131–140 of 517 posts
This is a problem, a net negative and a sign of a weakening society. But, one silver lining, maybe, is gamblers are a little less likely to fall for fake news. Maybe? It seems hard to be a climate change denier when you're about to gamble on it. Or maybe people will find a way to gamble while still living in completely different reality bubbles. Probably. If you thought your neighbor was politically extreme last elec…
I don’t really understand the argument for prediction markets if you don’t have inside information. The reason they beat other forms of news is because insiders are incentivised to bet, that makes some sense. But surely an investor without insider knowledge will always make less money on a market where they’re trading against insiders than one where they’re not.
The argument is not that you should bet on prediction markets, the argument is that you should use the odds from the market to make decisions about the future.
I don’t really understand the argument for prediction markets if you don’t have inside information. The reason they beat other forms of news is because insiders are incentivised to bet, that makes some sense. But surely an investor without insider knowledge will always make less money on a market where they’re trading against insiders than one where they’re not.
Some people do it for for entertainment, some people are gambling addicts, some people think they have a strong grasp or inside knowledge when they don't.
It is, at root, a casino. Apply your lens to any casino game, and it shouldn't exist (some very narrow exceptions apply in the casino).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Musk, being the world's richest person, is something of an outlier. He can afford to give free money to the market for longer than anyone else, and the size of the market might not be big enough to handle the imbalance. There's a level of irrational spending which only institutional investors can counterbalance, and they might not have the risk appetite to get into a single market on a relatively less regulated platf…
It's somewhat interesting how the wisdom of the crowd and economic theory for rational actors are usually combined as an argument for free markets. While the reverse is not used as an argument against unchecked wealth.
Which is to say that Elon Musk can inflate any market he wants, but only by losing sums of money that will become increasingly significant as more and more people find out about the free cash giveaway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, completely wrong. Deep markets are not more accurate. People who are unfamiliar with how regulated gamblings works assume that the "market" is just lots of informed people rationally trading with each other. This is not how it works. Bookmakers post lines to a small group of syndicates up to a limit, they will often do this non-publicly, and this is how prices are set. They are not set by the "wisdom of crowds",…
Noise traders ultimately create an even greater incentive for accurate prediction. The fact that the odds are set at the start and never change just proves that there's very little change in relevant information about upcoming sport games, races etc. where regulated bets happen. That's totally normal. Bets about real-world events are a rather different matter though.
Again, it is fairly common assumption that people make that it must be noise traders who are incentivizing syndicates. This is the case at open but not after, and there is a significant distinction between noise traders and noise traders through retail books. Retail books do not set the lines, they do not post lines early to syndicates, their product is completely different. There is literally no incentive for accurate prediction because the economic gain from noise trading does not accrue to anyone who has information. 95% accrues to firms with the greatest marketing advantage, again...this is entertainment, it is not about accurate prediction, you are misunderstanding at a very fundamental level what is going on here. It is like going to see the Minecraft Movie and thinking this is artistic expression on the level of Tokyo Story.
This would all be different if there were real markets underpinned by economic demand for this risk but there isn't. This is why Betfair failed. This is why these "prices" you see aren't actually real prices.
> The irony of prediction markets is that they are supposed to be a more trustworthy way of gleaning the future than internet clickbait and half-baked punditry, but they risk shredding whatever shared trust we still have left. The suspiciously well-timed bets that one Polymarket user placed right before the capture of Nicolás Maduro may have been just a stroke of phenomenal luck that netted a roughly $400,000 payout.…
The people "betting against" you dying just paid to have you killed.
> The irony of prediction markets is that they are supposed to be a more trustworthy way of gleaning the future than internet clickbait and half-baked punditry, but they risk shredding whatever shared trust we still have left. The suspiciously well-timed bets that one Polymarket user placed right before the capture of Nicolás Maduro may have been just a stroke of phenomenal luck that netted a roughly $400,000 payout.…
If the prediction market is for a non-trivial amount, it's likely someone is going to kill you in exchange for the money the prediction market offered them . The prediction market isn't acting as a prophet here, it's acting as a plausibly deniable murder for hire service and you are its victim. The people "betting against" you dying just paid to have you killed.
Why is polymarket any more or less dangerous than NFTs or naked option trading? Fool and his money are quickly separated…
Because it is gambling. NFTs have zero value but people seem to derive non-monetary value from them. Naked option trading is a form of gambling (as well as risk management) and, as a result, it is regulated. Polymarket is a "financial investment" for regulatory purposes but is gambling, there is no legitimate risk management reason. As a result, there is massive scope for harm because it is gambling without any of th…
I'm not familiar, but this sounds like lists of people who are not allowed to gamble? Do stockbrokers abide by these?
> The irony of prediction markets is that they are supposed to be a more trustworthy way of gleaning the future than internet clickbait and half-baked punditry, but they risk shredding whatever shared trust we still have left. The suspiciously well-timed bets that one Polymarket user placed right before the capture of Nicolás Maduro may have been just a stroke of phenomenal luck that netted a roughly $400,000 payout.…
> If I knew someone wanted me dead, of course I would want a prediction market on it, and if the odds suddenly shifted dramatically in favor of my death
No, you definitely would not want that. You don't want to live in the world like this. That's the point.
It's fucking horrible and dystopian, people betting on extra-legal invasions of countries, murders, things that could hurt or harm people where they have incentives to do something else that you've just distorted.
Gambling has been illegal, immoral, and proscribed by religions for literally thousands of years, in all sorts of different forms and iterations, for a reason. Because it's incredibly toxic to society.
You can make some arguments that pure games of chance, like casino games, and even maybe sports betting (since sports is a spectacle) aren't that bad. Based on what we've seen recently, I tend to disagree, but at least it's an argument.
But now we're talking about betting on all sorts of political issues, things that are illegal, things where people are acting in an official capacity and shouldn't be given incentives to subvert that. And all these other examples are just bad. There's not really any upside to this at all. It's just bad for society and it shouldn't happen. It's horrible.
If you feel like you're missing a big piece of the puzzle you should take a couple of steps back and think about the consequences of a world where this is common.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the prediction market is for a non-trivial amount, it's likely someone is going to kill you in exchange for the money the prediction market offered them . The prediction market isn't acting as a prophet here, it's acting as a plausibly deniable murder for hire service and you are its victim. The people "betting against" you dying just paid to have you killed.
Yes, OOP might have chosen a suboptimal example here. But for general newsworthy events, people aren’t going to be in positions to manually make them happen. And no person in a position to start a war would do it to affect a Polymarket bet.
There's already lots of examples where they are of sufficient scale, like paying the press secretary to shut up after 64 minutes. Or paying someone to falsify ISWs map of the front line in Ukraine.