Polymarket gamblers threaten to kill me over Iran missile story

Post by LoganDark » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 10:53 PM UTC

mvdtnz wrote: post #767

coppsilgold wrote: post #750

At the time of the threats the odds were likely very skewed, as in over 99% to one side. For events where a single article could be a fulcrum, it seems like a feasible strategy to wager on the 1% and then try to manipulate the writer into changing the outcome. The chances of success will be low, but likely higher than 1% therefore the expected value[1] may be high. Most people on Polymarket are gamblers and have no i…

> Most people on Polymarket are gamblers Every person on Polymarket is a gambler. By definition.

Post by TZubiri » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 10:55 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #664

waffletower wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really doesn't matter here, in specific, if he is misrepresented. He came up with the "invisible hand" concept and he didn't consider its shadow/consequences. He shouldn't be personally faulted for it, he was just one man sharing his thinking a long time ago. Living people are to blame for not correcting for these shortcomings enough. I learned that it would have been best to have just said laissez-faire capitalis…

> He came up with the "invisible hand" concept and he didn't consider its shadow/consequences Smith wrote about the political economy. He absolutely considered the balance between public and market interests. Most people talking about The Wealth of Nations have never read it.

Post by inerte » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 10:58 PM UTC

OutOfHere wrote: post #292

alkonaut wrote: post #290

So Polymarket would settle the bet based on reporting from a single source? That seems to be very open to manipulation. In fact, for something as inconsequential as this, I'd just bet heavily myself if I were the reporter.

There exists a sensible way to handle this. It is to require at least three independent news outlet reports of an event (as defined in the bet). A related issue is that war news is heavily censored in Israel; it's difficult for news outlets to report it.

Post by gusgus01 » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 10:59 PM UTC

margalabargala wrote: post #719

bnlxbnlx wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's a fair point to be made that Polymarket and similar sites are not fundamentally different from e.g. sports betting. not fundamentally different as in "live or die" you mean? the whole point of sports is that you compete whilst appreciating each others' humanity.

I honestly don't know what your point is. The best I can come up with is: "The whole point of sports (in my opinion) is X good thing therefore betting on sports is more acceptable" Making bets on good things doesn't make the betting better. Just because Polymarket would allow you to bet money that the infant homicide rate goes down next year, doesn't mean it's a good thing to allow betting on.

Post by joks » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 11:00 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #758

margalabargala wrote: post #624

As someone generally against gambling, I think there's a fair point to be made that Polymarket and similar sites are not fundamentally different from e.g. sports betting. The issue of bribing/threatening a sports player to throw a game has existed for over a century. It's not a new problem. The only thing special about Polymarket is the expansion of surface area. My preferred solution would be to just ban it all, or…

Banning it sends it underground into the hands of organised crime, which will still have access to modern technology. There's going to be a net loss, but it's probably better to regulate it than have another war on drugs.