←back to thread

249 points jaboutboul | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.263s | 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 #
seizethecheese ◴[] No.42131797[source]
These imputed opinions tend to do a better job than traditional news. On election night, polymarket was ahead of the news channels every step of the way.

Edit: to be clear, I’m referring to polymarket essentially “calling” each swing state well before the networks did. I’m not just referring to the overall outcome.

replies(3): >>42131956 #>>42132072 #>>42133556 #
galleywest200 ◴[] No.42131956[source]
I am not sure what that has to do with calling elections. The Associated Press calls who wins, not some random person with $5 to throw away.
replies(3): >>42132050 #>>42132057 #>>42132288 #
1. ◴[] No.42132057[source]