undefined

points

[-]

Sure, but I meant it in the sense that someone needs to lose money or there's no point in smarter or more well-informed people playing. Their profits have to come from somewhere.

These could be (a) people who aren't as smart as they think they are (b) people who subsidize the market in order to get good predictions (c) people who are hedging (essentially, buying insurance). Perhaps other possibilities.

by chii19 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> the sense that someone needs to lose money

yep, and that's fine because they did so voluntarily.

If there were no stakes on the line, the information in the odds will also not have any real meaning.

by skybrian6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It’s good that it’s voluntary, but that’s not really what I’m getting at. People voluntarily spend money in Vegas and buy meme coins too.

This doesn’t tell us all that much about whether a price signal is a valuable source of information. Often, people have varied interpretations of what a price movement means. The price doesn’t tell you how to interpret it. The obvious interpretation can be wrong.

by BoorishBears3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

But usually when prediction markets have shown interesting predictions, it's by odds taking large swings then collapsing to the correct outcome relatively shortly before the event right?

I assume because even if you know the future perfectly, putting up large lump sums early could cap your upside if people take your large sum as a signal (like OP is doing)

As a viewer you can take your own short-term "actions" (gambles) outside the market using the brief advanced notice I guess, but I'm not sure planning works like that.

In other words, what happens to the accuracy of prediction markets if we're including the discrete odds that occured along the way to the final odds? It's not better than random chance or public sentiment for large events is it?