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

271–280 of 298 posts

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

#271

Post by scared_together »

suzzer99 wrote: post #213
bredren wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They underestimate the likelihood of black swan because it is very hard for adults to concretely imagine things that have not happened before and then even temporarily fully believe ~"dreams will come true." One of my go-tos on this is the Fukushima nuclear accident. IIUC there were plenty of folks in Japan who knew of the high risk. Perhaps many interested in nuclear energy outside of Japan, too. But the average adu…

Yeah, I can't say for sure it's going to happen, but I can clearly see a path where AI ends the middle class in developed countries, which has really only existed in its current form since WWII. Most people can't imagine that.

I can imagine that, but I struggle to imagine that happening tomorrow, which is part of the GP’s point.

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

#272

Post by savanaly »

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.

Not just insider knowledge. Being more willing to put in hard work than anyone else, being better at synthesizing public knowledge, or maintaining a more clear and unemotional outlook all can also lead you to superior outcomes.

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

#273

Post by jjfoooo4 »

llamataboot wrote: post #204
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #74

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…

It might be a bias in terms of the probability of events, but I'm not so sure this is a market inefficiency in terms of actual trading strategy. If true odds are 1% and the event is priced at 4%, I can sell NO for a 3% edge... but lose 100% once out of a hundred. Doesn't seem worth it!

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

#274

Post by lxgr »

krashidov wrote: post #99

Isn't this just picking up pennies on an active railroad track? You'll win small bets and then get run over once a long tail event completely wipes you out.

If there's a consistent, sufficiently strong bias towards "yes" and you have enough capital, it doesn't matter as long as you size your bets right and you're able to survive a few train collisions.

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

#275

Post by lxgr »

fooker wrote: post #52

Don’t be gullible enough to fall for this bad math. Say 70% of the time it resolves to ‘no’, you still don’t make money by blindly choosing ‘no’. Guess why? Hint: This strategy is also described with the macabre analogy: picking up pennies in front of a steamroller. Do you want to pick up pennies in front of a steamroller?

The math here isn't what you assume it is. It isn't "most markets resolve to no"; it's "markets consistently value 'yes' too highly", and there is some evidence for the latter.

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

#276

Post by jfengel »

dasudasu wrote: post #262
TeMPOraL wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would encouraging non-insider training be desirable in the first place, other than to create a more high-status form of gambling, with higher spouse acceptance factor than smoke-filled room poker games? People with no inside knowledge[0] are just trading on vibes, how is that useful for the economy? -- [0] - Or external knowledge, but actual knowledge - thinking of hedge funds stalking CEOs as they fly in private…

Non-insider trading is liquidity. That’s why people pay for retail trading volume (payment for order flow). Not because of nefarious reasons. Just because it represents liquidity. With no liquidity it’s impossible to enter or exit trades efficiently.

Though at this point volume is far higher than needed for liquidity. We do not need companies holding stocks for a millisecond in order to squeeze out arbitrage, and we do not need day traders hoping to arbitrage noise.

The stock market would not be noticeably less liquid if people had to hold stocks for 24 hours, but volume would drop like a rock.

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

#277

Post by pinkmuffinere »

kwar13 wrote: post #226
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you read the link? A NO bet on Joe Dart is a YES bet on Cory Wong + Others. 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.

Ah I see, I missed the + Others part in my initial reading, i see it gives the same payout. The shared link just asserts the same thing you’ve asserted with additional technical language that I don’t understand, so reading it didn’t help me much.

Perhaps this is pedantic, but this equivalence is ignoring fees, spread, and slippage, right?

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

#278

Post by traderj0e »

cortesoft wrote: post #160
traderj0e wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've backtested this kind of strategy, and it had a good return (like 100% APR), but then I realized it was cheating by knowing when things are going to resolve. Often times it's not clear. Your return depends a lot on how quickly you can get your money out. I never got around to trying a strat that doesn't know the resolution time, which actually has to be manual cause it takes some judgement to pick things that you…

I assume all the 'no' bets have to have an explicit end date, otherwise the 'no' bet could never win? The time horizon is never unknown on these bets.

The time horizon is unknown sometimes. One example event, "what will happen before GTA VI?" with markets like "China invades Taiwan" and "Jesus Christ returns." The NO for the second one is only 52c rn. Maybe that resolves if GTA VI is permanently canceled?

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

#279

Post by fooker »

lxgr wrote: post #275
fooker wrote: post #52

Don’t be gullible enough to fall for this bad math. Say 70% of the time it resolves to ‘no’, you still don’t make money by blindly choosing ‘no’. Guess why? Hint: This strategy is also described with the macabre analogy: picking up pennies in front of a steamroller. Do you want to pick up pennies in front of a steamroller?

The math here isn't what you assume it is. It isn't "most markets resolve to no"; it's "markets consistently value 'yes' too highly", and there is some evidence for the latter.

Go on, give it a try for a few days.

My point is equally valid for "markets consistently value 'yes' too highly".

The occasional 'no' will wipe you out on average.

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

#280

Post by lxgr »

fooker wrote: post #279
lxgr wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The math here isn't what you assume it is. It isn't "most markets resolve to no"; it's "markets consistently value 'yes' too highly", and there is some evidence for the latter.

Go on, give it a try for a few days. My point is equally valid for "markets consistently value 'yes' too highly". The occasional 'no' will wipe you out on average.

I have no idea if the bias is strong enough to profitably trade on it (or whether it even exists).

But your statement seems stronger, i.e. that such a strategy is somehow fundamentally and inherently impossible, so I think it's on you to explain why that is supposedly the case.

For example, assuming a hypothetical consistent "yes" bias of 10%, would you still say it's impossible? Why? Basically, are you saying it's impossible because of the actual observed "yes" bias being too weak or for some other reason?

Post reply on HN