Polymarket apologizes for allowing wagers on fate of U.S. pilots downed in Iran
nbcnews.com
nbcnews.com
The primary function of prediction markets is to reflect real world probabilities in terms of price in order to make better decisions. Without this function, we're acting in the dark.
The same way we predicted things before "prediction markets" suddenly showed up?
If Pete Hegseth bets against the pilot’s rescue, then deliberately prevents the pilot’s rescue in order to win his bet, then that would not improve prediction-making or decision-making in any way.
Prediction markets should stick to the weather.
It is just in bad taste and, from the POV of Polymarket bad publicity that they'd rather avoid (not least to avoid stricter regulations, which are being mulled).
Even here in the UK, where betting and bookmakers are legal and regulated, I think such bet is perfectly legal if you find a bookmaker to offer you odds on it.
This is in part how creating laws is supposed to work. You legislate things when either something bad is happening or is likely to begin happening soon. When something new is comparable to existing unethical practices, the fact we have to update the laws is not an excuse for it being legal. Its just that the alternative is making laws based on whims or conjecture of what might happen.
Plus, all of the reports of people being bet on receiving threats.
It's like we've forgotten all about why gambling is so heavily regulated in most of the world. It always metastizes into a cancer upon society unless very carefully and strictly confined away.
This happens in sports betting as well, which is also regulated.
Neither of your examples show a material change or resolution due to regulation. The only result would be increased bureaucracy and decreased technology advancement.
I'm not sure how "still occur" became "the same result in both cases" - the latter is an extraordinary claim lacking any evidence.
Are you assuming that regulation is only admissible when it prevents every single event that is contrary to it?
Moreover, we are often seeing cases of regulation theater - the regulations in the books have convenient loopholes or are only selectively enforced, if at all.
Even in these cases it's a serious stretch to claim that the situations with and without regulation are materially the same.
Do athletes, refs, coaches still throw games? YES.
Your argument is that regulation would fix both, and my argument is that regulation has not fixed either. Wall Street is just as shady not with regulation as it was in the 1930’s without. The only major difference now is that the IRS is able to track and tax smaller entities easier.
The pilots in Iran are decoupled from the bets on polymarket. What are you talking about?
Cancer in society are intrusive persons who try to force their will upon others for no valid reason.
Why on earth would you believe this is true?
Pilots aren't idiots. They know something's brewing. That's inside info they can trade on, or call a friend or family member back home about. There've been plenty of indications of big betting market moves in advance of public announcements of things like this.
> Why on earth would you believe this is true?
IQ above average.
The folks back at base are gonna know quickly if they successfully get found. Everyone there'll know before it hits the media.
Or the administration officials in the Pentagon who get the news. Place bet, then leak the good news to the press.
I was kinda on the fence about this debate, but your arguments have actually pushed me away.
Now you have to worry about troops having placed bets on outcomes they’re part of.
“Oh shit, I think I see the guy… but I lose $50k if I call out because I bet he wouldn’t be found today! Better be quiet.”
They are also essentially stealing from the counterparty on the bet. Same reason insider trading is illegal.