Could you please not post generated comments to HN? It's not allowed here. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079. We ban accounts that do this and I don't want to ban you, so please write everything that you post to HN by hand.
Of course, it's impossible to know for sure what was LLM processed or not, but we're getting complaints about some of your posts and, upon inspection, the complaints seem justified.
I'd be very cautious how matching works. For some markets like sports it's trivial, but many politics or economics markets have minute rule differences that dramatically change what the actual market is betting on. Many markets have identical titles but are actually totally different markets.
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.
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.
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".
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.
I don't know. Buffett had a good example of, if you organized a national coin flipping contest in the US, you would have people that won 25+ coin tosses in a row. Are these people good at calling coin tosses or is it just chance? You cannot reliably and long term predict if Bitcoin will go up or down within 5 minutes, or something similar. You can cheat maybe somehow, but that's not within the rules of the game.
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.
Could you please not post generated comments to HN? It's not allowed here. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079. We ban accounts that do this and I don't want to ban you, so please write everything that you post to HN by hand.
Of course, it's impossible to know for sure what was LLM processed or not, but we're getting complaints about some of your posts and, upon inspection, the complaints seem justified.
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.
I'd be very cautious how matching works. For some markets like sports it's trivial, but many politics or economics markets have minute rule differences that dramatically change what the actual market is betting on. Many markets have identical titles but are actually totally different markets.
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.
There is alternative to being “able to predict the future”, which is “I already know the future” or “I can change the future”
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.
2 replies →
"predicting the future" and "correct analysis of all available information" often aren't all that different.
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."
A sufficiently large market is indistinguishable from Brownian motion.
1 reply →
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.
3 replies →
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".
This still doesn't mean they are good at it. For them it's like flipping a coin with two identical sides. It's just cheating.
2 replies →
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.
I don't know. Buffett had a good example of, if you organized a national coin flipping contest in the US, you would have people that won 25+ coin tosses in a row. Are these people good at calling coin tosses or is it just chance? You cannot reliably and long term predict if Bitcoin will go up or down within 5 minutes, or something similar. You can cheat maybe somehow, but that's not within the rules of the game.
1 reply →
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.
The stock market is not in the least zero sum. That's just a fundamental misunderstanding. There's dividends, capital allocation, etc.
4 replies →
They can be in cases where investment lenders don’t have 100% capital requirements, but that’s generally no different from other banks.
I couldn't make heads or tails of that prose.
because it's AI slop
There's probably also some hedging going on across accounts that look like directional bets.
I don't know why cross venue arbitrage would be unskilled? There's a lot of it for the taking and I, and others, do so.
this comment was clearly written by AI. please don't do that.
Yes, there's an em-dash, but it reads fine to me.
AI slop is often good at "reading fine" but the actual content is incoherent.
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.
It looks completely fine and plausible to me. Which is worrying.
1 reply →
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.
16 replies →