←back to thread

249 points jaboutboul | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nomilk ◴[] No.42131622[source]
As a former user of in-trade and more recently of poly market, it is so annoying that there are laws against these sites. They serve an incredibly important function: letting people learn what’s happening in the world around us by observing a single number (e.g. % win probability).

I most receently used the site yesterday to see what the incumbent Australian government’s reelection chances are after they tabled ‘ID and age requirements to use social media’ laws, but polymarket didn’t seem to have Australian politics odds, so I was left using oddschecker, which is inferior due to the annoying way it displays odds and it not storing historical data.

replies(3): >>42131721 #>>42131823 #>>42135397 #
Terr_ ◴[] No.42131721[source]
> letting people learn what's happening in the world around us

I think that phrasing is a bit too optimistic. Even in cases where the "prediction" cannot influence the outcome, the primary "learning about the world" involves the imputed opinions of bettors.

Betting at horse-races doesn't teach you nearly as much about horses as actually going to the stables. :P

replies(3): >>42131797 #>>42131805 #>>42132274 #
1. drexlspivey ◴[] No.42131805[source]
If there is a better predictor than what is implied by the market then someone could make money on it. Hence the odds tend to be pretty accurate (with enough volume) because obvious edges like that tend to go to zero. A good example of that was the last election where people with access to private polls betted heavily and shifted the market one way.
replies(1): >>42132340 #
2. seizethecheese ◴[] No.42132340[source]
This comment appears to be downvoted for ideological reasons? To me it seems manifestly true. The comment isn’t saying the market is perfect, just that it tends towards the best estimate because of incentives.