| |
| ▲ | skybrian 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The prediction market itself is a ouija board. You're given a number. You don't know who's moving the needle or why. You don't know what you're paying for. Maybe you're paying for information from people who are breaking someone's trust by giving it to you? Or maybe you're paying them to make it happen? Although, sometimes a market provides incentive to publish information that's associated with the market being influenced. For example, someone can do an investigation, short the stock, then publish it. | | |
| ▲ | testaccount28 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | but like, here in the real world, farmers use weather derivatives. so the technology works, has a use case, is proven. if your point is that one should not treat the market's number as some oracular probability, then... of course i agree! there is no such thing. the market provides a signal, like any other. | | |
| ▲ | skybrian 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not a farmer, but I believe they use weather derivatives to hedge and weather forecasts for predictions? Going through markets for weather forecasts is adding a level of indirection that generates a noisier signal. The idea when hedging isn't to win on expected value. It's to reduce risk. You're paying the market to provide insurance. As a side effect, insurance does sometimes generate interesting data. The insurance industry generates good data about life expectancy. But it doesn't tell you when you're going to die. |
| |
| ▲ | chii 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | you dont need to pay to access the odds - it's public info. There are people who pay to make bets on it (if they think the odds are wrong). But you don't have to be a betting participant to access the betting odds. You simply use the betting odds as a prediction of a future outcome, and you take your action/planning accordingly. | | |
| ▲ | skybrian 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, but I meant it in the sense that someone needs to lose money or there's no point in smarter or more well-informed people playing. Their profits have to come from somewhere. These could be (a) people who aren't as smart as they think they are (b) people who subsidize the market in order to get good predictions (c) people who are hedging (essentially, buying insurance). Perhaps other possibilities. | | |
| ▲ | chii 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the sense that someone needs to lose money yep, and that's fine because they did so voluntarily. If there were no stakes on the line, the information in the odds will also not have any real meaning. | | |
| ▲ | skybrian 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s good that it’s voluntary, but that’s not really what I’m getting at. People voluntarily spend money in Vegas and buy meme coins too. This doesn’t tell us all that much about whether a price signal is a valuable source of information. Often, people have varied interpretations of what a price movement means. The price doesn’t tell you how to interpret it. The obvious interpretation can be wrong. |
|
| |
| ▲ | BoorishBears an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | But usually when prediction markets have shown interesting predictions, it's by odds taking large swings then collapsing to the correct outcome relatively shortly before the event right? I assume because even if you know the future perfectly, putting up large lump sums early could cap your upside if people take your large sum as a signal (like OP is doing) As a viewer you can take your own short-term "actions" (gambles) outside the market using the brief advanced notice I guess, but I'm not sure planning works like that. In other words, what happens to the accuracy of prediction markets if we're including the discrete odds that occured along the way to the final odds? It's not better than random chance or public sentiment for large events is it? |
|
| |
| ▲ | coldtea a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Information about the future without power to do anything about it (except bet on it), like is the case for most information and most people, is useless. | | | |
| ▲ | tester756 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That sounds cool and fancy in theory, but how do you find that information among the noise? like if 50 ppl vote A, 45 people vote B and 1 person who actually knows their shit votes B? How do you find it? By amount? | | |
| ▲ | testaccount28 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | what do you think you're asking? like any signal, you reflect on it, integrate it into your belief, think through the consequences, etc. we all want mr. delphi to tell us exactly what will happen. but without such a friend, we reason under uncertainty. markets are one tool we've found to coordinate such signals. would you ask the same of hiring a private investigator, or paying for the new york times? there is no authority with your interests but yourself; you must choose who to trust. | |
| ▲ | jstanley 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because the people who are consistently right will consistently win money and will make bigger bets which move the price more, in the limit case making the price converge on the true probability of the outcome. This is the theoretical underpinning of prediction markets. | | |
| ▲ | lukev 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Equating being "consistently right" with having a sufficiently large stash of capital is ludicrous. "right" people will wisely take most their winnings out of a high-variance market. "wrong" people with deep pockets (or lots of wrong people with shallow pockets) will continue to distort the market. | | |
| ▲ | chii 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > will continue to distort the market. they can only do so as long as they have enough capital to lose. Because every time they try to move the betting markets against the truth, they will simply lose that money when the event happens (and turns out they were wrong). So any distortion will merely be temporary. Unless they have access to unlimited capital of course - which is not true yet for anyone (but the US gov't). | | |
| ▲ | lukev 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | That only makes sense in a hermetically sealed system, which this is very much not. | | |
| ▲ | krapht 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but is this a problem? Haven't most betting markets turned out to offer accurate predictions? |
|
| |
| ▲ | SauntSolaire 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well, the more often you're right, the more capital you will be able to accrue to bet with next time. |
|
| |
| ▲ | FergusArgyll 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's not voting, it's a market | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Apart from minor effects, the price is the probability. If you 'know your shit', you have more confidence and thus bid up or down until there are no more counterparties willing to accept your price, and thus the price settles at approximately the expert/insider probability. |
|
|