• FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    They’re not using it as a “verified source”, except in that they’re saying “this is the source.”

    It’s actually not a bad approach. Prediction markets (which betting sites are just a form of) are often very good at reflecting what the current well-informed belief on a subject is, because people who make bets on ill-informed beliefs quickly end up not having money any more and thus not betting any more. It’s just important to bear in mind that it’s not literally saying “this is what’s going to happen,” it’s saying “this is what well-informed people currently believe is going to happen based on current information.”

    • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s not really true.

      People that don’t make decisions on ill informed beliefs don’t bet at all as it’s just a money waste. People that make bad decisions tend to bet more and go into debt because of it.

      Betting odds are not a prediction by any means. The betting houses don’t even try to predict anything because they know it is a fools game. Instead its just a sentiment tracker of very small subset of the population.

      For example if tomorrow I would bet 100 Billion for Harris to win the election she would suddenly show up as the heavy favorite when nothing about her campaign has changed. Instead the bets for that particular site would be heavily skewed and they would increase odds for other options to reduce risk, while at the same time basically bullying any further bets on Harris.