Can we please stop calling them "prediction markets". This only legitimizes what they really are, "gambling exchanges".
replies(5):
In any case, attempting to use a derogatory or denigrating euphemism to refer to something is usually less productive than simply exposing (what you perceive to be) its faults. What specific issues do you have with these markets/exchanges?
Gambling is a destructive addition that the vast majority of participants cannot manage well. It harms not only them, but their children and their spouses. How many a kid's college fund has gone up in smoke? A lot of harm is done to very innocent people in pursuit of a ten second rush. (Much like all other addictions.)
I also very respectfully disagree that inventing a name for something is not productive - it's incredible effective, in fact. That's why political campaigns often favour duelling names over hot button issues: it's easier to win broad based support from soccer moms and football dads for 'marriage equality', whereas 'homosexual marriage' may be a harder sell. See also 'medicare for all' versus 'socialized medicine', 'pro-choice' v 'pro-life' etc.
A traditional sportsbook maintains a house vig anywhere from 5 to 15%, which is, indeed, a pretty fast path to ruin. They typically don't allow you to exit your position once you're committed.
Polymarket's sports markets, in contrast, have comparable bid/ask spreads to financial markets (maybe slightly wider), and the market is liquid such that you can sell your contract to someone else whenever you want.
Whoever said other markets aren't gambling?
> Polymarket's sports markets, in contrast, have comparable bid/ask spreads to financial markets (maybe slightly wider), and the market is liquid such that you can sell your contract to someone else whenever you want.
'Financial markets' is a slippery term - you could be using it to refer to traditional investing (holding a diversified share portfolio for years because you believe in the fundamentals of the companies in question), or you could be using it to refer to things like frenetic speculating in short-dated out-of-the-money 'binary option' contracts.
The former is not gambling (no 'rush', not generally addictive, very hard to go broke, mathematically sound), and the latter is absolutely 100% gambling (all rush, totally addictive, incredibly easy to lose your shirt, mathematically stupid). There have been many attempts at 'finance-washing' straight up gambling schemes in recent years, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see more crackdowns soon.
Pretending that betting on election results is some complex financial derivative that is totally magically immune to laws about gambling isn't going to fool any judge.