Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | nojito's commentslogin

>Kalshi and Polymarket are mainly just sportsbooks.

How? They sell contracts between two users. One side each. Completely different from a sportsbook where users are betting that the lines they set are not correct.


Whether the people betting on the sports are betting directly with each other or not is a very small difference.

If they sell contracts on market prediction, then any person doing for example insider trading on corporations, fixing outcomes of sport events, directly paying out others to force event outcome, blackmailing people, or just directly adjusting some result like the CDG weather guy are completely in line with the platform rules and all that is perfectly legal. But since Poly and Kalshi themselves admit that those things are "unfair" and forbidden they have themselves removed their "just a contract" status and transitioned to a gambling status, where indeed fixing matches is bad.

90% of the betting volume on Kalshi is betting on sports. I know how prediction markets work and how they're different that traditional sportsbooks, but they ultimately allow customers to do the same things.

If you are saying Kalshi isn't a sportsbook because the house isn't on the other side of the bet, you might as well argue that DraftKings isn't a sportsbook because they don't actually track your wagers in a book.


Not exactly. Kalshi is binary options. Not stocks.

There’s no “house” or “book” aspect to Kalshi. They are nothing more than contracts that are bought and sold between individuals.

Lots of types of contracts bought and sold between individuals are prohibited by law.

They problem is the federal government considers these particular contracts are generally legal, and the states have no authority.

Have you heard of Betfair? A UK company which has done "prediction markets" since 2000. In the Europe it is called a betting exchange and regulated like sports betting. And betting pools is another form of betting which is way older than that and there are no house in them either.

And by your argument poker or backgammon would not be gambling either.


>And by your argument poker or backgammon would not be gambling either.

They aren't. A sportsbook explicitly sets lines and you are betting that the line they set is incorrect.


How do they make money?

Just like other exchanges.

They charge trading fees.


They also place their own bets within their own market. They don't just make money on trading fees.

A different entity provides liquidity.

There’s no house like in sportsbooks.


And there is no house in pool betting, poker or backgammon either. We still count all of them including betting exchanges (what has now been rebranded as prediction markets) are still normally regulated as gambling.

Not in the US.

Is there any state that allows organized poker tournaments, but not gambling or sports betting?

Sounds like a glaringly obvious conflict of interest?

Of course it is, people will do whatever they can get away with.

Be careful, the market makers always win. If you go against them, you make yourself a target.

Kalshi does not trade against its users.


Kalshi definitely does this

They just don't make any money off it.


What about the special partners that put up bets that are basically just methods to launder the fact that there's a house?

This doesn't say what you think it does.

Language like elixir were given easier problems to solve when compared to other languages.


Where does the paper say this?


Pages 3-6


It makes enterprise deployments much easier because most orgs already have github enterprise.


It seems to be for sql users who don’t know python or r.


I would even add that it fits into a more general trend where operations are done within SQL instead of in a script/program which would use SQL to load data. Examples of this are duckdb in general, and BigQuery with all its LLM or ML functions.


Highly suggest leveraging adbc. I would love to use this against our bigquery tables.


plus 1 for ADBC!


Another +1 for ADBC


>Why would any non-insider participate in these markets?

Because they are grossly mis-priced for anyone mildly informed.


Did you get rich off these markets? If not, how can you say it's true?


If this were the case, deeper and more informed pockets than yours would take the opposing position until there’s no more alpha to be had.


Not true at all.

A great example was this market from the most recent primary election.

https://kalshi.com/markets/kxtxsenatedemturnout/voter-turnou...

Based on just simple math there was basically no chance of turnout being over 2.5m and yet the market for multiple days had the higher buckets at exorbitant prices.


The turnaround was 2.3m, I don't get your point. Texas doesn't require party affiliation.


Correct and the higher brackets above 2.5m were at 50-70 cents each.


>Prediction Markets require insider trading to function.

And yet there are folks like me who have been on them for years before kalshi/polymarket making a very good side income from them without having insider knowledge.

Prediction markets as a whole are very very inefficient. That's not to say that insider trading doesn't exist but you can't claim that they require insider trading to function.


> making a very good side income

If you had a reliable edge, your income would be exponential. Why isn’t it?


The markets I participate in tend to be illiquid, but as prediction markets get more popular things are getting better on that front.


Do you need a reliable edge or just a slightly better than average edge?


Why is it sad for people to be compensated for their work?


That's not what OP said.

Sites displayed ads. Then they decided, or found, that ads didn't bring in enough revenue, so they added paywalls.

Paywalls are annoying, they don't scale, and they break the promise of an open web. All that is sad.


The web is still open, anyone can post anything they want and anyone can see it (in the US, at least).

An open web, to me, does not imply access to all websites.


The original message is,

> So much of the Internet is pay-walled now.

It’s lamenting that more is behind paywalls. Not that the paywalls exist.


And sowbug wrote that paywalls and the open web are not compatible, to which I disagreed.


>they don't scale

Hard disagree. There are many more websites with paywalls that still exist today vs the ones that relied on ads or donations to survive.

>they break the promise of an open web

The open web was never a thing because it has always cost $$ to even connect to the web.


You're excluding the overwhelming majority of websites that were personal sites. Of those, the overwhelming majority are now gone. None ran with a goal of profit or even revenue. They cost so little that their owners were happy to keep them online at their own expense. But they were starved of attention by sites like Facebook and Instagram that used the open web only as one-way onramps to their walled gardens, so they languished and died. I contend, and you may disagree, that the information content of these small sites formed the backbone of the useful web at the time.

Sites that began with the question "how can we share what we know?" are what I call the open web. Sites that began with the question "how can we make money from* the web?" are what are killing it.

* I don't have a problem with sites that make money on the web. For all its problems, Amazon is a store that operates online. That's wonderful. But Facebook views the open web as a problem, locking a bunch of it behind uncrawlable access controls and pathologically self-serving algorithms. We used to share the public parts of our lives on our personal websites, usually for free as a part of the ISP subscription that we already paid for. Now all that happens on Facebook, and we've paid a multi-trillion-dollar tax for the privilege of doing what we used to do for free.


Alternatively, how would you suggest content that takes time and effort to make be funded?

I get that it's sad, but I'd gladly pay a monthly sub to use a not enshitified internet, rather than the cluster fuck of ads and data stealing that exists in the modern web. Spending time on the 90s and early 2000s internet and comparing it to this dumpster fire makes me so darn sad.


People still have to be paid. or they won't be paid and you just get different flavors of slop.


Were you paid to write this comment? If not, then your statement is either true (and therefore slop), or false (because what made the early web awesome was people like you putting their thoughts online... for free).


Please don't use strawman arguments. It's immature.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: