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

New York Times and The Athletic workers demand company scrap Kalshi deal

newsguild.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 227 posts

Re: New York Times and The Athletic workers demand company scrap Kalshi deal

#211

Post by nomilk »

freejazz wrote: post #200
nomilk wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A partisan bet makes the opposite position slightly more profitable, attracting bets which equilibrate the market back at fair prices (i.e. realistic probabilities)

Yeah but they markets don't equilibrate. Again, the 2022 election pool just reflected the thought of a big whale.

A whale just means the market gets more mis-priced, creating greater incentive for correction, which typically occurs.

Let's for a moment say you're right, and prediction markets do have a flaw (that if someone wants to spend a lot of money making an outcome look more/less likely), that's an imperfection vs the many biases in other information sources.

tl;dr prediction markets financially penalise providing misleading information, whereas traditional media profit from misleading information

Re: New York Times and The Athletic workers demand company scrap Kalshi deal

#212

Post by Gud »

what wrote: post #210
abirch wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll leave this here, Donald Trump Jr got a free stake in Kalshi. https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/options/articles/donald-tr...

[flagged]

Bidens nepotism was small scale.

Donald Trump is burning down the country for his and his family’s wealth.

You don’t have to support either

Re: New York Times and The Athletic workers demand company scrap Kalshi deal

#213

Post by Gud »

throwaway287391 wrote: post #183
abirch wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll leave this here, Donald Trump Jr got a free stake in Kalshi. https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/options/articles/donald-tr...

> Donald Trump Jr. Got A Kalshi Stake For Free— Now It Could Be Worth Billions As Prediction Market Platform Eyes $40 Billion Valuation > Kalshi handed him equity worth roughly $300,000 when he joined as a strategic adviser in early 2025. ... Kalshi granted him the stake when the company was valued at under $2 billion — less than a tenth of its $22 billion valuation in a funding round last month ... Um, how does a $3…

The same way young Barron has $150m to his name? Through sheer corruption?

Re: New York Times and The Athletic workers demand company scrap Kalshi deal

#214

Post by Ylpertnodi »

yipinwong wrote: post #185
subdude wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They are not the ones who has to bear the financial responsibilities of the company. When the company does poorly, who ends up hurting more? Is it the workers that get laid off, the executives that get another bonus, or the owner that remains a billionaire?

The company loses $, not workers. Workers get paid regardless whether the company loses money or not. Union workers rarely ever get fired over this especially.

Last year, the federal org i belong to laid off 20% of our workforce. The difference in personnel is noticeable, especially when the kpi's are trying to keep up with this year's targets. Next year, we are expecting more people to 'leave'.

Re: New York Times and The Athletic workers demand company scrap Kalshi deal

#215

Post by Ylpertnodi »

c-linkage wrote: post #121
jceg wrote: post #109

Most of the top level comments support scrapping the deal, most of them on the basis that "sports gambling is a cancer." A cancer for whom? I want to take the opposite position: let people do whatever they want, as long as they bear the consequences of their decisions instead of socializing the risk. You don't like betting or gambling? Great, then don't do it. But forcing your preferences on others is not the way.

What happens when a husband decides to risk the mortgage payment on a sports bet and loses? Now the wife and kids are evicted. Or maybe he lives alone and is now homeless. But now we have a man living out of his car, or worse, homeless and begging on the corner. The problem with allowing people to do whatever they want is that risks are often socialized.

> or worse, homeless and begging on the corner.

Nah, worse is they get some of your hard-earned money. Or a part of it.

Do you account for every penny your taxes go to?

Why should I pay for someone else's bus route?

Re: New York Times and The Athletic workers demand company scrap Kalshi deal

#216

Post by gadders »

gdulli wrote: post #116
gadders wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any country limitation in the original comment.

Likely an Amerocentric comment, yes, that assumes gambling can only be as destructive and predatory as it is in the US. I don't know anything about how it works in the UK but it's plausible to me that it's not as harmful a force there, as you say.

If it had never happened, maybe sport would be some platonic ideal but if you look at the premier league, it seems to function OK as a sports league comparable to the NFL, despite people loading up on accas for fun.

Re: New York Times and The Athletic workers demand company scrap Kalshi deal

#218

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

gdulli wrote: post #116
gadders wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any country limitation in the original comment.

Likely an Amerocentric comment, yes, that assumes gambling can only be as destructive and predatory as it is in the US. I don't know anything about how it works in the UK but it's plausible to me that it's not as harmful a force there, as you say.

gambling in the UK "as destructive and predatory as it is in the US" is not something that I have a measure for, and anyway it is the wrong measure.

Even if that is true, UK gambling really is not a force for good, quite the opposite. And becoming worse as it moves from a betting shop on the high street into a betting app in a persons pocket.

Re: New York Times and The Athletic workers demand company scrap Kalshi deal

#219

Post by bluecalm »

amelius wrote: post #97
bluecalm wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want short term trading because you want the prices to be as close to efficient as possible. You may never trade short term but at some point you are going to buy and at some point you are going to sell. Market being far from efficient one would hurt you there. So let them trade and discover price. You don't have to play that game but you still benefit.

How much will it hurt me? Maybe I'm OK with being hurt through the markets if it means the world is a saner and more fair place?

Inefficient market means someone is getting a bad price. That someone is going to be a retail/naive investor - Bill and Nancy who want to invest in Apple with part of their salary.

Sophisticated investors would never be on the other side of the trade. Add to that bigger spreads and unsophisticated market participants get fleeced. As they wouldn't want to get fleeced they would hire an intermediary to do trades for them - a stock broker who again charges commission.

We already had that: spreads were bigger, prices were less efficient. The main victims were retail/naive investors and the main beneficiaries would be big institutions, brokers and sophisticated investors.

Current system benefits:

-retail/unsophisticated investors

-vanishingly small group of the best/fastest/most sophisticated traders

Who lost:

-big institutions, banks, stock brokers

-investing wannabes who no longer get access to easy money from retail/naive buyers

You seem to assume there is a pool of sharks that prey on pure souls without fast connection. It's not the case at all. Most HFTs lose money without exchange incentives which are provided because exchanges understand liquidity and low spreads are good for other participants. The pool of people who make money out of spreads/inefficient prices is way lower than it used to be as well.

The best possible world would have efficient prices every nano-second coming from god himself. Having a group of very sophisticated market makers is the second best we can have - at least if you care about normal investors who don't have resources to process all the information themselves.

Re: New York Times and The Athletic workers demand company scrap Kalshi deal

#220

Post by bluecalm »

cyberax wrote: post #107
bluecalm wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want short term trading because you want the prices to be as close to efficient as possible. You may never trade short term but at some point you are going to buy and at some point you are going to sell. Market being far from efficient one would hurt you there. So let them trade and discover price. You don't have to play that game but you still benefit.

> You want short term trading because you want the prices to be as close to efficient as possible But do I want the prices to be as efficient as possible?

Yeah, it makes sense to advocate for that if you are a sophisticated trader who hope to fleece the naive retail. For 99%+ of people though near instant price discovery and efficient price is a big net benefit.

Imagine news broke that makes a company worth 15% less. Naive investors isn't aware of it and makes their bid on the market. They look at a recent price, make some offer and buys the shares now worth 15% less while bankers who were able to process the information just made a killing. This is even worse in "slow exchanges" where participants need to come-up with bid price themselves because recent transaction price is not a relevant indicator of fair value.

Post reply on HN