4 ms·

$30M Is All It Took to Shift the Odds in Trump's Favor on Polymarket

7 points by abetusk 2y ago

abetusk 2y ago
Politics is generally a restricted topic on HN but this is specifically about skewing the probability estimates for betting sites, which is a tech focus on USA regional politics. Found from a tweet by Robert Graham [0]. [0] https://x.com/ErrataRob/status/1847387553105895673 https://x.com/ErrataRob/status/1847387553105895673
nomilk 2y ago
> $30 Million Is All It Took to Shift the Odds in Trump’s Favor on Polymarket > The huge buy is further proof that predictive betting sites are only a reflection of what degenerate gamblers are willing to spend. This is incredibly dismissive, not to mention outright ad hominem. $30 million is a lot and it should be expected that such an amount should noticeably shift odds. Gizmodo seem to have missed that such a shift is precisely how markets work: the shift in odds creates a financial incentive to bet against that (allegedly) overpriced outcome, putting downward pressure on the odds and equilibrating them back to a 'fair' market price and implied-probability. Betting markets aren't perfect, but nor are analysts, simulators, or pollsters! Pollsters (and economists) have a habit of public 'herd' behaviour. Suppose you think X, but everyone else thinks Y, you're incentivised to say (publicly) you think Y, just to avoid looking stupid if it turns out Y. Betting markets are different because there's stake involved - real money is lost if the wrong outcome is predicted. That is, there's a hefty cost imposed on being wrong.
- big-green-man 2y ago
  Really, I came here to write something like this. > Who would dump $30 million onto Polymarket to swing the odds in Trump’s favor? Someone who thinks it's a worthwhile gamble of course, hence the term betting market. I get that someone campaigning could think 30 million bucks is cheap advertising, but really, the point of these prediction markets is that it doesn't matter who, money talks. Someone wants to be mischievous, make something look more likely than it is, someone else can just snatch up their money and walk away with it. This article is more of the same "don't believe your lying eyes" spin that we have seen incessantly for about a decade, and while picking it apart never gets old, swimming in this filthy water is exhausting.
know-how 2y ago
[dead]
lqstuart 2y ago
Nothing wrong with Elon making big bets if he wants to. Polymarket is hardly an efficient market. They also show Republicans winning both the presidency and popular vote as about as likely as them winning just the presidency, despite virtually everyone giving Democrats 70/30 odds of winning the popular vote (as usual). https://polymarket.com/event/which-party-wins-presidency-popular-vote/will-a-democrat-win-the-popular-vote-and-the-presidency?tid=1729318529071 https://polymarket.com/event/which-party-wins-presidency-pop...
FrankWilhoit 2y ago
Why would it work? People want to vote for the winner, or to be able to say that they voted for, or mean to vote for, the winner. As long as things like this are true, good outcomes are excluded.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

7 points by abetusk 2y ago

Politics is generally a restricted topic on HN but this is specifically about skewing the probability estimates for betting sites, which is a tech focus on USA regional politics. Found from a tweet by Robert Graham [0]. [0] https://x.com/ErrataRob/status/1847387553105895673 https://x.com/ErrataRob/status/1847387553105895673

nomilk 2y ago

> $30 Million Is All It Took to Shift the Odds in Trump’s Favor on Polymarket > The huge buy is further proof that predictive betting sites are only a reflection of what degenerate gamblers are willing to spend. This is incredibly dismissive, not to mention outright ad hominem. $30 million is a lot and it should be expected that such an amount should noticeably shift odds. Gizmodo seem to have missed that such a shift is precisely how markets work: the shift in odds creates a financial incentive to bet against that (allegedly) overpriced outcome, putting downward pressure on the odds and equilibrating them back to a 'fair' market price and implied-probability. Betting markets aren't perfect, but nor are analysts, simulators, or pollsters! Pollsters (and economists) have a habit of public 'herd' behaviour. Suppose you think X, but everyone else thinks Y, you're incentivised to say (publicly) you think Y, just to avoid looking stupid if it turns out Y. Betting markets are different because there's stake involved - real money is lost if the wrong outcome is predicted. That is, there's a hefty cost imposed on being wrong.

big-green-man 2y ago
Really, I came here to write something like this. > Who would dump $30 million onto Polymarket to swing the odds in Trump’s favor? Someone who thinks it's a worthwhile gamble of course, hence the term betting market. I get that someone campaigning could think 30 million bucks is cheap advertising, but really, the point of these prediction markets is that it doesn't matter who, money talks. Someone wants to be mischievous, make something look more likely than it is, someone else can just snatch up their money and walk away with it. This article is more of the same "don't believe your lying eyes" spin that we have seen incessantly for about a decade, and while picking it apart never gets old, swimming in this filthy water is exhausting.

know-how 2y ago

[dead]

lqstuart 2y ago

Nothing wrong with Elon making big bets if he wants to. Polymarket is hardly an efficient market. They also show Republicans winning both the presidency and popular vote as about as likely as them winning just the presidency, despite virtually everyone giving Democrats 70/30 odds of winning the popular vote (as usual). https://polymarket.com/event/which-party-wins-presidency-popular-vote/will-a-democrat-win-the-popular-vote-and-the-presidency?tid=1729318529071 https://polymarket.com/event/which-party-wins-presidency-pop...

FrankWilhoit 2y ago

Why would it work? People want to vote for the winner, or to be able to say that they voted for, or mean to vote for, the winner. As long as things like this are true, good outcomes are excluded.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]