What you jointly know determines how you act: strategic interactions in prediction markets

The primary goal of a prediction market is to elicit and aggregate information about some future event of interest. How well this goal is achieved depends on the behavior of self-interested market participants, which are crucially influenced by not only their private information but also their knowledge of others' private information, in other words, the information structure of market participants. In this paper, we model a prediction market using the now-classic logarithmic market scoring rule (LMSR) market maker as an extensive-form Bayesian game and aim to understand and characterize the game-theoretic equilibria of the market for different information structures. Prior work has shown that when participants' information is independent conditioned on the realized outcome of the event, the only type of equilibria in this setting has every participant race to honestly reveal their private information as soon as possible, which is the most desirable outcome for the market's goal of information aggregation. This paper considers the remaining two classes of information structures: participants' information being unconditionally independent (the I game) and participants' information being both conditionally and unconditionally dependent (the D game). We characterize the unique family of equilibria for the I game with finite number of participants and finite stages. At any equilibrium in this family, if player i's last stage of participation in the market is after player j's, player i only reveals his information after player j's last stage of participation. This suggests that players race to delay revealing their information, which is probably the least desirable outcome for the market's goal. We consider a special case of the D game and cast insights on possible equilibria if one exists.

[1]  Franklin Allen,et al.  Stock-Price Manipulation , 1992 .

[2]  Duane J. Seppi,et al.  Futures Manipulation with "Cash Settlement" , 1992 .

[3]  Colin Camerer Can Asset Markets Be Manipulated? A Field Experiment With Racetrack Betting , 1998, Journal of Political Economy.

[4]  Koleman Strumpf,et al.  Historical presidential betting markets , 2004 .

[5]  Janine Hansen,et al.  Manipulation in political stock markets – preconditions and evidence , 2004 .

[6]  Archishman Chakraborty,et al.  Manipulation in market order models , 2004 .

[7]  Koleman Strumpf,et al.  Manipulating political stock markets: A field experiment and a century of observational data , 2006 .

[8]  R. Hanson,et al.  Information aggregation and manipulation in an experimental market , 2006 .

[9]  Lance Fortnow,et al.  Bluffing and Strategic Reticence in Prediction Markets , 2007, WINE.

[10]  David M. Pennock,et al.  A Utility Framework for Bounded-Loss Market Makers , 2007, UAI.

[11]  Evdokia Nikolova,et al.  A strategic model for information markets , 2007, EC '07.

[12]  Lance Fortnow,et al.  Betting on permutations , 2007, EC '07.

[13]  Stanko Dimitrov,et al.  Non-myopic strategies in prediction markets , 2008, EC '08.

[14]  Lance Fortnow,et al.  Gaming Prediction Markets: Equilibrium Strategies with a Market Maker , 2010, Algorithmica.

[15]  Michael Ostrovsky,et al.  Information aggregation in dynamic markets with strategic traders , 2009, EC '09.

[16]  Ramesh Johari,et al.  Information aggregation in smooth markets , 2010, EC '10.

[17]  Lian Jian,et al.  Aggregation and manipulation in prediction markets: effects of trading mechanism and information distribution , 2010, EC '10.

[18]  Stanko Dimitrov,et al.  Composition of markets with conflicting incentives , 2010, EC '10.

[19]  R. Hanson LOGARITHMIC MARKETS CORING RULES FOR MODULAR COMBINATORIAL INFORMATION AGGREGATION , 2012 .

[20]  Jennifer Wortman Vaughan,et al.  Efficient Market Making via Convex Optimization, and a Connection to Online Learning , 2013, TEAC.

[21]  Ian A. Kash,et al.  Market manipulation with outside incentives , 2011, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.