• Trebuchet@lemm.ee
    74·
    1 month ago

    I’m sure this is totally unrelated to the $760 million in bitcoin which was just transferred from Tesla to unknown wallets

    • Kacarott
      3·
      30 days ago

      I’m ignorant on this topic, but couldn’t the wallet addresses be compared to check this?

  • khannie@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    1 month ago

    Seems like a good time to take the manipulated odds and go for Harris. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    • cmbabul@lemmy.world
      15·
      1 month ago

      I’m not a big gambler but every now and again I’ll see a points spread of a football game that seems ridiculous on its face and will put down $25-$100, makes watching a game I wouldn’t otherwise care about fun. But I never bet on a game I actually care about the outcome of, afraid I’ll jinx it and will lose twice. This the only reason why I’m not hammering Harris to win right now

  • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
    263·
    1 month ago

    Uh yeah ofcourse they dont actually predict the future. They do however punish people for guessing wrong which creates a sort of natural selection of people that predict well.

    When you bet money on a bad prediction, someone else will happily bet against you with the same amount and take all your money once they are proven right.

    Then you have no money and you cant bet anymore. So pretty dumb strategy long term. Someone using multiple accounts is not an issue because the limitation is how much money the person behind those accounts has.

    There are similar huge bets in both sides. It will balance itself out soon enough. But generally predicting elections is a dumb thing to try tbh.

    • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
      81·
      1 month ago

      I mean that would be at least partially more true if it were a sequence of bets and results but in this case it’s a single bet which will take forever to resolve so all of that analysis is useless. I’m sorry it just is.

      What betting markets give is a sentiment of who people (who bet) think will win, which is something, but it’s different from predicting who will actually win. Humans are crap at predicting shit, especially humans that bet and especially humans that bet in political outcomes.

      A huge portion of bets are very biased because of political “teams” and beliefs. If people suck at betting in sports events I would argue they suck even more at betting at political events where their identify and beliefs and even more at play.

      Polling already gives you flawed data, betting markets even more so.

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
        21·
        1 month ago

        But generally predicting elections is a dumb thing to try tbh.

        As i said…

        According to a bunch of reputable studies, the average, of the predictions/guesses that lots of people independently make on the same question, will always be better than most sophisticated prediction systems. Thats the effect that prediction markets try to leverage, but for elections this is probably just not gonna work.

        Also only being able to analyze the accuracy every 4 years is shit for a study. If the market was big enough to allow for doing the same thing for a bunch of local elections, it could be interesting.

  • sevan@lemmy.caEnglish
    17·
    1 month ago

    I joked recently that I should put a ruinously large bet on Trump to win the election. That way, if he wins, I’ll get a huge payout, which will soften the blow a bit. If Harris wins, I’d be broke, but at least I’d be happy that Trump lost.