I don't think that is logically correct. Commonly perceived probability has been proven frequently wrong whether naturally or due to manipulation. The reasoning here is not exactly the same, but closely aligns to bandwagon fallacy.

It would be interesting to see how frequently Polymarket predictions bet against the most common prediction and by what margins.

▲

mahboi an hour ago | parent [-]

It's the least inaccurate way. There's money to be made if you're sure you have a better way. The real problem is we're already seeing these markets influence the outcome.

▲

austin-cheney an hour ago | parent [-]

You make two valid points, but they still do not qualify the validity of these markets as accurate predictors. There is a difference when people, like Berkshire Hathaway really dig into the financials and management of a company to predict its future versus somebody like me who just money on a stock. In one case an investor seeks to make money and actively influence an outcome, but in my case I am just dropping money and hoping it out paces the rise of inflation because banks are no longer reliable stores of financial security.

Polymarket projections do not provide investigative insight, as in the Berkshire Hathaway example. It's just gambling. Any influence drawn from these predictions is incidental and reactive, as opposed to active market forces like buying/selling.

	▲	mahboi 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Nobody is saying it's better than stock market predictions of assets and company financials. Though there are some asset price predictions on there that exactly match the traditional markets, so it's no worse.