Discussion:
How prediction markets saw something the polls and pundits didn’t
(too old to reply)
ltlee1
2024-11-08 14:21:57 UTC
Permalink
"New York CNN — In the days leading up to the US election, pollsters
had the race deadlocked. The vote was essentially a coin flip.

But over on the betting platform Polymarket, the odds were much more
solidly in former President Donald Trump’s favor. On Monday, Trump led
Vice President Kamala Harris 58% to 42% — a lead that, by Wednesday
morning, proved to be a much more accurate reflection of reality.
..
Historically, betting markets have been pretty good at predicting the
outcome of US elections. One study showed that in the 15 elections
between 1884 and 1940 the candidate with the best odds as of mid-October
won 11 times. (The same study notes that election betting fell out of
favor after 1940, as scientific polling grew more sophisticated and
reliable.)
..
Still, I asked Zitzewitz what a market can tell me that, say,
FiveThirtyEight’s polling average can’t.

Essentially, he told me, FiveThirtyEight reflects one person’s approach
to turning data into a probability. Markets are looking at the same
polls, and turning everyone’s interpretations into a probability.

“What you’re seeing with the market is some average of all of those
different opinions, weighted by their willingness to put their money
where their mouth is.” "
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/08/business/polymarket-election-trump-nightcap/index.html
ltlee1
2024-11-09 12:55:00 UTC
Permalink
The former is a team's mostly rational effort in collecting and then
turning collected information, more precise but less holistic, into
probability. In contrast, gamblers' approach is more holistic but more
ambiguous. Their action is also driven partly by emotion.

Accuracy of the approach reflects social trend. Gamblers' approach would
be a lot more reliable if the underlying society is under stress and
seeking change. Rational analysis based on the old model would be proven
to be wrong.

Loading...