[nickparker]

I don't know if this applies to BetChecker, but PredictIt is heavily handicapped by an $850 max bet.

Without the freedom for real amounts of money to come in and exploit mispriced bets, it's practically a straw poll of PredictIt users. The PredictIt user base has some obvious demographic biases that warp the odds.

[smallgovt]

It's even worse than a straw poll. PredictIt's 5% withdrawal fee destroys any potential profit opportunity for new users betting against a candidate with low winning chances.

For example, if I were to sign up and bet against Yang at 5% odds, even if I won my bet, I'd make $0 profit because my entire withdrawal amount is taxed at 5%. If Yang's odds were set at less than 5%, I'd actually lose money even though I won my bet!

Given this, the market for low likelihood outcomes is extremely inefficient and it's very plausible that these odds are being gamed by candidates vying for attention.

[objektif]

There is a counter argument for this as people with a lot of money will drives the results one way which can actually impact elections. Nkt that I buy this argument but something to keep in mind.

[nickparker]

I definitely don't believe that today and I doubt it will ever come to pass. There are more cash-efficient ways to influence elections than warping betting odds, and I think that will hold true no matter how large the betting market gets because the manipulation gets more expensive as the market gets more attention.

The weaker form of your argument "Without the caps it's biased toward people who can make big bets" is the entire point of a betting market.

Edit: The one edge case where it might happen is precisely this article. Buying your way to say 5% after some organic positive press might be an effective way to buy buzz at relatively low cost. It's a small one time boost for a campaign though.

[gumby]

I also doubt that it's happening deliberately, but FWIW this is precisely the time in a campaign when a "small one time boost" might be worth it, to pull you up above the noise floor.

But I get the feeling nobody really understands campaigns well enough (especially these long, grueling ones) to justify the time spent on these small-calibre issues.

[skybrian]

As a method of prediction, this all depends on whether big bettors are justified in their confidence. What sort of private information would make it worth making a big bet?

[mi100hael]

Some of Bovada's odds are currently:

Trump: +175

Biden: +650

Beto: +900

Yang: +2200

Buttigieg: +2800

Warren: +3000

Klobuchar/Booker: +3300

Hillary: +10000

The Rock: +12500

Jeb: +15000

(payout for a $100 bet)

[MusaTheRedGuard]

Just gonna leave this here: https://app.veil.co/market/will-2020-presidential-candidate-...

Also interesting to mention the crossover between Yang supporters and the crypto community: https://breakermag.com/five-reasons-crypto-fans-are-joining-...

[otoburb]

That market is now ambiguous because the reporting source is "compromised" in the sense that Andrew Yang's 2020 Twitter account is being redirected to a different handle.

Ambiguous markets are ... not good.