It's not. But also a lot of those stats thrown around are misleading.

pinkmuffinere 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

If the average no costs less than 73 cents, but the 73% of all polymarkets resolve to No, that would imply that the nothing-ever-happens strategy here is profitable. Are you claiming that it is profitable? Or are one of those premises incorrect?

Edit: conversely, if the average no costs _more_ than 73 cents, but the 73% of all polymarkets resolve to No, that would imply that an everything-always-happens strategy is profitable (neglecting slippage)

	▲	Majromax 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Edit: conversely, if the average no costs _more_ than 73 cents, but the 73% of all polymarkets resolve to No, that would imply that an everything-always-happens strategy is profitable (neglecting slippage) Or just the bid-ask spread; price no at 73.25 and yes at 27.5 and you have a profitable but theoretical mid-market price.
	▲	traderj0e 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		From what I've seen and tested, it's been profitable, for the reason you said. Variance and other caveats caused me to not pursue it further. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47754918

▲

cheschire 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you willing to pay $.27 for that perspective? Sounds like we have a market!