3 ms·
Betting "no" on an outcome, is bettering "yes" on ALL other possible outcomes. There is even an operation for it: https://docs.polymarket.com/advanced/neg-risk
by kwar13 6mo ago
Betting "no" on an outcome, is bettering "yes" on ALL other possible outcomes. There is even an operation for it:
https://docs.polymarket.com/advanced/neg-risk https://docs.polymarket.com/advanced/neg-risk
- pinkmuffinere 6mo agoAm 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.
- rgmerk 6mo agoDart/Wong for America ‘28 - Give America Back Its Groove.
- kwar13 6mo agoDid 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.
- pinkmuffinere 6mo agoAh 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?
- worldsavior 6mo agoThat's not true. The different outcomes don't have any relation to each other.
- kwar13 6mo agoIf you had only bothered to open the link and understand what it even being said. If you don't think it's true, then go ahead and arb polymarket for all the incorrect pricing.
- worldsavior 6mo agoWhat you said and what the link said were interesecting but not equal.