thin financial markets through combined-value trading mechanisms. European Economic Review, 46:1671--1695, 2002.
 
3
Paul J. Brewer. Decentralized computation procurement and computational robustness in a smart market. Economic Theory, 13:41--92, 1999.
4
 
5
Bruno de Finetti. Theory of Probability: A Critical Introductory Treatment, volume 1. Wiley, New York, 1974.
 
6
7
 
8
Jacques H. Dreze. Market allocation under uncertainty. In Essays on Economic Decisions under Uncertainty, pages 119--143. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
 
9
 
10
Robert Forsythe and Russell Lundholm. Information aggregation in an experimental market. Econometrica, 58(2):309--347, 1990.
 
11
Robert Forsythe, Forrest Nelson, George R. Neumann, and Jack Wright. Anatomy of an experimental political stock market. American Economic Review, 82(5):1142--1161, 1992.
 
12
Robert Forsythe, Thomas A. Rietz, and Thomas W. Ross. Wishes, expectations, and actions: A survey on price formation in election stock markets. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 39:83--110, 1999.
 
13
John M. Gandar, William H. Dare, Craig R. Brown, and Richard A. Zuber.Informed traders and price variations in the betting market for professional basketball games. Journal of Finance, LIII(1):385--401, 1998.
 
14
Robin Hanson. Decision markets. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14(3):16--19, 1999.
 
15
 
16
Robin D. Hanson. Could gambling save science? Encouraging an honest consensus. Social Epistemology, 9(1):3--33, 1995.
 
17
Jens Carsten Jackwerth and Mark Rubinstein. Recovering probability distributions from options prices. Journal of Finance, 51(5):1611--1631, 1996.
 
18
Joseph B. Kadane and Robert L. Winkler. Separating probability elicitation from utilities. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(402):357--363, 1988.
 
19
Michael Magill and Martine Quinzii. Theory of Incomplete Markets, Vol. 1. MIT Press, 1996.
 
20
Andreu Mas-Colell, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
21
22
 
23
 
24
David M. Pennock, Steve Lawrence, C. Lee Giles, and Finn \AArup Nielsen. The real power of artificial markets. Science, 291:987--988, February 9 2001.
25
 
26
 
27
C. R. Plott, J. Wit, and W. C. Yang. Parimutuel betting markets as information aggregation devices: Experimental results. Social Science Working Paper 986, California Institute of Technology, April 1997.
 
28
Charles R. Plott. Markets as information gathering tools. Southern Economic Journal, 67(1):1--15, 2000.
 
29
Charles R. Plott and Shyam Sunder. Rational expectations and the aggregation of diverse information in laboratory security markets. Econometrica, 56(5):1085--1118, 1988.
 
30
R. Roll. Orange juice and weather. American Economic Review, 74(5):861--880, 1984.
31
 
32
Carsten Schmidt and Axel Werwatz. How accurate do markets predict the outcome of an event? the Euro 2000 soccer championships experiment. Technical Report 09-2002, Max Planck Institute for Research into Economic Systems, 2002.
 
33
Richard H. Thaler and William T. Ziemba. Anomalies: Parimutuel betting markets: Racetracks and lotteries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(2):161--174, 1988.
 
34
Hal R. Varian. The arbitrage principle in financial economics. J. Economic Perspectives, 1(2):55--72, 1987.
 
35
Robert L. Winkler and Allan H. Murphy. Good probability assessors. J. Applied Meteorology, 7:751--758, 1968.


Collaborative Colleagues:
Lance Fortnow: colleagues
Joe Kilian: colleagues
David M. Pennock: colleagues
Michael P. Wellman: colleagues