Again, public information. No bet here.

This is bad advice. Political markets in general, and markets on PredictIt specifically, are nowhere close to efficiently priced.

And the $850 max on PredictIt curbs the ability of sharp money to force prices to efficient levels.

I'll put it this way, I would happily make a side bet that I can show a profit in the tweet markets over a 3 month period, and God knows I don't have any non-public information about Trump's tweeting habits.

Yea predictit markets can be insanely inefficient. I'm loaded up against LePen. It seems analogies to Trump and Brexit are keeping her much higher than she should be, when the analogies are pretty flawed.

Yep. Among the reasons PredictIt is not efficiently priced:

1. Politics markets in general are hard to get big money down on so there are few sharps
2. PredictIt only offers accounts to Americans, it's not like Betfair where there would be a ton of French people betting on the election.
3. The $850 cap guarantees that sharp money is drowned out by randoms

You know this, and I know this, but which one of Trump's inner-circle ass-kissing sycophants is going to explain this to him? The man gets his information from Breitbart and Fox News, I'm not sure he realizes how badly he'll get booed. Also, I remember G Dub getting mercilessly booed but still going through with it.

What's the "no" thesis here? 30% for someone who's addicted to attention just seems like value to me.

Anyone else playing the Georgia special election market? It seems insane that I was able to load up on Moody no in the 60s. A guy pulling in the low single digits in a crowded cluster**** of an election. Someone tell me what I'm missing? He seems like the 4th most likely R to make the runoff with Ossoff and now it looks like Ossoff might have some actual equity in the runoff. Seems like it's still very good value in the 70s.

I have heard people say that betting market n isn't efficiently priced for the best part of 25 years. Without exception they all crashed and burned against a neutral line. I'm talking about high-level academics and people who had literally made millions in other gambling fields.

As for your 3-month challenge, you are kind of illustrating my point. Over a short sample size with a binary outcome tournament strategy would be superior to betting optimized for expected value. It would be trivial to win that challenge making bets with no information on the market.

The $850 max cap is not going to be a problem for an American professional who overcame the insane hurdles presented by UIGEA.

You are assuming that is a good thing. As a UK resident betting US politics for years I can tell you categorically it is not. The dumb money on foreign elections comes from partisan supporters within the country. Any American who is interested in French politics is by definition significantly smarter than average.

That said I'm not entirely down on the notion that you can make money in these markets but just betting on the basis of public information is unwise.

The 850 is both a blessing and a curse, I'm unsure if I would do better or worse were there no limits (bet against Trump quite often)

Yet with efficient markets, these people would on average be break even against a neutral line.

The term "neutral line" as commonly used does not include vigorish.

So how can they be dogs in an efficient market then?

If they have stumbled on a way to pick the wrong side more often than not over a significant sample then presumably there are people who can pick the right side more often than not.

At least someone working in the politics professor's office but who secretly thinks social science is lol, could go and always bet the opposite to what the prof was going to do and have a winning strategy, couldn't they?

So does anyone have an opinion on the outcome of the French election? I've stayed out of it because I don't know enough.

4. The "10% of profits" tax eliminates arbitrage opportunities that would have otherwise forced markets into having sensible prices

This is probably a bigger issue than the $850 limit.

So you are saying having 10% of your winnings taken away from you is somehow a good thing. No. This discussion is increasingly ridiculous.

You may be able to beat this betting market. However you will not do so with the type of public information which seems to come from mainstream US news channels. That is what I see on this page. Very cursory and superficial analysis.

Politics is one of the easiest markets to beat but not like this.

The 10% fee on profits within contracts, and not within markets, definitely warps pricing in a very inefficient manner

not sure what you're ranting about GBV, but hopefully you feel better now!

What non-public information do you have access to?

Non-public information isn't generally "secret" or "insider" information.

It is just information the public isn't aware of. When you say, as you do above, that Trump is likely to make his pitch because he's done it before, lots of people will know that he did it before. When you say he likes attention-everyone on the planet knows that.

By contrast, if you know for example that there is a systematic bias in the polling of unskilled workers due to systemic distrust of authority distorting representation within that subset, you have non-public information. It is not something you get from watching TV, basically.

So basically you rely on public information but you're super woke.

So no opinions on which way the French election is going to go?

I have a position against Le Pen. Analogy to Trump is flawed. There is no electoral college bs. And she has consistently polled in the -20 range in the second round, not -5ish. We just saw another European right winger under perform. So perhaps being linked to Trump is a drag.

It isn't public information if the public doesn't know about it. It isn't a difficult concept.

Don't entirely disagree but there would seem to be a reasonably high probability of a major terror attack in the days leading up to the election. She will still probably lose even if that transpires, but there will be some interesting trading opportunities.

That isn't what "public information" normally means. You're basically saying you can make money using things which are "public information" but not "common knowledge" which I'd broadly agree with.

Non-public information in politics is things like canvassing data, which can be pretty reliable if the data is collected competently, but is not public.

Le Pen isn't equivalent to Trump at all. Trump is just an interesting candidate for president from a mainstream party, whereas in Europe we fought the war against fascism so its a bigger step to vote for a fascist party now.