6 ms·

Do people put money on this because 4:1 odds are pretty good. If definition of fall is a mission accomplished type photo op I’d take those odds. If it’s prolong

by rdtwo 5y ago

Do people put money on this because 4:1 odds are pretty good. If definition of fall is a mission accomplished type photo op I’d take those odds. If it’s prolonged stable holding then I probably would not

garyrob 5y ago
26% is closer to 3-to-1 odds. :)
frogger8 5y ago
babyshake 5y ago
Prediction markets for real money that relate to violent outcomes are a very dangerous territory ethically. You could bet the Kyiv will fall and then provide support or resources to the Russian forces, for example. A more practical example would be something like an assassination prediction.
- somedude895 5y ago
  If you have the sort of influence or resources to make something like an assassination or war happen, then it's really easy to make money on those things already, for example by shorting certain stocks. And I'm sure that's already been happening for a while to some extent.
- DennisP 5y ago
  It'd have to be a very liquid market, to make it profitable to provide enough support to make a material difference. I'm not convinced assassination markets are practical. If you make a prediction that a person will be assassinated on a particular day, and put money on it, you'll make the odds for that day spike up, thus warning the target to take new and unpredictable precautions. If you try to counter this effect with less specific predictions, then more people will take your side of the bet so you'll get worse odds.
ryeights 5y ago
Does PredictIt make markets on the outcomes of military conflicts? That would pose some interesting ethical dilemmas...
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  I don’t think anyone is going to change their war plans to earn $850 on a PredictIt contract, let’s be real here.
jessriedel 5y ago
To be clear, Metaculus is a prediction aggregation platform, not a prediction market. There's no money at stake, only reputation. https://www.metaculus.com/about/ https://www.metaculus.com/about/ It's well recognized, including my Metaculus users and admin, that money can provide a powerful incentive for accuracy which they do not use (presumably because this would be a very different, more legally encumbered platform). However, they attempt to make up for this by having many more predictions and, crucially, but weighting more heavily the predictions of people whose predictions have been more accurate in the past.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  IT looks to me like there is some money to be made: https://polymarket.com/market/will-nato-expand-in-2022 https://polymarket.com/market/will-nato-expand-in-2022
  - rdtwo 5y ago
    I’d bet on no just cause how long it would take to certify and ratify. I don’t like bets where I put up a lot to win a little.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
The insurgency in Iraq was also a minority- most supported the US. I like to imagine that Russia will have a much more difficult time in Ukraine where they are almost universally despised.
- usaphp 5y ago
  > The insurgency in Iraq was also a minority- most supported the US Russians also think that most Ukrainians support Russia, it doesn't mean it's true. Same with believes that most Iraqis supported US.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Have you researched your assertion about Iraqi support for the US? https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/02/david-petraeus-ukraine-russia-invasion/622893/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/02/da... > Petraeus: Ukraine is not only bigger but some 50 percent more populous than Iraq, and the Iraqi population included many millions—Kurds, Christians, Yezidis, Shabak, and many of the Shia—who broadly supported the coalition forces throughout our time there. Only a minority of the Iraqi population comprised or supported the Sunni extremists and insurgents and Iranian-supported Shia militia. Though they did, to be sure, prove to be very formidable enemies.
    - ppvfy 5y ago
      I'm not sure David Petraeus is an impartial source regarding the Iraq war, but even in that interview he avoids the claim that the majority of the Iraqi population supported the US invasion. Instead, he says that supporters of the insurgency are in the minority (you can dislike the invasion and occupation of your country by the US without supporting the Sunni insurgency or the Shia militia) and that "many millions" supported the coalition (how many?). I'm not just posting this to be pedantic - there are strong comparisons between the US attitude that we would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and the Russian attitude about Ukraine.
      - 5y ago
mdoms 5y ago
Literally the second sentence of the article. Is it that hard to read before commenting on an article? > This question will resolve positively if it is publicly reported by at least three reputable media sources or from direct statements from at least four Permanent UNSC members that the majority of Kyiv's raions are under Russian military control by April 1, 2022.
- Kranar 5y ago
  That doesn't help in anyway and in fact makes things even more ambiguous. On what basis would three "reputable" media sources report that the majority of Kyiv's regions are under Russian military control?
  - mdoms 5y ago
    Well the point of using multiple reputable sources is that regardless of what basis it's reported, there is at least some widespread agreement. How does that "not help in anyway(sic)"?
    - Kranar 5y ago
      Your response doesn't answer OP's question all it does is punt the issue to a news agency. If a news agency reports it on the basis of a "mission accomplished type photo op", does that count? Or does it require a news agency to report it on the basis of a "prolonged stable holding"? Just saying that the prediction market shall resolve because three reputable news agencies report something is completely devoid of any insight into the nature of issue. It's as logically absurd as claiming that you have cancer because a Doctor told you that you have cancer, or claiming that you killed Jack because a jury delivered a guilty verdict. No, you don't have cancer because a Doctor said so and no you didn't kill Jack because of a jury's verdict; you have cancer because of an actual condition involving the rapid and abnormal cell growth and you killed Jack because you took a knife and stabbed him. You are certainly justified to believe you have cancer because a Doctor told you so, and I am justified to believe you killed Jack because a jury said so, but a justification is not the same thing as an actual cause. So going back to the original question: what is the criteria that determines that Kyiv has actually fallen to Russian forces as opposed to what is the justification for believing that Kyiv has fallen.

by rdtwo 5y ago

garyrob 5y ago

26% is closer to 3-to-1 odds. :)

frogger8 5y ago

babyshake 5y ago

Prediction markets for real money that relate to violent outcomes are a very dangerous territory ethically. You could bet the Kyiv will fall and then provide support or resources to the Russian forces, for example. A more practical example would be something like an assassination prediction.

somedude895 5y ago
If you have the sort of influence or resources to make something like an assassination or war happen, then it's really easy to make money on those things already, for example by shorting certain stocks. And I'm sure that's already been happening for a while to some extent.
DennisP 5y ago
It'd have to be a very liquid market, to make it profitable to provide enough support to make a material difference. I'm not convinced assassination markets are practical. If you make a prediction that a person will be assassinated on a particular day, and put money on it, you'll make the odds for that day spike up, thus warning the target to take new and unpredictable precautions. If you try to counter this effect with less specific predictions, then more people will take your side of the bet so you'll get worse odds.

ryeights 5y ago

Does PredictIt make markets on the outcomes of military conflicts? That would pose some interesting ethical dilemmas...

quickthrowman 5y ago
I don’t think anyone is going to change their war plans to earn $850 on a PredictIt contract, let’s be real here.

jessriedel 5y ago

To be clear, Metaculus is a prediction aggregation platform, not a prediction market. There's no money at stake, only reputation. https://www.metaculus.com/about/ https://www.metaculus.com/about/ It's well recognized, including my Metaculus users and admin, that money can provide a powerful incentive for accuracy which they do not use (presumably because this would be a very different, more legally encumbered platform). However, they attempt to make up for this by having many more predictions and, crucially, but weighting more heavily the predictions of people whose predictions have been more accurate in the past.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
IT looks to me like there is some money to be made: https://polymarket.com/market/will-nato-expand-in-2022 https://polymarket.com/market/will-nato-expand-in-2022
- rdtwo 5y ago
  I’d bet on no just cause how long it would take to certify and ratify. I don’t like bets where I put up a lot to win a little.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

The insurgency in Iraq was also a minority- most supported the US. I like to imagine that Russia will have a much more difficult time in Ukraine where they are almost universally despised.

usaphp 5y ago
> The insurgency in Iraq was also a minority- most supported the US Russians also think that most Ukrainians support Russia, it doesn't mean it's true. Same with believes that most Iraqis supported US.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Have you researched your assertion about Iraqi support for the US? https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/02/david-petraeus-ukraine-russia-invasion/622893/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/02/da... > Petraeus: Ukraine is not only bigger but some 50 percent more populous than Iraq, and the Iraqi population included many millions—Kurds, Christians, Yezidis, Shabak, and many of the Shia—who broadly supported the coalition forces throughout our time there. Only a minority of the Iraqi population comprised or supported the Sunni extremists and insurgents and Iranian-supported Shia militia. Though they did, to be sure, prove to be very formidable enemies.
  - ppvfy 5y ago
    I'm not sure David Petraeus is an impartial source regarding the Iraq war, but even in that interview he avoids the claim that the majority of the Iraqi population supported the US invasion. Instead, he says that supporters of the insurgency are in the minority (you can dislike the invasion and occupation of your country by the US without supporting the Sunni insurgency or the Shia militia) and that "many millions" supported the coalition (how many?). I'm not just posting this to be pedantic - there are strong comparisons between the US attitude that we would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and the Russian attitude about Ukraine.
    - 5y ago

mdoms 5y ago

Literally the second sentence of the article. Is it that hard to read before commenting on an article? > This question will resolve positively if it is publicly reported by at least three reputable media sources or from direct statements from at least four Permanent UNSC members that the majority of Kyiv's raions are under Russian military control by April 1, 2022.

Kranar 5y ago
That doesn't help in anyway and in fact makes things even more ambiguous. On what basis would three "reputable" media sources report that the majority of Kyiv's regions are under Russian military control?
- mdoms 5y ago
  Well the point of using multiple reputable sources is that regardless of what basis it's reported, there is at least some widespread agreement. How does that "not help in anyway(sic)"?
  - Kranar 5y ago
    Your response doesn't answer OP's question all it does is punt the issue to a news agency. If a news agency reports it on the basis of a "mission accomplished type photo op", does that count? Or does it require a news agency to report it on the basis of a "prolonged stable holding"? Just saying that the prediction market shall resolve because three reputable news agencies report something is completely devoid of any insight into the nature of issue. It's as logically absurd as claiming that you have cancer because a Doctor told you that you have cancer, or claiming that you killed Jack because a jury delivered a guilty verdict. No, you don't have cancer because a Doctor said so and no you didn't kill Jack because of a jury's verdict; you have cancer because of an actual condition involving the rapid and abnormal cell growth and you killed Jack because you took a knife and stabbed him. You are certainly justified to believe you have cancer because a Doctor told you so, and I am justified to believe you killed Jack because a jury said so, but a justification is not the same thing as an actual cause. So going back to the original question: what is the criteria that determines that Kyiv has actually fallen to Russian forces as opposed to what is the justification for believing that Kyiv has fallen.