This has turned into a big curiosity for me. Essentially, on PredictIt one can place bets on political outcomes as defined by the website makers, like who will win the Presidency or what will a candidate's favorability rating be on a polling aggregate site on a certain day. There are a ton of different markets. You also don't have to wait for a market to resolve in order to make (or lose) money. For example, I sold all my shares in a market entitled "How many totally false statements will Trump make in August?" yesterday though the market won't resolve until September 9th (totally false statements are any "Pant's on Fire lies" according to Politifact's Truth-O-Meter). It's actually an incredible state of reality: there are thousands of people trying to manipulate one another into a profit in a zero-sum market based on how many demonstrable and provable lies a major-party candidate for Presidency of the United States will say in a month. And I fucking killed it.
I was never really taken in by sports betting or even card games. But this is fascinating stuff for me. I've found myself digging into the numbers behind campaign finance disclosures and listening more critically to political news. It's also exposed me to some fascinating, arrogant, and hilarious people since the comments section of this site is one of most cynical and whip-smart group of folks I know on the internet. (You guys are whip-smart, too, just not as cynical.) I'm posting this here to see if anyone wants to discuss strategy or share market secrets. If you have a gambling problem, please don't take this as a suggestion. Also, beware: this stuff is seriously addicting, especially if you start winning.
PredictIt has become a habit for me since accidentally discovering their local headquarters during a visit with Creativity. Philosophically, I believe that making and measuring predictions is the best way we have to test our understanding of the world. But talk is cheap, and speculation is easy. Wagering is a crass mechanism for promoting careful thought, but better than nothing. The possibility of concrete gain encourages those with informed opinions to speak up, while the possibility of loss tends to dampen the enthusiasm and confidence of self-styled experts. In practice, it's also a lot of fun. A coupon code boosted my initial deposit of $35 to $50. A play on Gary Johnson's poll numbers was a close call but paid $52.20 (less 10% fee) after just 16 days. I got out of my position in a North Korean H-Bomb test, netting 20 cents, so I could jump in on the Democratic Party winning the White House. I was disappointed that I couldn't buy shares in a Clinton win earlier at 66¢, but learned that PredictIt works around their self-imposed limits by creating lots of similar markets: "Who will win the election", "Which party will win", "Who will be elected VP", "Will the next president be a woman". So I bought 80 shares of DEM.PREZPRTY16 at 72¢. These are now down three cents so I am thinking about increasing my stake. But I also bought enough of CPD1.CROOKED to ensure I will win ten bucks when Trump utters the words "Crooked Hillary" during the first debate. Who says politics can't be fun?
I think you're on to something when you say that wagering is a crass mechanism for promoting careful thought. The profit-motive is wont to interfere with a dispassionate analysis of evidence. Big wins and timing the market are mistakes nearly everyone makes. But at the same time, eliminating any skin in the game makes the experience of research positions and gambling worthless. No one has fun playing blackjack without betting. I don't entirely agree. I don't see how the possibility of gains encourages anyone to speak up. If anything, it encourages them to disseminate false or misleading information in the hope of eking an advantage, or at least more profit. Especially with regards to PredictIt, there is no way to objectively verify whether or not someone's prediction in the comments section of a market was (1) hot air to "pump" up or down a bracket choice, or (2) a single-entendre position meant to build reputation, because there's no way to know who actually bought which shares. (Screenshots are less than objective.) I recognize my failure is my impatience. Rationally, there are a lot of undervalued positions in regards to Democrats winning the presidency, carrying a lot of states in the Electoral College, and individual Senate and House races. But when only playing with a little bit of money, I don't want to wait two months.Wagering is a crass mechanism for promoting careful thought, but better than nothing.
The possibility of concrete gain encourages those with informed opinions to speak up, while the possibility of loss tends to dampen the enthusiasm and confidence of self-styled experts.
How is your portfolio doing? After losing $19.53 (31 shares) on my bet that Trump would utter the phrase "Crooked Hillary" at the first debate, I became a bit disillusioned with PredictIt. I considered, since I was spending time looking at the markets anyway, maxing out on a position and trying to make some real money. A Clinton election win was trading in the low .70s, so a maximum stake of $850 at 73¢ would buy 1164 shares. These would pay, Deo volente, $1164, less the ten percent fee on profit, yielding almost $200 by November 9. That's over 23% profit in a month ... but the polls were awfully close in early October, and $850 is more money than I am comfortable risking. Maxing in that market today (at 83¢) would yield only $71.60. So I am still growing my $50 in seed money. My $47 profit on Johnson's poll numbers was a lucky fluke; I made the same bet in the next round and lost, but fortunately only bought two shares at 24¢ since most of my funds were now long on Clinton. I have 95 shares of DEM.PREZPRTY16 with an average price of 72¢. This stake is now up $10.42, and I plan to let it ride. Meanwhile I find that putting something on the line makes the debates less horrifying to watch, so I have 11 shares of No in Will Clinton and Trump shake hands before the UNLV debate? (average price 39¢ each, position up $0.36 on news that the Clinton campaign has requested that family members not shake hands). Creativity gave me a tip that François Fillon was showing a nonzero price for winning the French Les Républicains primary. Assured that both Alain Juppé and Nicolas Sarkozy would have to die by November 27 for Fillon to have a chance, I entered a max buy order with my spare funds. I only got one "No" share, at 55¢. I bought again, and got a share at 60¢. I kept buying a share at a time, and after buying at 80¢ had bid the price up to 97¢. Apparently this was a new market and PredictIt seeded it with shares at a range of prices until buyers and sellers would settle somewhere. My six shares are up $1.78 ... Creativity: I am buying at Macdo next time you visit.
My portfolio went kaput during the September markets for NFL protests. Specifically in a market predicated on two or more players kneeling during a particular game. I went all in, similarly looking for a serious gain, and lost because the market specifically defined kneeling so all the other shows of solidarity didn't qualify. I lost my original $50 investment, which saw a maximum liquidity of $180 or so at one point, if memory serves. I don't think I want to buy in again, even though I've checked the site and seen some undervalued positions. It's hard for me not to become obsessive, and my time is already short and valuable as is, let alone what little money I have. At the end of the day, it's a go big or go home proposition. I couldn't justify the hours on the site and having not a whole lot to show for it. Making a few dollar gain after hedging or researching a lot every day isn't worth it, and I'm too poor (and probably chickenshit) to gamble with the thousands necessary to make gains worthwhile from a money-value of time perspective. But it's great to hear that you're still in it! One of my friends has made $5k after less than a $100 buy-in. I don't know whether he should get out or keep it up... he's demonstrated incredible aptitude.
Update: recent events have reduced my portfolio value to about ten bucks. I was greedy, broke my own guidelines, and got caught up in the hysteria. But no excuses, I was wrong and having a lot of company doesn't change that. I'll be less smug and less confident for a while.
Yea, you are certainly not alone. I'll reveal a secret: I was very, very close to planting $850 on a "Pence elected VP: No" resolution that I thought was undervalued (lmao, he fucking won) at 70 cents. Like so close. End of the day I couldn't justify it, even after asking my successful friend at the game to talk me into it. Really glad. I bet there's actually a lot of people who are kicking themselves, to put it mildly.
Ah, sorry to hear that you went bust. It's hard to anticipate those edge cases. I like to buy No shares just because there are lots of ways a thing might not happen, but only one way in which it can happen. I just saw a contract on the Treasury's choice of a woman to put on the $10 bill this year. They changed their mind and decided to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 instead, but there were already 10,491 shares circulating for Wilma Mankiller on the ten, which looks like a pretty safe No. I think I have the same tendency toward obsession; if I had serious money in I would be spending too much time on the project.
Hard to guess, sometimes the comments are indistinguishable from Facebook. There is definitely some overlap, though. My "Crooked Hillary" position had a lot of hurr durr cracks and a few laments that this is what politics has become. But I am down after cmoney reviewed the Republican debate transcripts and tabulated the instances in which Trump used a nickname for an opponent. It wasn't enough for Trump to say "More energy tonight, I like that" or "liar," he had to pronounce the nickname "Low Energy Jeb" or "Lyin' Ted." An accompanying table (!) shows that Trump used the nicknames quite rarely. After more analysis "from a linguistics point of view" cmoney concludes Bad news for my shares, he has to say "Crooked Hillary" at the debate or I am out $19.53.This doesn’t even take into account the fact that Trump is more than capable of pulling out of the debate; I see Trump as having an attitude and ego similar to Bobby Fischer’s when he pulled out of the match with Spassky … ya never know with Trump.
What's the pointless process -- the debates? or the entire national political process?
While I do think rooting for a political party in a national election is closer to religious activity than a rational way to maximize your influence on the world, I don't want to take on the task of inspiring enthusiasm for it in you, so I respect your decision as to what you choose to pay attention to.
I've spent 50 dollars. I'm at $112, with $20 still invested that's worth $15 (shares in a market I bought are now priced lower). This represents maybe 8 hours or so of checking and refreshing the site and researching over the last two weeks. Which isn't to say that I view the thing as a ten dollar an hour job, which is maybe what I'm making if I divide my profit by labor. This is really enjoyable to me. Especially the time that I spend geeking out about it with a friend. And now that I'm playing with the house's money, it's easier to stomach losses. I do acknowledge though that I'm mainly benefitting from some luck and gut thinking, not that I'm some Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind. There's just a lot of panic activity on the site that I am the beneficiary of. Supposedly the primaries were this free for all. Michigan and Indiana saw a lot of money change hands. Also, fucking Trump and his supporters. Take this market for example. The odds of GOP victory in the presidential election are slim, let alone a 370 vote landslide. Here's a potential map of that, and it would take a miracle. Even if Hillary makes a series of massive gaffes (and one would think it would take much more than just that), there is a 99%+ of her winning California and New York, so Trump has to sweep pretty much the rest of the United States. Yet, here's this market buoyed by Trump fanatics saying that there is an 11% chance of a GOP 370 landslide. So if you have any money you'd like to see grow 11%, you can dump it all in this market and wait till election day.
6344 shares of NO in "at least 370 GOP electoral votes" are available now at 89¢. These would pay a dollar each by November 9. I have been avoiding such narrow margins, but you made me think again. After the 10% fee the profit would be a dime per share, just over 11% in 64 days, equivalent to an annual rate of 64% if my math is right. That's not so bad, for an almost-sure bet.... But to make a respectable profit of $100, I would need to buy a thousand shares, staking $890. That is just over the limit of $850 per contract, and also well beyond my comfort zone. It makes me start imagining how things could go wrong ... what if Clinton has to drop out because of a health issue? That's what I love about having something on the line. It makes me look for ways in which I could be wrong, taking the outside view. Looking for evidence that contradicts our expectations, rather than confirms them, is a difficult and essential aspect of good thinking.So if you have any money you'd like to see grow 11%
One outcome of playing PredictIt as much as I have is understanding in a new light what exactly Clinton has a 74% chance of winning but a 26% chance of losing means. Putting $850 (1,148 shares) on a 74% sure-thing is a different beast than thinking Trump was a moron in that immigration speech and Hillary really ought to sweep this whole thing. Even though, statistically, they're the exact same thing.