Betting markets are actually pretty good at predicting the outcomes of sports games. But you're correct that that's not the point of those markets; accurately predicting the outcome of a sports game has no real-world value, people are just placing bets for their personal entertainment.

Accurately predicting the outcome of a war, election, or other nationally important event though can potentially have immense value.

> Accurately predicting the outcome of a war, election, or other nationally important event though can potentially have immense value.

I don't contest that, but again, you haven't explained why "predictions" is the point of prediction markets. People place bets on things they want to be true as much as things they believe to be true. They can market themselves as whatever they like but no one has made a case that this is any different from sports betting.

It’s different because the prediction markets companies don’t make money on spreads. You aren’t betting against the house. Sports betting, every bet you take has a house edge.

Polymarket, for example, makes money on the data. So it must be worth something because people are paying for that predication data. They don’t take a slice of the winnings.

Platforms like polymarket can be used to bet on the outcome of sporting events. Does the fact that you are betting against another bettor change that from sports betting to a prediction market? If I am playing poker am I still gambling even if the house is just another player in the hand?

Yeah I guess that’s fair, but I wouldn’t say that predictions aren’t the point of the market. My point was more that the predictions must be the point, because people are paying polymarket to get that data.

They don’t make money by taking a spread, they make it by providing information.

And people bet on emotion for sure, but “wisdom of crowds” suggests that generally that will balance out to somewhat accurate odds.