* Polymarket is a bit more transparent with who placed what bet, so it's a good place to go to study winners.
* The most consistent Polymarket winner I saw was placing 95%+ odds many, many times a day.
* Most markets will have a surprisingly small liquidity, so if your edge is just 5% you won't make as much as a 5% edge in the stock market could make you. This is good in that it keeps the biggest fish out, but some big players seem to be using strategies based on holding the most chips.
* Paper trading in Polymarket/Kalshi is very different than paper trading in the stock market, because even a few grand in Polymarket/Kalshi can have a big impact in how other "traders" interact with you. The traditional paper trade validation -> unleash the bot strategy doesn't work. You need to real trade with real money and scale up while watching how the market responds.
EDIT: Bonus learning -- yes the market runs by getting fish into the system. That's why Kalshi is advertising so much, it attracts suckers for the professional to win from, all while Kalshi takes a percentage.
I was never interested in market timing, though.
Generally, you're going to lose money - so don't do it.
Myself I was working on finance-adjacent stuff at the time and thought it had educational value. I did OK trading my favorite penny stock but I've had my share of financial misadventures, like I just had to buy $XIV because I wanted to see what happened and... I did.
Polymarket actually wrote an article about "copycat trading": https://news.polymarket.com/p/copycat
What failed? Was it too late to follow the trend by the time one was identified or something else? It seems much more transparent than trying to reason about say dark pool trades.
* I only had the example trades in the news as 100% confirmed positive trades.
* There are hundreds of millions of dollars in trades a day in Polymarket.
* In Polymarket you can just spin up a new account. If an account spins up, makes a $50k bet and wins, and then has no other activity, was that an insider trader or just someone with a behavioral pattern of spinning up new accounts? Just following up on these types of trades didn't provide a very big edge, as the nature of the trade adjusts the payout percentage.
You'd probably want to use some form of bayesian ranking, like say add 1k of total bets and 500 in total winnings to the raw scores.
But your bigger problem is just that people spinning up new accounts may be doing it to avoid your tracking. The kind of person with lots of evidence that they're good should be smart enough to know about copycat traders. The evilest among them might use a small bet to lure copycats and then trade against them in alts.
But what evidence is there that anyone is "good"? The fact that I am an insider to one event does not make me an insider to all events. If I were an insider to many events, I would probably have better ways to profit off of them. Placing a big bet is something I would do if I knew one thing.
I would recommend you look into Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber, where he makes an argument that 50% of American jobs are not only not-productive, but actually harmful. Your argument isn't taken to its logical conclusion yet.
Despite you being an individual, you reflect an aberration of sentiment here that makes no sense
For example, the larger economy hasn't failed, another view is that this is price discovery of a mispriced agent in the market. A wage worker whose actual productivity isn't valued accurately, and a market based solution has been developed that allows for closer accuracy. More profits to the insider and the copy trader, their available capital and liquidity is derived from their utility to the employment sector and their potential profits with that capital and liquidity is derived from the event's actual utility to the market.
Additionally, the productivity of all agents isn't known, you don't know what they were doing with their time before and it likely was suboptimal already - as in doomscrolling on social media or vegetating on the couch.
Finally, you have no way of quantifying if those lazy things were suboptimal uses of time, or if a completely active other activity was suboptimal or optimal, as this goes into relative utility and schools of ethics.
It's only a matter of time until Social Security starts to fail, right after we've paid all the boomers their full benefits (and just in time for me to be eligible), and then they'll have to implement "austerity measures." After that, groceries, gas, housing, health "care," and higher education will have fully broken the middle class (it's already broken me, and I have a good job and a paid-off house), and the economy (sans imaginary AI investment bullshit) will be exposed as failing. AI (such as it is) will hammer entry level jobs, and tax revenues will be impacted by this. At the same time, we're going to have to start some sort of menial UBI, but with what money, I have no idea. Service on the national debt just surpassed military spending last year. When the shit hits the fan in another 10 years, the country will have to either go to war to reset the accounting ledgers, or actually put themselves on a budget. Which do you think will happen?
Given the numbers and rates we can see at present, all economic activity right now is a process of moving deck chairs on the Titanic. Sure, it hasn't failed, but it is an absolute certainly that it WILL. It's just a question of WHEN, and it's relatively soon. We have no adults in Washington. It's clear they're ALL just trying "get theirs" before it all comes crashing down.
It can’t really fail all at once unless the US government dissolves. And people have been losing money on that bet for 250 years.
Luckily, if someone thinks the USG will actually fail, it’s really easy to trade on that possibility.
If paying for basic living expenses and higher education for your kids has "broken you", then you either didn't have the good job you thought you did or you aren't making very sound financial decisions (or both). Given that you own a paid off house, I suspect the actual issue is a complete lack of perspective on your part as to how well you have it.
In short, the economy is not failing, you're just a doomer.
And you wrote this all as a reaction to people trading on prediction markets? Markets that show velocity of transactions in a new, novel and growing way, which is the goal of our economies - to discourage hoarding in favor of transactions
Being a permabear doomer has nothing to do with the existence of prediction markets and other people’s participation in them
I'm pretty conservative in my predictions and just think there is a lot of free money on these sites. Maybe that just supports the sentiments of this article and most of the negative comments on this post.
There are certainly cases where I got run over by the steamroller picking up nickels, but in general that's few and far between. A good example is getting trump losing the 2020 election at 90% after the election in November. If you find those types of markets and compound the earnings it's a pretty nice savings account.
I've also been burned by insider trading and vague rule interpretations but at this point, you chalk it up to the nature of prediction markets. I now try to stay away from markets that are more manipulative (e.g. mention markets).
I don't understand the hostility to prediction markets. There are definitely hedging opportunities and we're all adults.
(also, we allow plenty of zero and negative sum interactions in society. I don't know why this is special.)
It’s worse than insider trading as it’s betting that Kyle’s mom will bomb Gaza and then making it happen.
Any societal good from knowing is outweighed by the injustice.
If there was any regulation by government or the markets themselves then it would be better. Betting in things you can’t affect like the weather or earthquakes or elections or whatever is actually pretty useful for awareness.
The winners, as you point out, are the house and those with insider knowledge.
"Someone allegedly used a hairdryer to rig Polymarket weather bets" https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/someone-allegedly-used-a-h...
Text-only, no Javascript, no CAPTCHA, no DDoS on blog, no geo-blocking, HTTPS optional:
https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA22jnEi...
Prediction markets fatally suffer from two Problems.
1) large sharks making huge bets at the end (destroying any signal from earlier bets)
2) inside information on poorly written bets.
The solution is -parlay- edit: parimutuel style payouts but that destroys popularity (you are paid out at closing odds not at your time of bet odds spread to sell position).
That's why death pools were supposed to be equivalent to assassination markets. Somebody would kill the person to win.
The only way (I would think) to make money if you're not an insider is to take advantage of the fact that most people believe in the Law of Averages and consistently err to moderation, so they overestimate small chances and underestimate large chances. Just bet with the crowd when the crowd (and reason) is overwhelmingly on one side. That depends on the vig being low enough not to obliterate that little bit of expected profit, though.
So 25% of users are profitable? That's vastly more than on financial sites - stocks/futures/forex/options trading where only 5% of bettors are profitable.
The majority of active traders won't beat the market (e.g. the S&P 500). That doesn't mean they aren't profitable.
Source? I'm not doubting that there are products and forums where 95% of traders lose money. But that's far from representative for most financial-market participants.
> The average trader is in the dataset for almost exactly six months (181 days). This is the amount of time between a trader’s first and last trade. About 25% of traders leave the sample within the first 46 days, while 50% of traders exit the sample within 155 days. Of the 181 days on average between open and close, traders are actively trading on an average of 50 of those days. The average trader has an equal-weighted return per trade of -0.035%, and very few traders quit while ahead. That traders have such small average returns per trade is not surprising given that the median trade is open for only 16 minutes, as can be seen from Panel B. Only 16.2% of traders are profitable upon exiting the sample.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22146/w221...
It's well known in the industry that about 90% of traders drop before 1 year.
> But that's far from representative for most financial-market participants.
I specifically mentioned "bettors" - day traders/speculators, not long time investors. Two different segments.
Forex is zero sum before fees and negative sum after. It’s distinct from capital markets. I wouldn’t extrapolate losses from FX.
> Depending on the source, only around 3% to 20% of day traders make money. But that 20% estimate probably has as much to do with the time period studied—the dotcom bubble. It's hard to know for sure, but it's probably fair to say that up to 95% of day traders lose money.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/053115/...
But for so many things, there's just too many sources of insider info. Reality television especially, the last couple seasons of Survivor have been clearly leaked if you look at a prediction market. And since all of production knows, and obviously all the players know, someone tells their family members, and all of a sudden you have a few hundred people who know for sure who will win.
But what exactly is the use of that? And as another example from the 2024 elections, every media outlet was pushing the validity of some stupid Iowa poll that only insiders even knew about, and was obviously just a random survivor that happened to get a few things right in a row. The prediction of a Harris landslide entirely flipped the odds in the prediction markets; if you had insider knowledge about that poll, you would have been able to make a fortune. If you had helped market that poll, you could have made a fortune.
The problem with prediction markets as predictors I think is that that they assume there will be a lot of insiders, rather than a very few. It gets confused with normal price discovery in a large, diverse and competitive market. Instead, prediction markets just match the (opinion) x (perceived trustworthiness) of the media landscape. If anything, insiders have a motivation to push the markets to be more inaccurate. They want to bet against them.
edit: but to restate my initial question - what's the use of polls that converge to the correct answer about 10 seconds before the actual votes come in? I asked the same thing when people were lusting over Nate Silver, and I still haven't gotten an answer. I understand using polls to guide your election expenditures; I do not understand the intense interest in them among spectators, or when the election is already mostly run.
How did that number more greatly reflect reality than the polls?