Am I misunderstanding? I think that’s trivially not true. Consider:
replyJoe 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.
Dart/Wong for America ‘28 - Give America Back Its Groove.
replyDid you read the link? A NO bet on Joe Dart is a YES bet on Cory Wong + Others.
replyIt 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.
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.
replyPerhaps this is pedantic, but this equivalence is ignoring fees, spread, and slippage, right?
That's not true. The different outcomes don't have any relation to each other.
replyIf you had only bothered to open the link and understand what it even being said.
replyIf you don't think it's true, then go ahead and arb polymarket for all the incorrect pricing.
What you said and what the link said were interesecting but not equal.
reply