Something that appears to be missing: Certain events attract "advertising" types of bets. E.g. There is value in making a candidate appear to be a leader, so dedicating dollars to swinging the market is more of a form of advertising than an intelligent bet.

So it would be interesting to measure the inefficiencies of various bets vs the total market value in that bet.

e: Although full disclosure, I did not pick apart the entire paper. Maybe it's buried in there.

▲

jonbecker a day ago | parent [-]

super interesting, re: spending money to move the line is just another form of non-profit-seeking "consumption."

i didn't filter for manipulation specifically, but i did find that politics was actually one of the most efficient categories (only ~1% maker/taker gap), suggesting the market absorbs those flows pretty well.

▲

jpmattia a day ago | parent [-]

> but i did find that politics was actually one of the most efficient categories (only ~1% maker/taker gap)

I confess I'm surprised by that result in particular. I realize your results are for Kalshi, but ISTR some reports from the presidential elections on Polymarket.

But more generally: When you say there is "only a ~1% maker/taker gap", is that weighted by the size of the bets? or is it averaged over the number of bets placed?

In any case: Thanks for a very interesting paper!

▲

jonbecker a day ago | parent [-]

If we weight by contracts purchased the gap is 1.02%, dollar weighted the gap is 1.00%.

I'm glad you enjoyed the paper :)

	▲	jpmattia 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[I'm still thinking about this a day later!] I think an additional table/graph of how large-bet performance vs small-bet performance would be interesting in general, as well as broken out by market type. It kinda answers of the question: Are large bets equal to smart money? or are they equal in "smartness" to small bets?