Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 298 posts

Re: Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

#6

Post by thatnerd »

I think we've collectively DDoSed it. I'm getting a 504 timeout.

The author [page](https://github.com/sterlingcrispin) is there on github, but I can't even find his full list of his repos to confirm it's still there (I also get a 504 on that).

Re: Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

#7

Post by nemomarx »

wormpilled wrote: post #4

Basically arbitraging human imagination. People love coming up with fantastical concepts because they get attention, but the more exciting a market is, the less likely it is to actually happen. Reality is usually boring.

This makes sense to me, but isn't there a risk of increasing the potential payoff high enough that someone is motivated to go out and make the yes side happen?

Consider this bot running on us military outcomes or something.

Re: Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

#8

Post by nothinkjustai »

thatnerd wrote: post #6

I think we've collectively DDoSed it. I'm getting a 504 timeout. The author [page]( https://github.com/sterlingcrispin ) is there on github, but I can't even find his full list of his repos to confirm it's still there (I also get a 504 on that).

GitHub is down yet again. Guess they forgot to tell their AI “make no mistakes” while vibecoding.

Re: Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

#9

Post by cryptonym »

nemomarx wrote: post #7
wormpilled wrote: post #4

Basically arbitraging human imagination. People love coming up with fantastical concepts because they get attention, but the more exciting a market is, the less likely it is to actually happen. Reality is usually boring.

This makes sense to me, but isn't there a risk of increasing the potential payoff high enough that someone is motivated to go out and make the yes side happen? Consider this bot running on us military outcomes or something.

By design it's a game where people with inside knowledge or enough power to bend reality can steal money from people with gambling addiction. Automating your addiction might not be the best move.
Post reply on HN