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

Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 138 posts

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#121

Post by casey2 »

nunez wrote: post #43

Not a new phenomenon! It happened during the War on Iraq. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/weekinreview/you-can-bet-... People will bet on absolutely anything; gambling is as old as time itself. > Wagering was generally legal under British common law, so long as it did not to lead to immortality or impolity.13 Bets about the outcome of events in war, over the death of political leaders, over court cases, or between…

There was a small period, yes, where the internet was less regulated because the government didn't want to stomp out a new technology and let another country get an advantage. Now that the US has the advantage they are only harming their citizens by leaving it unregulated. Less people engage in a behavior if it's illegal and uniformly enforced.

Wagering was commonly legal, but generally illegal since 1541 Henry VIII banned for laborers & servants.

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#122

Post by gaythread »

wutwutwat wrote: post #81
hank2000 wrote: post #60

Imagine a bunch of people are tortured, removed from their homes, are killed… and you get paid? Are you cheering for it because you’re getting paid? I can’t imagine wanting to be cheering on death and destruction.

> Imagine a bunch of people are tortured, removed from their homes, are killed… and you get paid? This is what every military supplier does. What every soldier. What every person holding stock in the military supplier's company, every person shorting oil shares, etc. Gambling on war and death is disgusting. Sadly, people profiting from those things is nothing new. That does not make it ok though. https://www.youtube.…

[flagged]

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#123

Post by Throaway199999 »

jayd16 wrote: post #80
Throaway199999 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

honestly the profits aren't big enough when you can just go into business if you have that kind of influence

Corruption is surprisingly cheap. That doesn't mean we should ignore or allow it.

That's not what I said, I said that big decision makers aren't causing wars over Polymarket. They're profiting in other, much bigger ways.

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#124

Post by potsandpans »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #101
nunez wrote: post #43

Not a new phenomenon! It happened during the War on Iraq. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/weekinreview/you-can-bet-... People will bet on absolutely anything; gambling is as old as time itself. > Wagering was generally legal under British common law, so long as it did not to lead to immortality or impolity.13 Bets about the outcome of events in war, over the death of political leaders, over court cases, or between…

"Not a new phenomenon!" True, but I cannot find anything in the article that suggests such betting is a "new" phenomenon Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN reply when the submission makes no explicit or implicit claims that the subject matter is "new", or that being "new" is significant IMHO, the "this is not new" replies need further elaboration to clarify the point being ma…

> Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN...

Because articles like this tend to come with a implicit or explicit moral outrage.

So these comments are the equivalent of "yes... and?"

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#125

Post by scoofy »

daft_pink wrote: post #113

Just want to reiterate that prediction markets are beneficial, because they are the most accurate way to provide us with a dynamic mechanism to predict future outcomes from complicated systems. As was put forth in James Suroweicki’s the Wisdom of Crowds, prediction markets provide predictions that tend to be more accurate than any expert, team of experts, etc. That doesn’t mean it’s 100% accurate, but it tends to be…

>Just want to reiterate that prediction markets are beneficial, because they are the most accurate way to provide us with a dynamic mechanism to predict future outcomes from complicated systems.

I'm sorry, but no, this is just absolutely wrong.

If everyone was making these predictions, in good-faith, then yes it would "provide us with a dynamic mechanism to predict future outcomes from complicated systems." However, when truckloads of money is involved, then insiders actually want to have the markets be weighted incorrectly to maximize gain at exactly the point where vega and theta are minimized... at the very last second possible.

Market reflexivity exists and undermines this entire thesis. People need to stop pretending everyone out there is a nice man like Nate Siver just doing this for fun. As long as insiders exist and are allowed to trade, then they have every incentive to induce misinformation until the very last moment when they can trade against it.

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#126

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

potsandpans wrote: post #124
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not a new phenomenon!" True, but I cannot find anything in the article that suggests such betting is a "new" phenomenon Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN reply when the submission makes no explicit or implicit claims that the subject matter is "new", or that being "new" is significant IMHO, the "this is not new" replies need further elaboration to clarify the point being ma…

> Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN... Because articles like this tend to come with a implicit or explicit moral outrage. So these comments are the equivalent of "yes... and?"

This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to? “yes…and?” is a weak response to journalism intended to shine a light on something that causes moral outrage, especially given that “moral outrage” is justified on a highly subjective basis.

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#127

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #93

Every shareholder of an arms company (or holder of an index tracker), is betting on war too. This mechanism is stupid, corrupt and driving extreme behaviour. But betting on war is not new, and I find it abhorrent that people will hand wave away the military-industrial complex as an essential component to modern civilisation while calling individuals making bets on war horrible names. It's just scale and semantics, no…

> It's just scale and semantics, not core differences to my eye.

Is this meant to be an excuse that justifies this gambling behavior? Children’s hospitals also gain a profit from the suffering and death of children, yet we would find it pretty abhorrent if people started betting on how many children died at the Mayo Clinic. Yet, it’s only scale and semantics.

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#128

Post by potsandpans »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #126
potsandpans wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN... Because articles like this tend to come with a implicit or explicit moral outrage. So these comments are the equivalent of "yes... and?"

This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to? “yes…and?” is a weak response to journalism intended to shine a light on something that causes moral outrage, especially given that “moral outrage” is justified on a highly subjective basis.

> This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to?

Is that a question or a statement?

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#129

Post by eru »

ModernMech wrote: post #106
eru wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Bill Gates was the richest guy in the world, he still had to battle the authorities for ten years to import his sports car from Europe. I'd hardly call that controlling the government.

Again, like I said, the capitalism you knew and loved is dead. When Bill Gates became the richest man in the world he had like $10 billion dollars. Today we are talking about trillionares now. As today's elites aspire to be able to own 1995 Bill Gates 100 times over, so yeah apparently he didn't have enough power back then. Can you entertain the idea that someone several orders of magnitude more powerful than 1995 Bi…

Aren't you begging the question? You are saying that today's richest have more money (though you should probably adjust for gdp growth), and I agree. However, you are automatically concluding that they have more power?
Post reply on HN