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

Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 298 posts

Re: Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

#231

Post by verzali »

viccis wrote: post #214
eru wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare and contrast https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...

>The purpose of the Ukrainian military is to get stuck in a years-long stalemate with Russia. >These are obviously false. The purpose of the Ukrainian military is to exhaust the Russian army's materiel and test out our weapons. "Years-long stalemate with Russia? Yes, please." -the US. Seems like an overwhelmingly common Scott Alexander L.

Scott Alexander often seems surprisingly unaware of his priors, especially when speaking about things beyond the American shores.

Re: Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

#232

Post by verzali »

viccis wrote: post #217
eru wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The purpose of the Ukrainian military is to exhaust the Russian army's materiel and test out our weapons. Since when does country A decide what the purpose of country B's military is?

Since country A pays for country B's military.

So the EU is deciding?

Re: Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

#233

Post by richarlidad »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #136
mr_00ff00 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Untrue for polymarket. True for kalshi. No bookie fees on polymarket

Wow that's news to me. How does polymarket make money if not from fees?

trying to become bloomberg by selling to institutions

Re: Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

#234

Post by OJFord »

CrazyStat wrote: post #140
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow that's news to me. How does polymarket make money if not from fees?

Polymarket charges “taker” fees (people removing liquidity by matching listed orders) on most markets. Geopolitics markets are exempt. A portion of the collected fees then get redistributed to “makers” (people who provide liquidity by listing orders for others to match). Presumably the rest of these fees make up polymarket’s revenue.

Which is essentially also providing a platform for making the book for the other platform, on which 'bookie fees' are charged, but Polymarket itself only keeps a certain cut of it, for facilitating but not actually book-making.

Re: Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

#235

Post by laughing_man »

Geezus_42 wrote: post #192
jonahx wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're far from facts, but have an important advantage over most other sources: the bettors are motivated to predict truth. News sources are motivated to get clicks, to appeal to certain audiences, and to retain tribal customers. None of these create incentives for truth. You can seek out smart, well-informed and principled journalists who will prioritize truth-seeking over money-making. There are some. But the fact…

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?

Reporters have an entirely different incentive -- they're less interested in what will happen than whether or not they get eyeballs on their story.

Re: Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

#236

Post by wahern »

js8 wrote: post #230
wahern wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 proof that free markets are efficient (even in the narrow sense economists use this word) relies on an assumption of perfect information. This has been known at least since Akerlof. 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.

That's what makes the insider trading argument so tantalizing--it's arguing that it helps move the market closer to perfect information. But, of course, the world is complicated and dynamic, and it tacitly depends on all kinds of assumptions and beliefs about the resulting costs and benefits. It would be nice if the debate shifted to pinning down those assumptions, quantifying them as best as possible, and then iteratively tweaking and adjusting regulatory models. But that's true of just about everything and probably too unrealistic an ask, especially at a time when one side is convinced markets are just a mechanism for unjust exploitation, and the other side is convinced regulation is what sustains inequity (to the extent inequity is something even worth caring about).

Re: Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

#237

Post by TheCowboy »

vasco wrote: post #224
jonahx wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Smart people cannot predict things by 'research'. "Will the US strike Iran by X date" going from 20% likelihood to 80%+ within hours points simply to insiders. 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…

It's an empirical fact that smart people can predict things by doing research. See Tetlock's book Superforecasting.

I've been doing it profitably myself for almost 10 years now. I have zero special inside knowledge, and no access to any other non-public information.

> Will the US strike Iran by X date

Last year I did think the market for a strike on Iran was significantly underpriced given the information and conditions within a specific frame of time.

I don't think every smart person can just pop into prediction markets and print money, but I know many smart people who are long-term winners. I also don't try to knock people as degenerate when they have genuine talent.

Re: Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

#238

Post by actionfromafar »

eru wrote: post #194
khimaros wrote: post #188

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...

I was shocked at how shallow that take is. I expected more.

Re: Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets

#239

Post by miki123211 »

okhobb wrote: post #183
jfengel wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're appropriately priced, you can't win money at all, unless you have insider knowledge.

The purpose of prediction markets is to communicate insider knowledge.

The purpose of any price-based system is to communicate knowledge, not necessarily insider knowledge.

There are actually two theories on insider knowledge. One states that allowing insider trading is beneficial, as it allows prices to better match the underlying reality, the other states that this discourages non-insider trading, which actually makes the prices worse. Stock markets lean heavily towards the second theory, while prediction markets seem to be leaning towards the first.

Post reply on HN