Top
Best
New

Posted by m-hodges 4 hours ago

Nothing Ever Happens: Polymarket bot that always buys No on non-sports markets(github.com)
274 points | 109 comments
tekno45 3 hours ago|
https://x.com/sterlingcrispin/status/2043723823678382254

They admit no returns.

But it does seem like a fun project and nowhere does it say anything about returns or profits so not scammy imo just funny meme backed code

sterlingcrispin 2 hours ago||
Yes exactly.

The bot has zero risk management and I have a strong disclaimer on the github it is essentially a meme.

73% of all polymarkets do resolve to No though.

There's a good dataset on huggingface if you wanted to do some data science

https://huggingface.co/datasets/SII-WANGZJ/Polymarket_data

some_random 1 minute ago|||
It doesn't matter if 99% resolve no, if they're priced appropriately betting no on every single one won't make you money.
pinkmuffinere 1 hour ago||||
> 73% of all polymarkets do resolve to No though.

I bet the average price for a no bet across these markets is 73 cents.

bargainbin 41 minutes ago|||
71 cents*, the bookie gets a cut either way it goes.
traderj0e 1 hour ago||||
It's not. But also a lot of those stats thrown around are misleading.
pinkmuffinere 1 hour ago|||
If the average no costs less than 73 cents, but the 73% of all polymarkets resolve to No, that would imply that the nothing-ever-happens strategy here is profitable. Are you claiming that it is profitable? Or are one of those premises incorrect?

Edit: conversely, if the average no costs _more_ than 73 cents, but the 73% of all polymarkets resolve to No, that would imply that an everything-always-happens strategy is profitable (neglecting slippage)

traderj0e 1 hour ago||
From what I've seen and tested, it's been profitable, for the reason you said. Variance and other caveats caused me to not pursue it further. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47754918
cheschire 1 hour ago|||
Are you willing to pay $.27 for that perspective? Sounds like we have a market!
kristopolous 1 hour ago|||
Why would outcomes match perceptions?

The whole premise of gambling is that they don't

gowld 1 hour ago||
The whole premise of prediction markets is that the few people whose perception do match outcomes make bets to push the money-weighted average perception toward outcomes. If perceptions still don't match outcomes at that point, average return is 0 minus transactions, with high variance.
kristopolous 26 minutes ago||
huh? that sounds like ideology and not empirical observation.
theginger 1 hour ago||||
Does the existence of that knowledge make a slight bias lowering the odd on no? I could fork this and with a 1 line change earn dozens of dollars as long as I don't tell anyone what that secret change is.
raincole 2 hours ago||||
> 73% of all polymarkets do resolve to No though.

I wonder what it means exactly. Typical Polymarket looks like this:

X happens before May. [Yes][No]

X happens before June. [Yes][No]

X happens before July. [Yes][No]

...

So even if X ended up happens in December, it's still 12.5% Yes and 87.5% No?

lazyasciiart 28 minutes ago||||
And how do you report it in May?
traderj0e 1 hour ago|||
That's one event containing three markets, each yes/no. And in a way each market is two separate markets, buy/sell yes and buy/sell no, but they mirror each other.
raincole 59 minutes ago||
I understand that. That's not my question tho. I am asking for the exact meaning of the 73% number.
tekno45 1 hour ago|||
its funny, tells you it barely works, and its a good meme.

Successful project imo.

craftkiller 1 hour ago||
In addition, it serves as a good template for writing your own polymarket bot with whatever logic you want.
yyurgenson 1 hour ago|||
It must be true that more markets resolve to no than yes because many markets are linked and only have one winner. (ie. if there are 10 people in the race for who will be the next president, 9 will resolve to no)
topspin 1 hour ago||
"just funny meme backed code"

I laughed. That's inspired. Quite the nerd-snipe as well, based on the rapidly accumulating threads on effectiveness, probabilities and markets.

cordwainersmith 2 hours ago||
The contrarian bet is fun but I wonder how it actually holds up. Prediction markets do tend to overprice dramatic outcomes, so "always bet no" isn't as dumb as it sounds. Would love to see real P&L over a few months, not just the thesis.
traderj0e 2 hours ago|
I've backtested this kind of strategy, and it had a good return (like 100% APR), but then I realized it was cheating by knowing when things are going to resolve. Often times it's not clear. Your return depends a lot on how quickly you can get your money out. I never got around to trying a strat that doesn't know the resolution time, which actually has to be manual cause it takes some judgement to pick things that you expect to resolve soon.

Also requires a lot of volume to be "predictable" obviously, since 1 loss sets you back 10-20 wins. It's surprisingly hard to find reasonable-liquidity markets after all your filtering. Many have huge spreads or thin books. Scare quotes around "predictable" because you never know if others will use this strat or a lot of unlikely events will happen due to insiders.

Another thing, just like the author, I was excluding sports in all the above. Yes Polymarket is famous for letting people bet on world events etc, but turns out it's still more about sports. Betting on the overdog in sports markets seems more appealing because there are plenty of those events with large volume, they're kinda homogenous, you know exactly when they resolve, and they're harder to rig. I simply never got around to putting real time or money into the overdog strat.

baq 2 hours ago|||
> One loss sets you back 10-20 wins.

didn't look at the numbers, but this one sentence reminds me of selling options for 'passive income' (don't do that)

traderj0e 2 hours ago|||
I drew the same analogy. You put up $0.95, a YES gambler only puts $0.05 (ignoring spread); you're providing "insurance" in case of a YES. In theory, even if the market prices reflected the true probability of the event happening, the more expensive side should be netting some "insurance premium" on average, right? Not sure, and idk how to observe if that's happening.

Polymarket is also holding onto the money in the meantime. Idk what they do with it, but it's not like some other platforms where they at least work with a bank to earn you some tiny interest on it.

doctorpangloss 2 hours ago|||
Quintessential hustler logic: inability to compare the gains from wins to inevitable losses.
traderj0e 44 minutes ago|||
Forgot to add, I wet-ran the non-sports strat once with $100 and lost like $5 net across the month. Not enough diversification like I said, so yeah maybe I'd make $6 the next month. I could only find like 10 things that met all the criteria: ≥90c price, low spread, thick enough ask ($5?), not sports, not related to certain topics that I thought were rigged (eg Mr Beast, Trump saying keywords in speech), likely resolving within a week. Some of them also weirdly took longer to resolve than the title suggested.
wormpilled 3 hours ago||
Basically arbitraging human imagination. People love coming up with fantastical concepts because they get attention, but the more exciting a market is, the less likely it is to actually happen. Reality is usually boring.
suzzer99 3 hours ago||
My general observation is that people tend to underestimate the likelihood of black swan events (covid, financial crisis) even as it's pretty obvious they're happening. And then when they do accept it, they react too far the other way and assume it's never going to end.

I've had success playing the markets in these specific cases. I did fritter away a lot of my gains from the financial crisis thinking I was a genius market timer. But I learned my lesson and didn't waver once I jumped back in after covid.

In both cases I got out before a bulk of the crash and timed the bottom almost to the day. Lucky I know, but I had reasons for both. For the financial crisis it was when Bill Fleckenstein closed his bear fund and put it all in MSFT. For covid it was when it looked like the lockdown was working and NYC hospitals weren't going to completely fall over like Northern Italy or Wuhan.

For any non black-swan scenarios, I assume I'll never get one up on the masters of the universe and just leave everything in blended age-appropriate funds.

I'm very concerned about an AI crash and the future of white collar work in general. But it feels more like a slow death to me than a black swan. So I'm just hedging with bonds and cash and stocks that hopefully don't crash as hard in a recession.

bredren 1 hour ago|||
They underestimate the likelihood of black swan because it is very hard for adults to concretely imagine things that have not happened before and then even temporarily fully believe ~"dreams will come true."

One of my go-tos on this is the Fukushima nuclear accident. IIUC there were plenty of folks in Japan who knew of the high risk. Perhaps many interested in nuclear energy outside of Japan, too.

But the average adult if asked about the prospect of a major nuclear incident occurring say, "tomorrow," would narrow their eyes in skepticism. There's almost an instinctual level seeding of doubt.

This can be a good thing. LK-99 was an excellent test of the dissonance from dramatic changes in reality and costs of inaccuracy.

The greatest VCs I have known are exceptional at suspending disbelief to test their ability to basically shape world building.

recursivecaveat 2 hours ago||||
I would also not want to take even a fair bet against black swan because the day that "S&P500 falls to lowest level since 2016 as Labubus collapse" is the headline is the exact day I least want to lose a big pile of money gambling. If it's the shareholder's money though.... I'm probably getting laid off in that scenario anyways...
chairmansteve 2 hours ago|||
I make similar bets. The SAAS "apocalypse" looks like a buying opportunity to me.
nemomarx 3 hours ago|||
This makes sense to me, but isn't there a risk of increasing the potential payoff high enough that someone is motivated to go out and make the yes side happen?

Consider this bot running on us military outcomes or something.

cryptonym 3 hours ago|||
By design it's a game where people with inside knowledge or enough power to bend reality can steal money from people with gambling addiction. Automating your addiction might not be the best move.
nkrisc 2 hours ago||
This is what markets like Polymarket boil down to. Normies can't win. Some will, of course, but that's just chance and there's no way if ensuring it's you.

It's really no different than a casino: if you ever find yourself with more money than you walked in with, cash out and leave.

Best strategy for most people though is to simply not participate and you'll break even.

Bratmon 2 hours ago|||
You say that like it's bad thing, but really it's great!

It gives us normies a way to see what the powerful are thinking.

kelvinjps10 5 minutes ago||
normies that don't enter the game, because the ones that do just loose their money
conductr 2 hours ago|||
Except, the thing is, a decent portion of the population enjoys throwing money away in casinos. If they feel a similar level of enjoyment/entertainment from this type of market, then it's no different and they're playing for a non-financial purpose that your calculus isn't pricing in. Maybe a stretch but theoretically, if they enjoy it enough, it can serve as a much cheaper alternative to a casino and thus could actually have a positive net return to one's personal finances even while losing.

And, I'm not even contemplating gambling addiction. There's a huge market of people that just go to Vegas once or twice a year and come home thousands of dollars poorer. But they don't need it, they may not gamble outside of Vegas, or nothing that would signal an addiction.

kelvinjps10 3 minutes ago|||
how can it be cheaper? people will spend the same amount or even more considering that is more easy to spend more since it's digital
JumpCrisscross 1 hour ago|||
> If they feel a similar level of enjoyment/entertainment from this type of market, then it's no different

If Polymarket were regulated like a casino, I’d actually have no problem with it.

Spooky23 3 hours ago|||
You're thinking like an engineer and making the laughable assumption that "prediction markets" are markets. It's totally unregulated with all sorts of grifts and cheats. One of the platforms was promoting a high-return bet against Rory at the Masters yesterday.

You can make money off of all sorts of stuff. You can "sell" the bets, so there's lots of live pump and dump.

We've gone full circle. The bookie with no neck that smelled like onions was more honest than these platforms.

HWR_14 2 minutes ago||
Wouldn't a high-return bet against Rory make sense? He was very likely to win.
jazzpush2 3 hours ago||
Well, that's why things aren't priced uniformly, isn't it?
slg 2 hours ago||
It's interesting that this is explicitly for non-sports markets because I see no reason why this would be less applicable there. Sports betters have long talked about that the winning strategy is usually to bet the under (i.e. the no) on most bets. The over (i.e. the yes) is generally a more exciting and fun outcome which causes it to attract more betters which in turns makes that side overpriced.

Like with this bot, I have no idea if that will still lead to actual positive returns. This might just be a remnant from a time when these betting lines were set less intelligently. But all things being equal, it seems logical that "boring" bets would have a better return in the long run than "exciting" bets as long as some betters are at least partially motivated by entertainment.

There's probably a lot of knowledge like this that sports betters have built up over decades that could apply to these new forms of non-sports gambling.

sterlingcrispin 2 hours ago||
it avoids sports bets because "Who will win game 6 of XYZ" is formatted on the polymarket backend as a Yes/No bet. There's a lot of markets with Yes/No plumbing even though you wouldn't interpret them as such
slg 2 hours ago||
Fair enough, I assumed the exclusion of sports with a deliberate decision rather than one forced on the project due to the technical details of the platform.
dheera 2 hours ago||
Strategies like this can easily be positive EV until enough people discover it and that actually is the driving force behind efficient pricing.

Here's how the mechanism works: I find that something is statistically worth $0.70 but I am able to buy it for $0.60 and statistically sell it for $0.70 (in the average). I make $0.10 each trade on average. Until you come along, copy my strategy and change $0.60 to $0.61 to frontrun my trades. Then someone else does it for $0.62. Until the market finally reprices to $0.70 where it should be. The guy who tries $0.71 loses money and stops, and then it goes back to $0.70. It's a stable feedback loop.

There are lots of positive EV strategies lying around in these inefficient markets that Citadel hasn't (yet) descended upon. The best advice I can give is if you find one, trade the hell out of it and don't open source it or tell anyone about it, because as soon as more people run it, it will cease to be positive EV and then after that it becomes an infrastructure game.

If it's popular on Github it probably doesn't work.

If you found something that works and is paying your rent, don't put it on Github. My 2 cents.

slg 1 hour ago||
This all really depends on the efficiency of the market. I think these prediction markets would claim that is their goal, but even Wall Street isn't perfectly efficient. I would also guess that sports betting sites like DraftKings or FanDuel would be even less efficient and less likely to be swayed by a popular GitHub repo. Once again, it goes back to the share of the market that is participating for entertainment purposes. That's a lot more common for sports betting than it is for will the US bomb a certain country.
dheera 1 hour ago||
> but even Wall Street isn't perfectly efficient.

Yes, you can find positive EV trades on Wall Street as well. I've been diving into this a lot lately, all I can say is it's 10X harder to find strategies that work on Wall Street than prediction markets.

With one exception.

The one easy long-lasting anomaly to exploit on Wall Street which actually does NOT exist on prediction markets: "American stocks go up most of the time". This is actually a massively exploitable structural anomaly (you just buy and hold forever and effectively reap the rewards of a biased coin) and the source of the anomaly is mostly US monetary policy, US foreign policy, and US tech expertise put together. However, it still is an anomaly. The thesis that SPY will continue going up forever is also predicated on these things continuing to work the way they have in the past.

krashidov 1 hour ago||
Isn't this just picking up pennies on an active railroad track? You'll win small bets and then get run over once a long tail event completely wipes you out.
achandra03 58 minutes ago||
I don't think the author is trying to pretend this is some sophisticated strategy you should actually use (note the chudjak in the image on github)
_3u10 58 minutes ago||
If you bet it all on one event yes, otherwise long tail just loses your bet. Downside risk is limited to your bet.
sambaumann 3 hours ago||
Related: https://www.jbecker.dev/research/prediction-market-microstru... (previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46680515)
hodder 3 hours ago||
Basically, realized vol is lower than implied vol over time. Yes.
swyx 2 hours ago|
also people overpay for skew protection and you can make consistent money selling skews (until that one time it blows up on you)
throwaway2027 3 hours ago||
Already priced in.
m-hodges 3 hours ago||
The author also noted:

> yes this has to buy below 0.73 long term, the bot has a configurable ceiling set at 0.65 and checks for new markets buying closer to .5

https://x.com/sterlingcrispin/status/2043685362812461436

hoerzu 3 hours ago|||
For this question I'm working on https://polygains.com

What other question would you like to be backtested? This one is fairly easy

lordnacho 1 hour ago||
For every bucket of probability, what is the chance it resolves correctly?

For example, for markets that are between 60 and 70, is it the case that around 65% of them resolve to yes?

I guess you want to take a certain time before out finishes, so focus on sports.

gruez 3 hours ago||||
What happens if you flood the market with a bunch of implausible bets like "sun won't rise tomorrow"? Sure, you might try to filter that out with some sort of "seasoning" period (ie. don't buy new markets), but then that means more time for arbitrageurs to correctly price the market, depriving you of any price advantage you might have had.
fer 1 hour ago|||
There are quite a few of those, my favourite: https://polymarket.com/event/will-jesus-christ-return-before...

If you put all your money on no, you get 4% if you win, and if Jesus comes back and you lose, money won't matter.

gruez 1 hour ago||
>you get 4% if you win,

This locks up your money in the meantime, right? If so, considering the fed funds rate is 3.64% (and you can probably get higher rates on stablecoins), a huge chunk of those "winnings" is going to be eaten up by the opportunity cost of the money.

baq 3 hours ago||||
jane street is always hiring!
Bratmon 2 hours ago|||
> What happens if you flood the market with a bunch of implausible bets like "sun won't rise tomorrow"?

Who does "you" refer to in this sentence? Polymarket itself?

I'm pretty sure if Polymarket itself decides it wants to screw you, you're gonna lose no natter what your strategy is.

gowld 1 hour ago|||
That presumes that there are people selling into new markets at 0.5 without thinking about the actual odds.
jp57 3 hours ago|||
Except that the mere existence of the market with the question posed for people to consider, probably activates the availability heuristic[1], causing people to overestimate the likelihood.

[1] https://philopedia.org/topics/availability-heuristic/

declan_roberts 2 hours ago|||
"Nothing ever happens"
faeyanpiraat 1 hour ago||
Benjamin, huh?
Retr0id 2 hours ago||
Someone has (had?) a bot on Manifold that does the same thing, and it is profitable: https://manifold.markets/dcxStep

(Manifold doesn't use real money, so there's more "free money" lying around waiting to be picked up than on most real-money markets)

clayhacks 1 hour ago|
Someone needs to make a market on whether or not this is profitable
More comments...