I think you’re a bit myopically focused on the experience of individual users, and on that front I agree that prediction markets are “better” than sportsbooks.
The unease others, myself included, feel regarding prediction markets has little to do with the user experience, though. I mean sure, it’s bad that we sprung up another way for people, disproportionately young men, to piss their money away. But in the “everything is gambling, gambling is everywhere” era I’m numb to that, for better or worse (it’s the latter).
What disturbs people profoundly about prediction markets is their potential to influence events much more consequential than, say, a basketball game. I’d much rather have to worry about whether Terry Rozier is dogging it than about whether Pete Hegseth has a fortune on “YES, WAR WITH IRAN” contracts.
The obvious potential for insider trading, defined here as “profiting off information that comes to you before the general public,” is not what worries me most, though it’s very bad. Prediction markets allow for influential people to bet on events *and then use their influence to make those events happen.*
So in my hypothetical example, we have Pete Hegseth putting all his whiskey money on “YES” and then pounding the table in the situation room for war regardless of what the facts and evidence say is the best course of action.
I’m nearly certain this kind of thing has already happened, albeit likely at a smaller scale for now, and would prioritize putting a stop to it over taxing Draftkings into oblivion.
I mean it’s a terrible situation that exclusively prioritizes immediate term thinking over all other concerns but hey someone could make money so I guess all the externalities are worth it.
I don’t understand your response at all, it seems like a non-sequitur. How does the potential for outrageous corruption being “priced in” allay the concern about…outrageous corruption?
Not allay said concern, but at least make some money off of it (which I suppose is how insurance works generally).
If you do believe this manipulation by political figures is likely, and for instance, think there’s a greater than 9% chance that Hegseth might see that a ceasefire by the end of the month is trading at less than 9 cents and therefore bring that outcome about, perhaps you have an opportunity here…
If the government really wanted to regulate this stuff they could.
- Max wager is $1000
- Max losses for any individual person at any site is $3000 per month
- Any individual can only make 2 deposits per month
- All deposits must come from bank accounts
The ultra degenerates would get around it, but it would cause enough friction that a lot of the people in the gray area would slow down. They market their services as a fun add on to sports. And it is. You dont need to bet more than $1000 to have fun. And nobody is having fun if they lose $3000 in a month.
But I dont think the government has the stones to do it. And I dont think the leagues or the media ecosystem would like it much either
They're all part of the same machine.. taking advantage of people who are looking to turn their $10 into $100, siphoning money from those that don't know better to those that are in the know.
The only real question to me comes down to "what role does society play in banning clearly harmful activities?", some would say it's a free country we should let people pursue their vices to their own desire, others would say that the role of laws is to protect people from themselves.
I personally could never take money from any of these companies though, yuck.
That Rose-Berman quote you embedded makes no sense to me. You can’t go up against a DraftKings trader, they just cut you off. Beyond that, the worst thing the books do is create same-game parlays with way worse odds than they should have because people are bad at multiplying out probabilities in their heads. That doesn’t work on Polymarket because someone can take the other side and arbitrage the bad odds away.
Prediction markets are strictly better than sports books, and it’s mostly just generalized Tech Bad that makes it hard for sports media people to see that.
I think you’re a bit myopically focused on the experience of individual users, and on that front I agree that prediction markets are “better” than sportsbooks.
The unease others, myself included, feel regarding prediction markets has little to do with the user experience, though. I mean sure, it’s bad that we sprung up another way for people, disproportionately young men, to piss their money away. But in the “everything is gambling, gambling is everywhere” era I’m numb to that, for better or worse (it’s the latter).
What disturbs people profoundly about prediction markets is their potential to influence events much more consequential than, say, a basketball game. I’d much rather have to worry about whether Terry Rozier is dogging it than about whether Pete Hegseth has a fortune on “YES, WAR WITH IRAN” contracts.
The obvious potential for insider trading, defined here as “profiting off information that comes to you before the general public,” is not what worries me most, though it’s very bad. Prediction markets allow for influential people to bet on events *and then use their influence to make those events happen.*
So in my hypothetical example, we have Pete Hegseth putting all his whiskey money on “YES” and then pounding the table in the situation room for war regardless of what the facts and evidence say is the best course of action.
I’m nearly certain this kind of thing has already happened, albeit likely at a smaller scale for now, and would prioritize putting a stop to it over taxing Draftkings into oblivion.
Though if we have time, let’s do that too.
If you don’t think that’s already priced in then you have the opportunity to make a lot of money, or to at least hedge your concern financially.
I mean it’s a terrible situation that exclusively prioritizes immediate term thinking over all other concerns but hey someone could make money so I guess all the externalities are worth it.
I don’t understand your response at all, it seems like a non-sequitur. How does the potential for outrageous corruption being “priced in” allay the concern about…outrageous corruption?
Not allay said concern, but at least make some money off of it (which I suppose is how insurance works generally).
If you do believe this manipulation by political figures is likely, and for instance, think there’s a greater than 9% chance that Hegseth might see that a ceasefire by the end of the month is trading at less than 9 cents and therefore bring that outcome about, perhaps you have an opportunity here…
If the government really wanted to regulate this stuff they could.
- Max wager is $1000
- Max losses for any individual person at any site is $3000 per month
- Any individual can only make 2 deposits per month
- All deposits must come from bank accounts
The ultra degenerates would get around it, but it would cause enough friction that a lot of the people in the gray area would slow down. They market their services as a fun add on to sports. And it is. You dont need to bet more than $1000 to have fun. And nobody is having fun if they lose $3000 in a month.
But I dont think the government has the stones to do it. And I dont think the leagues or the media ecosystem would like it much either
They're all part of the same machine.. taking advantage of people who are looking to turn their $10 into $100, siphoning money from those that don't know better to those that are in the know.
The only real question to me comes down to "what role does society play in banning clearly harmful activities?", some would say it's a free country we should let people pursue their vices to their own desire, others would say that the role of laws is to protect people from themselves.
I personally could never take money from any of these companies though, yuck.
I couldn’t take money from them either, unless it’s a lot of money.
There is no bottom.
“Points shaving but impacting every facet of society” sounds like a dystopia to avoid, not welcome.
That Rose-Berman quote you embedded makes no sense to me. You can’t go up against a DraftKings trader, they just cut you off. Beyond that, the worst thing the books do is create same-game parlays with way worse odds than they should have because people are bad at multiplying out probabilities in their heads. That doesn’t work on Polymarket because someone can take the other side and arbitrage the bad odds away.
Prediction markets are strictly better than sports books, and it’s mostly just generalized Tech Bad that makes it hard for sports media people to see that.
I'll never actually wager at a prediction market, but I do like that we get predictive numbers for so many events.
Sports books also provide future markets on free agency. Isn't that the same as prediction markets?