this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2026
459 points (99.1% liked)
Not The Onion
22267 readers
649 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Who cares what a shitty gambling site "says"?
You seem to have missed the joke.
You screwed your joke by unnecessarily attaching it to a brand and making it look like an ad.
Or it was a simple layered joke making fun of both Elon's pedophilia and that things that fucked up are actually allowed on those shit gambling sites.
settle down yall
Well, it's the aggregated opinion of people who use the site. Kalshi doesn't set the price; people making the bets set the price based on the odds others are willing to accept.
There's a sampling bias for sure, but since the odds given for this bet are based on how much people are willing to pay for that bet, this gives a very good approximation for how people actually feel about something.
It actually ends up being more reliable than most opinion polls in that way.
Besides the fact they nobody knows what is being done behind the scenes to ensure results are (or aren't) fair, using a sample of individuals that are all attempting to play the system against each other deeply and irreparably biases the data.
On top of that, jokes like the one I responded to and comments like yours only serve to legitimize a "service" thats sole purpose is to squeeze every penny from its users. It doesn't provide anything beneficial to anyone but its owners.
If the contract isn't something that meets the criteria for an efficient market, then yeah, it's not something that can be used to give reasonable probabilities.
But for something like, winner of the democratic presidential primary, or the proce of gold in a month... then it's genuinely a better predictive model than what a statistician would be able to come up with.
For statistics purposes, it gives me something incredibly beneficial. Simply by knowing the price of a contract, I can know with decent accuracy how likely something is to happen.
If you're not in the field, you wouldn't necessarily appreciate how valuable that is.
OK, let's see the evidence for that assertion.
A retrospective analysis of the contract prices versus actual outcomes would also be needed. Otherwise, all you're seeing is an opinion poll conducted on a self-selected sample of people unusually prone to being greedheads. And you have no idea of the mechanisms that shape that market.
Using prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research - PMC
There's one.
But obviously it's not a guarantee if you don't know what you're doing. We also have documentation on where these methods fall short, such as when it's based on exponential growth, rare events, or something else that humans are bad at understanding. Infectious Disease Forecasting.
But again, good statisticians are prepared to address those things.
That's even better. If I don't understand the mechanisms shaping the market, I won't be able to correctly identify predictive variables for my model. In that case, I would be better off trusting the prediction market.
Obviously it would be better if the person building the model understood the mechanisms... but that takes time and money. If you're managing 30 models, that might not be worth it.
"gambling"