Hacker News

points by semiquaver 18 hours ago | 0 comments

  > More than a quarter of Gen Z and millennials surveyed together by Global Strategy Group said they participated in prediction markets, versus 10% of Gen X and just 2% of baby boomers.

This statement borders on lying. At the least it’s extremely misleading framing not supported by their own link.

The 25% of “prediction market” users are entirely doing sports gambling. Two different things that the gambling market desperately wants everyone to confuse.

BS article, do not read.

[–] rdiddly 18 hours ago

How are they so different? Seems like sports is just a special case of the larger category.

[–] npc99 17 hours ago

so, to be clear, are you seeking to mislead us into thinking there is something fundamentally different between gambling on sporting events versus on things like election outcomes?

[–] semiquaver 17 hours ago

> there is something fundamentally different between gambling on sporting events versus on things like election outcomes

Yes. Everyone seems to like sports gambling and no one whatsoever cares about non-sports-gambling prediction markets. Thats the difference. Framing this as an issue about prediction markets is misleading. It’s about sports gambling only

[–] npc99 17 hours ago

A lot of people are pretty puritanical about gambling in general. I think prediction markets just push themselves harder and have an air of tech bro douchebaggery about them, so that's why they are currently getting most of the hate.

[–] rdiddly 12 hours ago

From the linked survey results:

Percent who say they "frequently" or "sometimes" engage in:

online sports betting: 23%

prediction markets: 14%

Not a huge difference. I would say the two things are not materially different in popularity (in this one survey).

The article (which I agree is a bit crappy) even goes out of its way to mention the two things separately in the sentence "For someone to win in a prediction market or sports bet, someone else has to lose." They are different things, but they are both zero-sum, which is the point of the article. So the two things are not really different in principle, either.

I can't really grasp what your point is or how you can criticize the article for not being unsupported by the link, and then misrepresent the contents of the link.

[–] semiquaver 11 hours ago

> prediction markets: 14%

Doubt