Kalshi is not evidence. Shut the fuck up, Harry Enten


I really, really, really dislike Harry Enten, the annoyingly hyperkinetic weirdo on CNN who stands in front of an image board and waves at poll numbers and tells us how important they are. I despise all the poll nonsense on the news media — learn to talk about issues and policy rather than the horserace. Now it’s gotten even worse, because he’s not babbling about legitimate, credible polls, it’s all about numbers extracted from prediction markets, which are also paying the networks for promotion.

Since December, CNN has featured Kalshi in a segment called “The Odds” at least 115 times. In these segments, Harry Enten, CNN’s chief data analyst, frequently suggests that Kalshi predictions are more accurate than other sources. While polling relies on volunteers, Enten repeatedly reminds CNN viewers that prediction markets are driven by people who “put their money where their mouth is.”

On January 7, Enten highlighted that, in six days, the odds on Kalshi that the United States would buy part of Greenland by the end of Trump’s first term increased from 12% to 36%. Enten said this was proof that “the people putting their money where their mouth is” are “absolutely taking this seriously.”

“Whoa… way up there now to 36%,” Enten exclaimed. “A tripling in less than a week. My goodness gracious.”

Wishful thinking by gullible people is not evidence.

The good news is that some people are trying to take down these corrupt companies.

On Monday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed a total ban on futures trading platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket. The Trump administration filed a lawsuit Tuesday to prevent the ban from going into place on Aug. 1, with the CFTC arguing its authority supersedes the state’s ability to regulate futures trading. Notably, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. is a strategic advisor for Kalshi and has invested in Polymarket through his venture capital firm.

You can tell that Kalshi and Polymarket are not to be trusted just by looking at the scumbags who are investing in it. They’re parasites all the way through. It makes me suspicious of the Young Turks that they are also taking Polymarket money.

These are just barely legal gambling sites. Let’s make them illegal.

P.S. There is no evidence that we are imminently going to get evidence that aliens exist.

Comments

  1. Reginald Selkirk says

    Kalshi and Polymarket have two kinds of users – those who are gullible, and those who have inside information.

    So: does someone out there have inside information on the existence of aliens? I have seen the evidence released, and it is not convincing. Furthermore, the people pushing it’s aliens looked at the same evidence and found it convincing, in the process proving that they do not understand simple concepts such as parallax and bokeh. Which tells me: if there is additional evidence that has not been released, I have no reason to think the alien-pushers have interpreted it correctly.

  2. raven says

    Since these are prediction markets, they should be amenable to simple scoring for how accurate they are.
    Which has been done already. Here is one example.

    dlnews.com

    Are Polymarket and Kalshi as reliable as they say? Not quite, study warns
    Prediction markets have been touted as the future of forecasting.

    Are Polymarket and Kalshi as reliable as they say? Not quite, study warns
    By Pedro Solimano 5 December 2025 at 12:14

    A new study by researchers Joshua Clinton and TzuFeng Huang at Vanderbilt University suggests that booming prediction markets aren’t nearly as accurate at predicting the future as their proponents claim.

    Researchers examined 2,500 markets with $2.5 billion in volume across leading platforms such as Polymarket, Kalshi, and New Zealand-based PredictIt.

    They defined the accuracy of a market by how closely a market’s odds lined up with what ended up happening — the better the match, the more accurate the market.

    The conclusion?

    Polymarket got only 67% of markets right, while Kalshi hit 78%, and PredictIt scored 93% accuracy.

    Despite being the largest exchange, Polymarket “has the least” amount of accuracy, researchers wrote. Kalshi followed, and then PredictIt.

    The two largest ones, get some right and some wrong.
    Polymarket is 67%
    Kalshi is 78%

    What is lacking here is a control group.
    How accurate at forecasting are 5 university professors or 5 crystal ball mediums or 5 whoevers that claim to be able to forecast the future by using knowledge, common sense, or super powers, compared to the betting market ones.

  3. larpar says

    Dose Enten know that most gamblers lose? That’s why casinos* and betting sites make money.
    *Unless it’s run by Trump.

  4. numerobis says

    The bet isn’t whether aliens exist. It’s whether the US declares that aliens exist. Which grifters can actually do at will.

    Yes the sites should be banned but the currently leadership are making bank on them, and that’s all they care about.

  5. fishy says

    There is still a 100% chance Trump wants to nuke a hurricane just to see what happens.

  6. AstrySol says

    Of course aliens exist… whose deportation is being ramped up by the orange menace from day one. And I really don’t have confidence that the casino will not push for this definition even if it is convenient.

  7. Pierce R. Butler says

    larpar @ # 3: … casinos* …make money. *Unless … run by Trump.

    We don’t have all the numbers, & I don’t have the acumen to analyze them well – but from scattered reports of junk-bond financing, shady bookkeeping, money laundering, transfer of debt from other Trump™ operations, etc, I strongly suspect the one person you named came out ahead.

    An adequate investigation would add up to a full-employment program for forensic accountants for over a decade (not even counting what we’ll need for you-know-who’s post-casino enterprises).

  8. John Morales says

    “Some dark personality traits may help the body handle stress more easily, finds new study”

    That’s precisely the very same claim as
    “Some dark personality traits may not help the body handle stress more easily, finds new study”

    (Silly headline, no?)

  9. Dunc says

    Kalshi and Polymarket have two kinds of users – those who are gullible, and those who have inside information.

    Three (main) kinds of users actually – those who are gullible, those who have inside information, and those who are using these sites as a means of manipulating the perception of public opinion. The “odds” they produce, which news organisations are now treating as equivalent to (if not better than) opinion polling, can be trivially manipulated by anybody with deep enough pockets – indeed, that is the whole point. The mistake is to think that anybody “putting their money where their mouth is” is always going be primarily concerned with not losing, when in fact the very, very rich are perfectly happy to spend a lot of money to manipulate public opinion.It’s like an opinion poll in which you can literally just buy whatever outcome you want, if you’re rich enough!

    There are also other issues, starting with how they decide what options you can bet on, all the way through to how they decide what “actually” happened: Prediction Laundering: The Illusion of Neutrality, Transparency, and Governance in Polymarket

    The growing reliance on prediction markets as epistemic infrastructures has positioned platforms like Polymarket as providers of objective, real-time probabilistic truth. However, the authoritative signals produced by these platforms often obscure the underlying uncertainty, strategic manipulation, and capital asymmetries inherent in their production, leading to an inappropriate epistemic trust by external observers. This paper presents a qualitative sociotechnical audit of Polymarket (N=27), combining digital ethnography with interpretive walkthroughs and semi-structured interviews to examine how probabilistic authority is enacted and contested. We introduce the concept of ”Prediction Laundering”, drawing on MacFarlane’s framework of knowledge transmission, to describe the sociotechnical process by which subjective, high-uncertainty bets, strategic hedges, and capital-heavy whale movements are scrubbed of their original noise and personal stakes through algorithmic aggregation. We trace this process through a four-stage laundering lifecycle that begins with ”Structural Sanitization”, where a centralized ontology scripts the boundaries of the bet-able future. This is followed by ”Probabilistic Flattening”, where the interface collapses heterogeneous motives. The third stage, ”Architectural Masking”, utilizes selective opacity to hide capital-driven influence behind a mirage of crowdsourced consensus. Finally, the process concludes with ”Epistemic Hardening”, where messy governance disputes are erased to produce an objective historical fact.

  10. StevoR says

    Red Bull certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth – not that I drink it – after what they ddi tomark Webber and Danny Ric in F1.

Leave a Reply