Jae

@sharp_fake @sempertrades Dustin rn

@sempertrades If this is me in 25 years please do me a favor and kill me.

Not a single day goes by that this dork doesn’t whine about prediction markets

Happy to share that we’ve raised $100m at $1bn, led by @py_research, to put prediction market terminals next to every ATM in America. Introducing StreetStake, a new distribution layer for prediction markets: The physical world. Insert loose change, get long your favorite team

Btw if anyone is interested in betting on the performance of Militia Capital and/or ETF throughout 2026, dm please!

Struck a nerve I guess

@orrdavid And how does one get the action vs the bad players? Do you rlly think regs were/are dumping ev playing hu vs other regs solely for ego reasons? I think your post says more about your own ego and how you view others than it does about anything else

One thing I should have added to my post: This was supposed to be about playing heads up *against other professionals*. Against a bad player, heads up was stupidly lucractive and well worth paying the $75/hour.

Poker was a far more competitive game than investing because poker is extremely negative sum. Everyone but the very best got culled in weeks or months. Investing is far less competitive because it's extremely positive sum most of the time. In investing, most everyone gets to keep playing a very long time even if they're reasonably bad. Now, with the above comparison made: Even in poker you had totally irrational decisions among the pros. Stuff that is obviously stupid and wrong. Take heads up (1v1 poker) for example. The house took $.5-1/hand when the flop gets seen. Hands play really fast heads up - maybe 250 hands an hour for a single table. And 60% of hands saw a flop. Do the math and the poker site charged $75-150 an hour. Even after the site gave some kickbacks, that was $50-100 an hour. A poker pro could have stopped right there and knew to not play that game. And yet, even in this more competition rational bunch, some guys still thought they were smart to be playing these games. They were even self righteous about it! About playing a game where the house was charging them $75/hour... which is clearly a money incinerator. I'll use a guy like Doug Polk @DougPolkVids as an example. He had a sort of secret cabal going of guys who tried to corner heads up tables, and this group took pride in never refusing to play another professional. Doug fancied himself the best heads up player in the world and would regularly proclaim it. And I think he did this purely for ego reasons, not money - because there was never great money in heads up poker. And he was mediocre 6 max player, a game that say 1,000x the number of hands played and was actually full of top super polished players. And since bad players could join your game, there was plenty of money to be made. Now the point of this thread isn't to knock Doug, who no doubt was very good at heads up (even if I don't think anyone can actually know who was best). The point is: Even in extremely negative sum poker you saw weird ego games being played. In investing, I think almost everyone is playing an ego game, not for the money. That old book The Money Game got it exactly right. Stop playing ego games. Stop trying to make yourself feel smart. Stop trying to fit in with one of the social cliques on twitter. And so on. Start trying to make money.

@orrdavid “Stop playing ego games. Stop trying to make yourself feel smart…. Start trying to make money” He says as he posts a 9 paragraph tweet projecting downwards on others “Look at me I have no ego!! You do have an ego, and it’s a huge flaw!”

Good points. Here is what I think about the election markets. The given size someone may theoretically need to put up in order to incentivize someone’s death is correlated with the already existing incentives for that person to be murdered. For example, the Portuguese president. If murdered there would likely be tens of, if not hundreds of billions of downstream effects, possibly even a war. To effectively incentivize his death you’d need to provide more incentive than already exists, no? Looking at smaller politicians, let’s say a small-medium size city mayor, there are likely not enough existing incentives for anyone to want to murder them, so incentivizing their death effectively through election markets isn’t nearly as hard (but this also means there aren’t going to be people really wanting to incentivize the mayors death/people who will have enough money to do so) Now compare these to the Honnold market. Let’s say someone really really wanted to watch him die, told the internet that they’d be buying $15 million yes @ 99.99, and then bought as soon as he walked up to the building. Other than some jealous climbers or ex girlfriends, there is really no existing incentive to cause the death of Honnold. The entire thing will be live streamed and it presents the opportunity to announce and pay for a live snuff film, legally

I agree with you, but my point is that it’s not as easy. A lot of markets start with real uncertainty and become death markets at some point. Take the Portugal election right now. I would argue that the most likely cause of Seguro not winning is his death (and I would even say *by far*). You might think I’m exaggerating but his far-right opponent got 24% in the first round and all the eliminated candidates voiced their support for Seguro. It will absolutely be a blowout, except if Seguro dies. So does that mean Poly shouldn’t have election markets if the election is likely to be a blowout? Or a special clause for a different payout in case a candidate dies? Because I definitely agree it’s really bad to incentivize a x100 or x1000 return for murder, I just want to stress it happens in a lot of markets, and honestly Honnold is far from the worst offender.

Repeat after me: Prediction markets where you can incentivize someone’s death should not exist

@0xfoobar Decent rage bait

@TomJrSr “incentivize someone’s death” was your wording, not “direct contractual payout”. 5/5, ty

And I do get that the Honnold market is largely just pricing weather and his ability got begin the climb, but this is more of a direct death market than most and we should really really be against these (especially on anon crypto platforms). Next thing you know we’ll have on chain bounty hunters

Death score is just an arbitrary way to think about the logic you’re posing. The difference between your example and a true death market is that you’re not pricing Trump’s death. As a 1c trader there is some chance he doesn’t enact the tariffs, you do not need to cause his death to resolve as a winner. And if you do cause his death, there is still a non zero chance tariffs are enacted. If you kill Alex Honnold, you simply win no.

@DrewRipsCards naur

@DavidPrayge Examples? To best of my knowledge, even in their own rules and conditions, polymarket does not state as such. This isn’t a direct example but can look to Brian Armstrong’s earnings call shenanigans for some perspective

@TomJrSr It does not incentivize death lmao The market has to be closed by the market validator, and if there was evidence someone impacted the result in order to win, the result would be invalidated

@Ragnarok_1er Let’s assume you’re right and let’s say that across all markets there’s an avg base “Death Incentivization” score of .01 That does not mean we should be fine with markets that have a death score of .5

@TomJrSr The problem is that when you think about it, a lot of markets incentivize death. Most sports betting does, for instance.

@0xfoobar Meh. 3/5 of your examples are not tradable markets. War bonds do not equate to a direct contractual payout on a specific individuals death and neither does Tesla stock. To compare the Honnold market to any of these 5 is examples is extremely disingenuous

@TomJrSr What do you think rent control is

Will be reaching out to all applicants by early next week, hopefully by end of this week busy busy busy

@LMastro99 My goat

do your best to work with jae if the role description even remotely interests you. great guy with an even better operation, click below 👇👇👇

and no your job won’t just be executing arbs

See if you can beat me at our slop AI generated game :D Should only take 1.5 mins of your time

Are you a winning bettor but having trouble scaling? We’re looking for our tenth team member to help us expand. We work with some of the best bettors in the world and make markets on exchanges in the U.S. We're seeking someone who is interested in betting, works hard, and pays attention to detail. Anyone is welcome to reach out for more info. Title: Trader Desc: Execute trades as both maker and taker on various sportsbooks and exchanges at scale, using provided infrastructure and liquidity. -Base salary range: $80,000-$120,000 annually with discretionary bonus/profit share (We are open to other structures which may better align incentives/make sense for an individual) -Work location: in-office role with at least 65% of time in our Lower Manhattan office -W-2 Employee -Two month contract to start with full pay, then scale into a long-term role if it clicks Please see zhangcusick.com for more information