Here’s a test that will give us some info on Tuesday about the value of prediction markets: the Iowa Senate race.
There is …
… a difference between modelers, polls and prediction markets in the Iowa Senate race. Polls have shown a race that is evenly split. Modelers, like Mr. Morris, have favored Josh Turek, the Democratic candidate. Prediction markets, including Polymarket, Kalshi and PredictIt, have favored Ashley Hinson, the Republican.
Prediction markets, the newest brilliant invention of humanity. Because using the stock market as a wealth casino or holding onto housing for max greed isn’t enough these days, you gotta bet on who gets fucked too to make a buck.
Too bad George Carlin isn’t around for commentary on this stuff about what a shithole everything continues to become.
Prediction markets are worthless for predictions and YouTube has a bunch of videos getting into the numbers explaining it. They’re very easy to manipulate, both by bad actors involved in the races, and by bad investors looking to swing the value of a “stock” so they win big. There are already large automated systems out there that exist only to do this.
AI can’t replace real pollsters and analysts.
This is what we will find out Tuesday, in the first real large-scale test of results that can’t be manipulated.
The biggest problem with prediction markets is insider knowledge There are people who knew how the Oscar voting went, and others who knew who would be king at the end of Game of Thrones. But there’s no way to know how the Iowa Senate race will finish. It’s a true test of prediction.
Elections are also manipulated :
Musk pouring more than $445 million into 2026 US elections
Yes, but that is just another factor known to everyone, not a manipulation by insider information.
You know that Musk is doing that, and you make your “bet” accordingly. Everyone has that same information, including the guys who do modeling.
That’s very different from things that are known to a small number of people who can profit from their knowledge, unbeknownst to the rest of us.
I think that’s not even manipulation. It’s just politics as usual.
* JFK became a viable candidate when daddy bought him the West Virginia primary, winning by such a vast margin that Hubert Humphrey abandoned his campaign.
* And it doesn’t always work. Eric Cantor versus Dave Brat, 2014. Cantor spent approximately $4.9 million, Brat $123,000, and Brat won by 11 percentage points. Cantor spent more at steakhouses —approximately $168,000— than Brat spent on his entire campaign.
Also note: Elon’s spending hasn’t overwhelmed Talarico’s in Texas. It just leveled the playing field. Musk has reportedly poured nearly $190 million into supporting Ken Paxton’s Senate campaign, directly or through allied organizations. But Talarico is hardly impoverished: he raised $146 million through October 14, versus Paxton’s paltry $22.3 million.
I hope Elon fails in Texas. Ken Paxton is a truly rotten egg.
Simple, prediction markets factor in the GOP vote rigging, polls don’t.
Prediction markets are priced like options, so buying bets literally increases the odds that your chosen candidate will win.
Of course, these odds have absolutely nothing to do with how people actually vote. And prediction markets are open to anyone, including people who are not even eligible to vote in the election they are betting on.
Seems like something that would be very easy to exploit indeed. But I’m sure no political campaign would ever spend a few hundred thousand dollars for better press…
markets don’t lead, they chase.
Prediction markets are a little different because they are often “predicting” things that have already happened (the Oscar voting, the outcome of a TV show). Some accountants somewhere know who will win the Oscar, and a bunch of crew members knew Bran would be king.
As a result, a massive movement in one direction may be a legitimate sign that somebody is investing heavily in an outcome they are certain of. For anyone outside that knowledge, it’s a sucker bet, a matter of trying to read what the movement means.
Markets work very well to price a liquid asset at a particular time. But they don’t tell you much else!
If you go into the option greeks, all sorts of junk get s throw in there but a lot of what are you saying in about the delta. I’m more concerned about the Vega, which is just plain old uncertainty. I don’t see a way just to derive that factor easily.
They are binary options so no real theta decay.
I am less impressed with using prediction markets for you know, prediction. But we are at the end of the line for traditional polling.
I view prediction markets as entertainment, useless for prediction. (Unless, as I said, when we are “predicting” things already known.) They can also, like sports betting, be an opportunity for those who watch them closely.
That said, I will be very interested to see the outcomes in cases where these markets differ from polls, because we may learn from them. Let’s say the Republican wins Iowa by a landslide. Does that indicate that polling is utterly useless, or does it prove that somebody in Iowa knew of a voter suppression plan and was betting on it? Or something else, like a last-minute shift? All outcomes, especially unexpected outcomes, are opportunities for analysis.
Yes, I am in full agreement that “we are at the end of the line for traditional polling.” Polling may or may not have a future, but if it does continue to have value, it will not resemble its past. At the moment, nobody seems to know with any precision how to sample, or as a substitute, how to adjust their faulty samples.
Here’s a sure 100% bet – in about four days these goddam political ads will stop and we can get back to hearing about trucks, phones, and drugs.