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

Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 559 posts

Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence

#531

Post by d4ng »

solumunus wrote: post #438
d4ng wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very naive. Many people have incentives to manipulate the financial markets, also with real world consequences. Should we ban financial markets as a result? Do you really think that there are no people, who have bet on the price of something in one direction or the other, who enact real world consequences on people or other entities in order to ensure their bet? This is par for the course.

Financial markets serve a worthwhile purpose and can’t be gamed to the same degree as Polymarket. Polymarket enables completely absurd levels of dangerous manipulation, with significantly worse potential real world outcomes.

Purpose and meaning are ultimately subjective.

Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence

#532

Post by Biganon »

pennaMan wrote: post #425
embedding-shape wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the reason laws aren't overly specific, so these judges can make those judgement calls in the cases. Following the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law is something many judges care about as well.

You have an US-centric (an really naive) view of the judicial systems of the world. In many countries the judges have to follow the exact letter of the law. In others, this "spirit of the law" excuse makes way for enabling systemic corruption.

You have ni idea what you're talking about if you think there's such a thing as "the exact letter of the law".

Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence

#533

Post by somenameforme »

freejazz wrote: post #528
somenameforme wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not supposed to make a difference but to provide information to people, which it does a great job of. Go browse Polymarket and the odds they lay on most of everything are about as close as one can get as to the "real" odds of that thing. They're essentially like a superhuman pollster. I'm a big fan of them but have not placed a single bet. It's simply that if you want to see what's happening in the world, a brow…

If the information does not make a difference, what is the point of the information? White noise is "information". Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is "information". What is the point? > As for the election, a Republican winning the popular vote by a couple million can't be called a landslide in nominal terms, but it is in terms of normal results. The DNC currently completely controls California and New York. Afte…

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "make a difference." But providing accurate odds on a wide array of topics isn't yelling fire in a crowded theater and the results of the election did reflect the polymarket odds.

Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence

#534

Post by LanceH »

nyeah wrote: post #273
LanceH wrote: post #224

I find it humorous that these are simultaneously attacked as being gambling and attacked because some people know more than others and are "betting" on a sure thing.

Not sure I get the joke. Should "we're crooked" be a defense against illegal gambling charges?

Who would the charges be against? The person who violated some trust, or the market maker?

I could be pretty neutral on the market maker, really. The point of a prediction market is to put information to use.

There may be some line to be drawn on such markets, but that line really isn't drawn. There are just vague gestures that it is both gambling and not gambling due to insider information.

If you wanted to regulate it, legislate which markets can be made. Require notification that it is not gambling and is all about the trading of insider information and that gamblers have less than "fair" odds.

Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence

#535

Post by debugnik »

TZubiri wrote: post #530
debugnik wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the end justify the means here? Revising the ruling should be an option: The blocks clearly aren't working, everyone I know who pirates matches tells me their sources have barely been affected, and others share the same here. Meanwhile I, that don't care about football but pay for my ISP, can't visit during matches most of the sites I regularly visit. Why am I an acceptable casualty in the piracy wars? > But…

Just to clarify your position, Spain should allow US companies to not comply with court orders for US company operations within Spain jurisdiction? So Spain should just allow another country to do whatever, or to use some extra-legal judgment criteria to discern whether something is worth following the law for and what is not worth the hassle?

Please point out where in my comment it says that's my position.

If the courts decided Cloudflare has to be banned, let it be banned. But so far they haven't had a trial, much less a sentence. We're just enabling a private company to interfere with the services of another, which represents a huge part of the internet even if we don't like it, simply because the former claims the trade-off is necessary and acceptable.

And since the only actual evidence I can access (weak as it is) points to these blocks barely working, I claim that this trade-off is not worth it and we're just inflicting pain on people not watching the matches for a very slim benefit to LaLiga. Bring Cloudflare to the courts if you must, but leave us alone until they figure it out.

Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence

#536

Post by nilamo »

abustamam wrote: post #293
burkaman wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of these "politican out" markets will resolve to true if the politician dies: https://polymarket.com/predictions/out . The language is usually "This market will resolve to “Yes” if ceases to be ". Or for another example: https://polymarket.com/event/will-neymar-play-in-the-2026-fi... . Will Neymar play in the world cup? Not if he's dead. Any kind of "will celebrity appear in X in the future" can be reduced to an…

Kalshi supposedly does not pay out if a death is involved https://xcancel.com/mansourtarek_/status/2029996077554815268 Not sure if Polymarket does the same. Also not sure if I really trust these people to be the arbiter of morality and adhere to their own rules when it doesn't benefit them.

So if you kidnap them, hold them in a bunker for a month, then release them, it will pay out. That's probably a positive thing for the world somehow, right?

Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence

#537

Post by compiler-guy »

csomar wrote: post #439
compiler-guy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technical term is that you must have an “insurable interest” in what you insure. Both of your examples are people protecting their insurable interest. Ownership is the most common insurable interest, but there are many other ways to have one. This is done because the insurance company wants you to prefer that the covered event doesn’t happen, which avoids some conflicts of interest. These prediction market events…

Based on that logic, I can say I have a vested interest in the bet? > This is done because the insurance company wants you to prefer that the covered event doesn’t happen But buying the insurance cancels exactly that. Insurance fraud is a thing.

Insurance doesn't exactly cancel that. Maybe in a theoretical world, perhaps.

For example, I have a decently-sized life-insurance policy. If buying insurance "exactly covered that", I would be indifferent to whether I lived or died. But I'm not. And I can't think of a policy-size that would make me so. Money is an imperfect substitute.

Less dramatically, I have really good auto coverage. The car itself is nothing special, and the coverage I have would make me whole (minus a very small deductible) But I am very much not indifferent to replacing the car with money, and it would take way more than the deductible to change my mind on that.

The hassle-value alone would go way over. And hassle-value is usually not insurable.

Insurance fraud is absolutely a thing--but the insurance company still wants you to prefer that the event doesn't happen. That it doesn't work perfectly doesn't really invalidate the point.

Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence

#538

Post by freejazz »

somenameforme wrote: post #533
freejazz wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the information does not make a difference, what is the point of the information? White noise is "information". Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is "information". What is the point? > As for the election, a Republican winning the popular vote by a couple million can't be called a landslide in nominal terms, but it is in terms of normal results. The DNC currently completely controls California and New York. Afte…

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "make a difference." But providing accurate odds on a wide array of topics isn't yelling fire in a crowded theater and the results of the election did reflect the polymarket odds.

But you already conceded the odds were not accurate.

> But providing accurate odds on a wide array of topics isn't yelling fire in a crowded theater and the results of the election did reflect the polymarket odds.

I didn't say they were. You are making the broad meaningless distinction of implying that the "information" provided by "prediction markets" has any value. If it does not have value, what is the point of having the markets?

>Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "make a difference."

If the availability of the information makes no difference societally, then what is the value of the information? I'm not sure if you are being so obtuse on purpose, or what. But you keep saying it provides information... so what? As I pointed out... white noise is information.

> and the results of the election did reflect the polymarket odds

No they did not. Trump did not win by twice as much and certainly did not in the popular vote.

Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence

#539

Post by cthor »

pu_pe wrote: post #466
Retr0id wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's as easy to manipulate as you say.

Smaller markets are easily swayed by not so much money. Arbitrage is difficult because there is an inherent threat that you're betting against insider information. In this specific case it's clear that the market doesn't represent our collective knowledge about hantavirus at all. Twenty days ago the odds of a hantavirus pandemic being declared by the WHO were ~10% and now it's 5%. This is just a reflection of the new…

That is not surprising. If your point is that 10% is not 5% and the odds change over time then you have unreasonable expectations. It's not an oracle. Where did I say it was? I said it's a quick and robust signal. Of course there's plenty of ways to get alpha, but those require both effort and domain expertise.

Is this a standard you hold to any other single signal? Name it. What signal (a) predicted <3% over a month ago and (b) you believed prior to be a reliable signal?

Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence

#540

Post by TZubiri »

debugnik wrote: post #535
TZubiri wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify your position, Spain should allow US companies to not comply with court orders for US company operations within Spain jurisdiction? So Spain should just allow another country to do whatever, or to use some extra-legal judgment criteria to discern whether something is worth following the law for and what is not worth the hassle?

Please point out where in my comment it says that's my position. If the courts decided Cloudflare has to be banned, let it be banned. But so far they haven't had a trial, much less a sentence. We're just enabling a private company to interfere with the services of another, which represents a huge part of the internet even if we don't like it, simply because the former claims the trade-off is necessary and acceptable.…

>But so far they haven't had a trial, much less a sentence.

Wrong, here's a sentence with reference to the original case.

https://www.iberley.es/jurisprudencia/sentencia-civil-juzgad...

I apologize if this sounds rude, but it just sounds like you aren't familiar with the case or the subject matter at all, please perform some research if you want to make claims about what ought to be.

Post reply on HN