221–230 of 298 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
Compare and contrast https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...
Betting "no" on an outcome, is bettering "yes" on ALL other possible outcomes. There is even an operation for it: https://docs.polymarket.com/advanced/neg-risk
Am I misunderstanding? I think that’s trivially not true. Consider: Joe Dart elected president Y/N Cory Wong elected president Y/N A no bet on Joe Dart is not a yes bet on Cory Wong.
https://x.com/sterlingcrispin/status/2043723823678382254 They admit no returns. But it does seem like a fun project and nowhere does it say anything about returns or profits so not scammy imo just funny meme backed code
Yes exactly. The bot has zero risk management and I have a strong disclaimer on the github it is essentially a meme. 73% of all polymarkets do resolve to No though. There's a good dataset on huggingface if you wanted to do some data science https://huggingface.co/datasets/SII-WANGZJ/Polymarket_data
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are motivated to pick what they believe is most likely to happen. The develope their idea of what is most likely to happen for the news. The reporters use their bets to wrote stories predicting what will happen. See the loop?
That's not how it works. First, you have inside traders. Then, among legitimate bettors, you have smart people using multiple data sources (not just the "news") and doing sophisticated analysis that most journalists cannot do, and are not motivated to do -- again, because their incentives are different.
You can do research to know the US would strike, there's no other point in moving multiple carriers over to somewhere. But exactly WHEN is not researchable. This applies to most other bets. So lets stop pretending there's anything more than 2 cohorts, insiders and degenerate gamblers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compare and contrast https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...
Is the purpose of replying to Wikipedia with random substack drivel to get downvoted? Or is it a byproduct of the system?
In any case, the blog is well regarded in these circles.
Betting "no" on an outcome, is bettering "yes" on ALL other possible outcomes. There is even an operation for it: https://docs.polymarket.com/advanced/neg-risk
Am I misunderstanding? I think that’s trivially not true. Consider: Joe Dart elected president Y/N Cory Wong elected president Y/N A no bet on Joe Dart is not a yes bet on Cory Wong.
It is trivial. Saying NO to a candidate means you're saying YES to ALL other candidates with varying probabilities that would sum to the neg risk of that NO bet.
Betting "no" on an outcome, is bettering "yes" on ALL other possible outcomes. There is even an operation for it: https://docs.polymarket.com/advanced/neg-risk
That's not true. The different outcomes don't have any relation to each other.
If you don't think it's true, then go ahead and arb polymarket for all the incorrect pricing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you point me towards some resource that would help me understand what you wrote? Genuinely curious about how this stuff works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis might be a good start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 73% of all polymarkets do resolve to No though. I bet the average price for a no bet across these markets is 73 cents.
A persistent bias in prediction markets is pricing very non likely events as slightly more likely than they are. ie; a 1% event priced at 4%, etc, because people like to bet long shots. Whether there is enough of a predictable bias there to snag enough low return high probability bets to beat the vig and not shift the markets I have not looked into in any way,but it is a known bias with them. The real money to be mad…
If the market isn't resolving soon, the small return might not be worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and facilitate insider trading, like how do people miss that part
To say the purpose of a market is to reveal insider information is how you say insider trading is a good thing without saying insider trading is a good thing. There's a ton of scholarly debate about it, and at least most of the early stuff was pretty earnest. But rather than the debate becoming more refined and nuanced over time it seems to have bifurcated along partisan (or partisan adjacent) lines like everything e…
The Misesian folks are a lost cause, IMHO. They're hardcore rationalists, self-indulging in circular moral arguments from assumptions that don't apply in the real world.