| ▲ | kwar13 2 days ago |
| Betting "no" on an outcome, is bettering "yes" on ALL other possible outcomes. There is even an operation for it:
https://docs.polymarket.com/advanced/neg-risk |
|
| ▲ | pinkmuffinere 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Am I misunderstanding? I think that’s trivially not true. Consider: Joe Dart elected president Y/N Cory Wong elected president Y/N A no bet on Joe Dart is not a yes bet on Cory Wong. |
| |
| ▲ | rgmerk 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Dart/Wong for America ‘28 - Give America Back Its Groove. | |
| ▲ | kwar13 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Did you read the link? A NO bet on Joe Dart is a YES bet on Cory Wong + Others. It is trivial. Saying NO to a candidate means you're saying YES to ALL other candidates with varying probabilities that would sum to the neg risk of that NO bet. | | |
| ▲ | pinkmuffinere a day ago | parent [-] | | Ah I see, I missed the + Others part in my initial reading, i see it gives the same payout. The shared link just asserts the same thing you’ve asserted with additional technical language that I don’t understand, so reading it didn’t help me much. Perhaps this is pedantic, but this equivalence is ignoring fees, spread, and slippage, right? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | worldsavior 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That's not true. The different outcomes don't have any relation to each other. |
| |
| ▲ | kwar13 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If you had only bothered to open the link and understand what it even being said. If you don't think it's true, then go ahead and arb polymarket for all the incorrect pricing. | | |
|
