Live data from Hacker News

Traders placed over $1B in perfectly timed bets on the Iran war

theguardian.com

201–210 of 263 posts

Re: Traders placed over $1B in perfectly timed bets on the Iran war

#201

You'd have to be spectacularly stupid to bet on these kinds of things without having insider knowledge, because you ought to know good and damn well by now that the people with insider knowledge are DEFINITELY betting on them.

This was my thought. If these markets continue allowing insiders, it’ll drive all of the cash from regular people away. So there will be way less money for insiders to win even if they are allowed. So the perception of insiders is pretty bad for prediction markets as a business imo. The sooner they knock off the rhetoric about the “theory” behind prediction markets and start thinking about it like a business, the soo…

> it’ll drive all of the cash from regular people away

Sweet summer child…

It is widely accepted that this is happening. Dumb money continues to be poured into these markets.

Re: Traders placed over $1B in perfectly timed bets on the Iran war

#202
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would any non-insider participate in these markets? Because they are grossly mis-priced for anyone mildly informed.

If this were the case, deeper and more informed pockets than yours would take the opposing position until there’s no more alpha to be had.

Not true at all.

A great example was this market from the most recent primary election.

https://kalshi.com/markets/kxtxsenatedemturnout/voter-turnou...

Based on just simple math there was basically no chance of turnout being over 2.5m and yet the market for multiple days had the higher buckets at exorbitant prices.

Re: Traders placed over $1B in perfectly timed bets on the Iran war

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current setup does sort of seem like a tax on being stupid. Why would any non-insider participate in these markets? You’re just asking to get screwed. Though it’s not that different from the stock market, where the folks at WSB happily give their money to Citadel, Jane Street, and friends, because every once a while, one of them hits it big after going all in that the ball lands on green. Gambling is a hell of a…

> The current setup does sort of seem like a tax on being stupid. More like a tax on being ethical or having any morality.

Nobody is required to participate in these markets.

Re: Traders placed over $1B in perfectly timed bets on the Iran war

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The current setup does sort of seem like a tax on being stupid. More like a tax on being ethical or having any morality.

What is unethical? The good point of prediction markets is that they provide information. This information is available to everyone, for free, which benefits everyone. Insiders help achieve this. Insiders have information and by participating in the market they then expose and share that information. So this is good. If we ban insiders, we're just banning accurate information from getting into the market. If we do th…

Insider trading is unethical, and has long been recognized as such. It is outrageous for you to suggest that it is a good thing.

It is not a free market if there is insider trading. If insiders are trading other market participants are by definition getting screwed by what was advertised as a fair, impartial system.

You certainly wouldn't participate in a market where you did not think you had fair odds. Tho maybe you're inclined towards the rigging side of things.

Finally, since you're trying to work the information angle, would you care to share any legitimately meaninful information you've gained from prediction markets?

Re: Traders placed over $1B in perfectly timed bets on the Iran war

#205
post #12
post #7

What value do prediction markets give to anyone not in the insider trading class? I predict these will be banned when someone finally uses them as an "assassination market".

Afaik, Polymarket removes predictions that break CFTC's regulations (this includes assassinations, etc., at least in the US). They basically provide no value unless you're an insider, but they do tend to be leading indicators so it might inform some decisions (like: should you keep your money in oil?) that could be contingent on Polymarket predictions.

If I'm reading the order book correctly, right now you can "win" $474,746 on Polymarket with a $4,000 bet if Trump "ceases to be the President" by April 30

https://polymarket.com/event/trump-out-as-president-by-april...

which is effectively an assassination market on him. And there other such crowd-sourced hits on other heads of state.

Re: Traders placed over $1B in perfectly timed bets on the Iran war

#206
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the market could adapt if regular people left. Insider trading would become multilayered and complex. Insiders would scheme against lower-level insiders; decisionmakers would try to trick insiders into thinking that one thing will happen before doing the complete opposite thing. The world would become more erratic and unpredictable, even insiders wouldn't know what is going on. Although Polymarket is currentl…

I mean, the thing is, insiders will disagree . Nobody has a crystal ball to predict the future perfectly. Military operations go awry. Countries react in unexpected ways. Leaders change their minds. And as a potential event gets closer, insider information changes. Different insiders have different sets of partial knowledge. You don't even need scheming and tricking. Just regular reality is already complicated enough…

That's not how insider trading works though.

Let's say that you know that event Y is going to be announced that will make event X more likely. Before Y is announced you buy shares in X on a prediction market or buy some asset that has price correlated with X. After the announcement you liquidate your position and pocket the difference.

Whether X actually happens or not is irrelevant to you. All that's relevant is the timing of the announcement of Y and the directional effect of Y on X.

Re: Traders placed over $1B in perfectly timed bets on the Iran war

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is unethical? The good point of prediction markets is that they provide information. This information is available to everyone, for free, which benefits everyone. Insiders help achieve this. Insiders have information and by participating in the market they then expose and share that information. So this is good. If we ban insiders, we're just banning accurate information from getting into the market. If we do th…

Insider trading is unethical, and has long been recognized as such. It is outrageous for you to suggest that it is a good thing. It is not a free market if there is insider trading. If insiders are trading other market participants are by definition getting screwed by what was advertised as a fair, impartial system. You certainly wouldn't participate in a market where you did not think you had fair odds. Tho maybe yo…

> Insider trading is unethical

It is illegal to insider trade in financial markets, which makes sense to me. But financial markets and prediction markets are different; one exists to surface capital, the other information.

Insider trading is forbidden in financial markets because allowing it would be a disincentive to participation by non-insiders, which would be bad because it would reduce the amount of capital the market was able to provide.

In prediction markets, allowing insider trading would be disincentive to participation by non-insiders, which would be a good thing, because the market should surface the most accurate information as possible and insiders have more accurate information than non-insiders.

> and has long been recognized as such.

Prediction markets are in their infancy. They've only really existed for about a decade and even now are tiny compared with markets like commodities or equities. So I don't see how this could have been "long recognized."

> It is outrageous for you to suggest that it is a good thing.

This is not an argument.

> You certainly wouldn't participate in a market where you did not think you had fair odds.

Of course I wouldn't and I wouldn't advise anyone else to do so. But why would we want uninformed people participating in prediction markets? I don't think they should.

What does "fair" even mean here? If Alice is more informed than Bob about X, she'll probably be better at making predictions about X. I guess it is "unfair," but what would the point of a prediction market be if we only allowed uninformed people to participate? Then it's more like a survey of what the average person thinks will happen, which is probably common knowledge, so we don't need a market to find that out.

> Finally, since you're trying to work the information angle, would you care to share any legitimately meaninful information you've gained from prediction markets?

Prediction market odds for elections and important world events are regularly quoted in the press and AFAICT seem to more accurate than pundits and and oped writers at predicting the future. A low bar, but still, if we are going to speculate about the future, we might as well see what actually informed people think.

Re: Traders placed over $1B in perfectly timed bets on the Iran war

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insider trading is unethical, and has long been recognized as such. It is outrageous for you to suggest that it is a good thing. It is not a free market if there is insider trading. If insiders are trading other market participants are by definition getting screwed by what was advertised as a fair, impartial system. You certainly wouldn't participate in a market where you did not think you had fair odds. Tho maybe yo…

> Insider trading is unethical It is illegal to insider trade in financial markets, which makes sense to me. But financial markets and prediction markets are different; one exists to surface capital, the other information. Insider trading is forbidden in financial markets because allowing it would be a disincentive to participation by non-insiders, which would be bad because it would reduce the amount of capital the…

I completely agree with you. The only thing I would add is, that prediction markets are not necessarily oracles for predicting the future. They can just as well be used for hedging: imagine, hypothetically I really do not want Trump to win. I can bet on Trump, not because I want or expect him to win, but to hedge my position (perhaps my business would suffer if Trump wins)

Re: Traders placed over $1B in perfectly timed bets on the Iran war

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insider trading is unethical, and has long been recognized as such. It is outrageous for you to suggest that it is a good thing. It is not a free market if there is insider trading. If insiders are trading other market participants are by definition getting screwed by what was advertised as a fair, impartial system. You certainly wouldn't participate in a market where you did not think you had fair odds. Tho maybe yo…

> Insider trading is unethical It is illegal to insider trade in financial markets, which makes sense to me. But financial markets and prediction markets are different; one exists to surface capital, the other information. Insider trading is forbidden in financial markets because allowing it would be a disincentive to participation by non-insiders, which would be bad because it would reduce the amount of capital the…

What a bunch of fluff.

The problem is that prediction markets are excellent vehicles for corruption as demonstrated by the article discussed here.

You're arguing that corruption is a good thing.

Post reply on HN