That is what has always confused me about "prediction markets". The reason why non-experts perform as well as experts is because there is a huge level of rando

That is what has always confused me about "prediction markets". The reason why non-experts perform as well as experts is because there is a huge level of randomness in actual outcomes, and very little information that can help predict beyond randomness. And prediction really isn't the goal in practice, but robustness. Even if you were a "superforecaster", you are still going to be wrong most of the time. So surely it is more important to be robust to outcomes and stop trying to predict something that can't be predicted. (To compare this with large skill gaps to expertise...sports betting, these events are random, some are more random than others but the gap with expert knowledge exists because there is information that exists that will help you predict outcomes. That gap doesn't exist in politics because there is no real information that can help you...it is just totally different, it makes no sense to compare them imo).