4 ms·

Last year a man took a large bet that there would be a streaker at the Super Bowl, then went to the Super Bowl and streaked. His winnings far exceeded the fine

by elil17 5y ago

Last year a man took a large bet that there would be a streaker at the Super Bowl, then went to the Super Bowl and streaked. His winnings far exceeded the fine and the cost of the ticket. My fear about a betting market for policy is that you’d have a bunch of rich/powerful people betting GDP will go down and then doing everything in their power to stunt economic growth.

paulgb 5y ago
Ha, first I'd heard of that. Apparently it didn't work out for him, which I guess is good for market integrity. https://www.insider.com/super-bowl-streaker-bet-on-himself-prop-bet-2021-2 https://www.insider.com/super-bowl-streaker-bet-on-himself-p...
flerchin 5y ago
Is that different than shorting a broad range of stocks?
- elil17 5y ago
  That’s a good question - perhaps it’s not different.
- chollida1 5y ago
  Yes in the sense that for a bet like streaking the chance that you can affect the outcome is 100%. The chance that you can short a "broad range of stocks" and affect their share price is alot less certain. Especially in liquid markets your chance of affecting a blue chips stock price is very small. There are always a few cases, like Archageos, where you can get so big that you move the stock but those cases are so well known exactly because they are so rare.
gunshai 5y ago
This is the exact perversion I was thinking of. Pun very much intended.
tshaddox 5y ago
That doesn’t strike me as a terrible outcome of a prediction market, unless you think the act of streaking is itself so terrible.
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  It isn't a problem as long as no one is betting on whether or not "bad" things will happen. However, the things that people care about (or find interesting) – and want to bet on – are often heavily debated as being good or bad. This means that naive prediction markets will probably incentive some people to work towards outcomes that many view as bad.

by elil17 5y ago

paulgb 5y ago

Ha, first I'd heard of that. Apparently it didn't work out for him, which I guess is good for market integrity. https://www.insider.com/super-bowl-streaker-bet-on-himself-prop-bet-2021-2 https://www.insider.com/super-bowl-streaker-bet-on-himself-p...

flerchin 5y ago

Is that different than shorting a broad range of stocks?

elil17 5y ago
That’s a good question - perhaps it’s not different.
chollida1 5y ago
Yes in the sense that for a bet like streaking the chance that you can affect the outcome is 100%. The chance that you can short a "broad range of stocks" and affect their share price is alot less certain. Especially in liquid markets your chance of affecting a blue chips stock price is very small. There are always a few cases, like Archageos, where you can get so big that you move the stock but those cases are so well known exactly because they are so rare.

gunshai 5y ago

This is the exact perversion I was thinking of. Pun very much intended.

tshaddox 5y ago

That doesn’t strike me as a terrible outcome of a prediction market, unless you think the act of streaking is itself so terrible.

dwaltrip 5y ago
It isn't a problem as long as no one is betting on whether or not "bad" things will happen. However, the things that people care about (or find interesting) – and want to bet on – are often heavily debated as being good or bad. This means that naive prediction markets will probably incentive some people to work towards outcomes that many view as bad.