Can someone explain whether the "play to lose" thinking I noted above is correct or not? I thought I would get a response on that, but everyone is caught up in the moral bit. That's fine, I have no problem with those thinking it's morally lacking (as I pretty much do myself), but I thought I heard quite a good *technical* reason why this futures market wouldn't have worked well, and I'm wondering if anyone can refute that. It's not my original thought; I heard someone much more familiar with futures express this point of view on a radio program, and it made sense to me. So, why wouldn't the fact that the government would move to prevent these events ruin the effectiveness of this market?