upvote

points

by SamTinnerholm3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby WalterBright54 seconds ago|
next
[-]
I couldn't make heads or tails of that prose.
reply
upvoteby vcf2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
We have a grad student working on matching markets across venues. Not a trivial task at scale, but we hope to look at that eventually.
reply
upvoteby postflopclarity2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
this comment was clearly written by AI. please don't do that.
reply
upvoteby Retr0id1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not sure why you were downvoted/flagged, because you're right. It is also quite an insightful comment worthy of discussion so I'm a little conflicted.
reply
upvoteby pjc501 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It looks completely fine and plausible to me. Which is worrying.
reply
upvoteby skybrian1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I don’t see why it’s AI, but even if it is, it’s better than most human comments so the complaint should be downvoted.
reply
upvoteby Retr0id1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Take a look at the user's history, it's more obvious in context. It has a lot of claude-specific tells which are noticeable if you've spent time working with claude. AI-generated comments are against the HN guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated
reply
upvoteby nh23423fefe1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
phrenology
reply
upvoteby postflopclarity58 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
if you're not able to tell that OP's comment was AI slop, then you probably don't have much insight to contribute to the conversation either.
reply
upvoteby skybrian1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Maybe the guidelines should be changed? Something about: don’t complain about comments just because they’re AI.
reply
upvoteby postflopclarity59 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm not complaining "just" because it's AI.

I'm complaining because it's AI, and also slop.

> resolves into "cross-venue infrastructure" — which is also a more durable edge than within-venue alpha

anybody who actually trades knows that on these markets, "cross venue infrastructure" (aka vibe coding some exchange api integrations) is much less important / durable than actual alpha.

reply
upvoteby Retr0id36 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Slop aside, do you think it's reasonable to assume a decent fraction of those making consistent profits are arbitrage bots?
reply
upvoteby postflopclarity11 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
arbitrage is a rather overloaded word that people use for all kinds of strategies but yes, I predict most of the most profitable and consistent accounts are not actually attempting to forecast the outcome of these markets from first principles
reply
upvoteby skybrian32 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
That sounds plausible. Not a trader so I wouldn't know. Saying at least a little about what's actually wrong with it seems more useful than just saying it's slop, which gives me very little info over just a downvote.
reply
upvoteby postflopclarity7 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
it's pretty easy to write basic trading api connectivity. the hard part is knowing what trades to send

even if we are very charitable and assume the comment refers only to like high-engineering-effort infra for trying to be super competitive on latency, that's still like the opposite of a durable edge, since everybody is looking at it. there's very little "hidden" knowledge and it's mostly a matter of elbow grease and careful engineering.

reply
upvoteby postflopclarity57 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
it's only "better than human comments" if you have no idea what profitable trading looks like. it's a very-very thin mildly convincing veneer over what is fundamentally slop.
reply
upvoteby 2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby locallost2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I don't think that's surprising because the alternative would be that some people are able to predict the future. Whatever strategy one might figure out that works is long term destined to fail, as other people start using them. The only real way to make money there is by providing liquidity since it's a zero sum game. For the stock market this is not true because it's not zero sum, it grows over time.
reply
upvoteby cortesoft1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
There is alternative to being “able to predict the future”, which is “I already know the future” or “I can change the future”
reply
upvoteby mathgradthrow49 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Someone flips a coin and looks at it, what orders are you willing to put in?

The potential for insiders should be represented by a complete loss of liquidity.

reply
upvoteby tsimionescu19 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
And yet, many people bet on things like the duration or contents of press conferences, of pre-taped shows, etc.
reply
upvoteby tsimionescu21 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
There are some bets on prediction markets where the future is either already known or in the control of people who may be participating in the market. For example, when people bet on how long the next presidential briefing will be, it doesn't take a prophet to predict this, anyone who organizes said briefing can control it (at least with a very high probability).

So, the question becomes "what is the preponderence of such bets" and "how many people with control or knowledge of bet outcomes actually participate in the market" - not "can some people see the future of any bet better than others".

reply
upvoteby Retr0id1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
"predicting the future" and "correct analysis of all available information" often aren't all that different.
reply
upvoteby glitchc1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
A sufficiently large market is indistinguishable from Brownian motion.
reply
upvoteby 1110101001000115 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
That's a model.
reply
upvoteby AnimalMuppet1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
From Schlock Mercenary (quoted from memory, may be inexact):

"You cannot see the future. All we are given is the present."

"Of course. But if you look closely at the present, you can find loose bits of the future just laying around."

reply
upvoteby dheera1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Not really. Not all players in prediction markets are rational players. A good chunk of it are there for entertainment, and analyze things incorrectly; you can take the other side of those trades, and you won't need to predict the future.
reply
upvoteby Retr0id24 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Deciding that someone else's prediction is wrong is a prediction in and of itself.
reply
upvoteby 14 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby 19 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby vcf1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Yes, but the alternative (that some people are very good at forecasting) is also plausible. It's also useful to have a good prediction model and timely data sources when providing liquidity. We also find that some of the "biggest losers" also provide liquidity; they just aren't as good at it.
reply
upvoteby dheera1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The stock market is arguably zero sum as well, just that directionally betting on the US has generally worked during the golden years of the US economy.

The stock markets of the world aren't a money printer.

reply
upvoteby cluckindan19 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
They can be in cases where investment lenders don’t have 100% capital requirements, but that’s generally no different from other banks.
reply
upvoteby empath752 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
There's probably also some hedging going on across accounts that look like directional bets.
reply