The Parimutuel Kelly Probability Scoring Rule

Kilgour and Gerchak (Kilgour, D. M., Y. Gerchak. 2004. Elicitation of probabilities using competitive scoring rules. Decision Anal.2 108--113) introduce a competitive probability scoring rule designed to reward forecasters for their accuracy relative to rival forecasters. The rule proposed is both proper (in the usual sense of scoring rules) and self-financing in that forecasters share a preset reward pool that can be fixed at net zero. This paper elaborates on the Kilgour-Gerchak forecasting competition by demonstrating its possible analogy with forecasters making “Kelly bets” in an exogenous fixed-odds betting market. The construction of forecasters as Kelly (log utility) bettors leads to a modification of the Kilgour-Gerchak rule, called the parimutuel Kelly competitive scoring rule. Unlike the Kilgour-Gerchak score, the parimutuel Kelly score is not proper. Its appeal, however, is that it emulates a prediction market formed within a cohort of forecasters, as if they engage in a closed betting tournament where each attempts to accumulate maximum possible wealth over the long run and ruin all others. Within such a competition, near honesty is a Nash equilibrium forecasting strategy under realistic conditions.

[1]  M. Rubinstein. THE STRONG CASE FOR THE GENERALIZED LOGARITHMIC UTILITY MODEL AS THE PREMIER MODEL OF FINANCIAL MARKETS , 1976 .

[2]  H. Markowitz Investment for the Long Run: New Evidence for an Old Rule , 1976 .

[3]  A. O'Hagan,et al.  Kendall's Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 2b: Bayesian Inference. , 1996 .

[4]  Bruno de Finetti,et al.  Logical foundations and measurement of subjective probability , 1970 .

[5]  Robert T. Clemen,et al.  Combining Overlapping Information , 1987 .

[6]  A. H. Murphy,et al.  Scoring rules and the evaluation of probabilities , 1996 .

[7]  John L. Kelly,et al.  A new interpretation of information rate , 1956, IRE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[8]  J. J. Kelly A new interpretation of information rate , 1956 .

[9]  Robert T. Clemen,et al.  Calibration and the aggregation of probabilities , 1986 .

[10]  Yuming Li Growth-security investment strategy for long and short runs , 1993 .

[11]  N. H. Hakansson. Capital Growth and the Mean-Variance Approach to Portfolio Selection , 1971, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.

[12]  Yigal Gerchak,et al.  Elicitation of Probabilities Using Competitive Scoring Rules , 2004, Decis. Anal..

[13]  E. Thorp Portfolio Choice and the Kelly Criterion , 1975 .

[14]  R. Nau Should Scoring Rules be Effective , 1985 .

[15]  B. deFinetti,et al.  METHODS FOR DISCRIMINATING LEVELS OF PARTIAL KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A TEST ITEM. , 1965, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[16]  W. Poundstone Fortune's Formula: The Untold Story of the Scientific Betting System That Beat the Casinos and Wall Street , 2005 .

[17]  Robert L. Winkler,et al.  Multiple Experts vs. Multiple Methods: Combining Correlation Assessments , 2004, Decis. Anal..

[18]  C. Granger,et al.  Economic and Statistical Measures of Forecast Accuracy , 1999 .

[19]  B. M. Hill,et al.  Theory of Probability , 1990 .

[20]  Michael P. Clements,et al.  Evaluating the Bank of England Density Forecasts of Inflation , 2004 .

[21]  W. Ziemba,et al.  Growth versus security in dynamic investment analysis , 1992 .

[22]  L. J. Savage Elicitation of Personal Probabilities and Expectations , 1971 .

[23]  W. Ziemba,et al.  Capital growth with security , 2004 .

[24]  L. Breiman Optimal Gambling Systems for Favorable Games , 1962 .

[25]  Donald C. Aucamp On the extensive number of plays to achieve superior performance with the geometric mean strategy , 1993 .

[26]  E. Thorp The Kelly Criterion in Blackjack Sports Betting, and the Stock Market , 2008 .

[27]  R. L. Winkler The Quantification of Judgment: Some Methodological Suggestions , 1967 .

[28]  A. H. Murphy,et al.  Diagnostic verification of probability forecasts , 1992 .

[29]  R. L. Winkler Scoring Rules and the Evaluation of Probability Assessors , 1969 .

[30]  David Lindley Scoring rules and the inevitability of probability , 1982 .

[31]  I. J. Good,et al.  Information, Rewards, and Quasi-Utilities , 1972 .

[32]  William T. Ziemba,et al.  Growth versus security tradeoffs indynamic investment analysis , 1999, Ann. Oper. Res..

[33]  W. Ziemba,et al.  Stochastic optimization models in finance , 2006 .

[34]  A. H. Murphy,et al.  Scoring rules in probability assessment and evaluation , 1970 .

[35]  Ray C. Fair,et al.  Evaluating the predictive accuracy of models , 1986 .

[36]  G. Brier VERIFICATION OF FORECASTS EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF PROBABILITY , 1950 .

[37]  J. Bernardo Expected Information as Expected Utility , 1979 .

[38]  Jose A. Lopez Evaluating the Predictive Accuracy of Volatility Models , 2001 .

[39]  Lawrence E. Blume,et al.  Optimality and Natural Selection in Markets , 2002, J. Econ. Theory.

[40]  A. H. Murphy,et al.  A Note on the Utility of Probabilistic Predictions and the Probability Score in the Cost-Loss Ratio Decision Situation , 1966 .

[41]  A. H. Murphy,et al.  A General Framework for Forecast Verification , 1987 .

[42]  Robert L. Winkler,et al.  Probability Elicitation, Scoring Rules, and Competition Among Forecasters , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[43]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  Why are Gambling Markets Organized so Differently from Financial Markets? , 2004 .

[44]  Stephen E. Fienberg,et al.  The Comparison and Evaluation of Forecasters. , 1983 .

[45]  L. Blume,et al.  If You're so Smart, Why Aren't You Rich? Belief Selection in Complete and Incomplete Markets , 2001 .

[46]  L. Blume,et al.  Evolution and market behavior , 1992 .

[47]  R. Roll,et al.  EVIDENCE ON THE “GROWTH-OPTIMUM” MODEL , 1973 .

[48]  R. L. Winkler,et al.  Separating probability elicitation from utilities , 1988 .

[49]  Robert L. Winkler,et al.  Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis , 1999 .