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.