| ▲ | derefr 3 hours ago | |
People with insider information often aren't necessarily aware they even have it. "Superforecasters" are often just "good at predicting" moves within a given vertical, because they have expertise and exposure to the trends of that vertical, and are good at making deductions and extrapolating trends. Those people make money from prediction markets just as often as people with true insider info do. And the people they're both making money from, are people who think they have enough expertise + exposure to function as superforecasters — and who probably could function as superforecasters, in a market with fewer "sharks" in the pool — but who lose out simply because they were slightly less well-calibrated than whoever they were trading with. Which is to say: prediction markets can still work and be worthwhile to participate in, even if everyone in them is rational. They don't require suckers. But, in practice, they certainly do seem to attract them. | ||
| ▲ | dubbel 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |
> And the people they're both making money from, are people who think they have enough expertise + exposure to function as superforecasters — and who probably could function as superforecasters, in a market with fewer "sharks" in the pool — but who lose out simply because they were slightly less well-calibrated than whoever they were trading with. This seems like a complicated way to say "suckers". Of course they don't usually self-identify as such and think they act rationally. | ||
| ▲ | sedimannapoleon 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
[dead] | ||