@arpitrage Literally had Raman advancing before any newscaster and you are saying this.

@auyonomous @arpitrage Yeah I literally don’t know what about it is supposed to indicate inefficiency

@mark_bikes @arpitrage I suppose if the probabilities are excessively reactive to each new batch of votes, it might suggest bettors are being myopic, which is inefficient. Maybe comparing the prediction market volatility to that of a (good) statistical model would show whether that's the case

@auyonomous @arpitrage People with a deeper understanding of politics beyond the latest partial data dump all knew that Pratt had no chance to win.

Would you bet on a Democrat to win in Utah if a small batch of votes had him in the lead for a moment?

@arpitrage It’s not really market and shouldn’t be called one. It just tells you what the current odds are based on publicly available info

@arpitrage That's government for you - market distortion par excellence!

@arpitrage volume exploded after the late arriving ballots started to get counted, with more volume it actually became a good indicator

@arpitrage markets are just signals not the game youre missing the point

@arpitrage On the contrary, monopolies are very efficient.

@auyonomous @arpitrage He never had a chance to win even if he made the runoff

@arpitrage big boy used the word "efficient" lol

@arpitrage the truth machine doesnt always get it right

@arpitrage Efficiently transferring funds away from morons.

@arpitrage hm I actually thought the opposite -- it would look less efficient if the probabilities were very stable even as new votes came in. unless you think it was clear much sooner that Pratt was never going to make it