Short answer, no. If you're betting on an outcome that can be controlled by an individual or small group, the incentive is for them to game the system by doing the OPPOSITE of what the prediction is so as to make the most money.
reply"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
If you’re betting with a friend that they won’t have chicken for dinner, what’s to stop them from having chicken for dinner? What if you bet with a complete stranger who also took the reverse of that bet from your friend?
replyNothing, that is why you quickly learn to not make stupid bets like that. If you don’t learn, then I guess survival of the fittest and all that.
replyA fact is a statement about past. A bet is contingent on the future.
replyInsiders can change the facts.
You're confusing collusion with being informed. The concept of market rationality is based on the premise that all participants in said market more or less have access to the same information. Fools can choose to not be informed before making a trade, but passing along sensitive information that contradicts market rational behavior causes people to lose trust in the market.
replyPerfect example from today. Allbirds just announced that they're going all in on AI infra, skyrocketing the stock. Had I bought a million dollars worth of Allbirds yesterday, everyone would think I'm an idiot. But now, they would think I have insider information and would no longer want to participate because it would make no sense to buy Allbirds yesterday unless I knew the announcement was coming.