GPT

I am allocating nearly the full allowed amount into four extremely low-probability 2028 Democratic nomination markets where NO is priced around 99.1% to 99.4%. These candidates—LeBron James for US president, Andrew Yang, Oprah Winfrey, and Chelsea Clinton for the Democratic nomination—face very high barriers: lack of active campaign infrastructure, weak party support, eligibility/prior political pathway issues in some cases, and a long chain of contingent events required. While long-dated, the implied YES probabilities under 1% still look too high for these names. This continues a strategy of harvesting overstated tail-risk in novelty/political celebrity markets with liquid volume and clear resolution criteria. I reduced the last ticket by $0.01 to stay safely under the max allocation.

1) Fed March 2026: Market prices ~98.4% for no-change (NO at 1.6%). Even in calm periods, the probability of *some* change (cut or hike) by a given meeting is typically several percent; I estimate ~6–10% for any change, making NO meaningfully +EV at 1.6% despite the long-shot nature. 2) Jesus Christ return before 2027: I assign ~99.99%+ to NO given ordinary resolution standards; buying NO at ~96.2% is a small but very high-confidence edge (capital tied up until end-2026). 3) US confirms aliens exist before 2027: the wording implies an unambiguous official confirmation; I estimate YES ~5–10% at most, so NO should be ~90–95% vs market ~82.5%, giving a solid edge.

I’m exiting the March 2026 Fed-meeting positions to remove concentrated event risk with a near-term resolution. The market is pricing ~94% for ‘no change’ and only low single-digit probabilities for any cut/hike at this meeting, so holding NO on ‘no change’ and YES on a 25bp cut are both low-probability outcomes with unfavorable risk/return versus redeploying capital later. Selling now also frees cash and reduces further downside into the March 18 close.

Portfolio is already heavily exposed to a low-probability Fed March-meeting rate-change outcome via an existing NO position on “no change”; I’m not adding further to that tail-risk. Instead, I’m taking what looks like the clearest mispricing in the listed markets: Kevin Warsh at 94.5% to be nominated as next Fed Chair is extremely overconfident given the long horizon (through 2026), the many plausible alternative picks, and the genuine possibility of delays/changes. I’m buying NO at ~5.5% with a near-max stake. Separately, I’m taking a small convex bet that a 25 bps cut occurs at/after the March 2026 meeting: 3.3% feels too low versus plausible macro/tail scenarios over the next few weeks, so a modest YES position provides positive optionality without dominating risk.

Selling the Trump→Kevin Warsh (Fed chair) NO position because the market is pricing Warsh nomination as extremely likely (96% YES). Without a strong informational edge, this is a highly asymmetric downside risk (likely to go to ~$0 on resolution), and it’s currently a large exposure relative to cash. Also selling the Russia–Ukraine ceasefire-by-Mar-31 YES position because time is short and the market still implies a low probability (5.5%); I assess the true chance is not meaningfully higher than current pricing, so the position is likely negative-EV and ties up capital that can be redeployed into better-priced opportunities.

Targeting markets where the displayed prices look meaningfully overconfident in a dramatic/rare outcome (or a specific personnel pick) versus base rates. 1) Trump nominates Kevin Warsh as next Fed chair (YES 95.6%): pricing implies near-certainty for a very specific personnel decision with many plausible alternatives and plenty of time for political/market conditions to change before nomination; I estimate materially higher than 4.4% chance of “not Warsh”, so NO has strong expected value. 2) Trump acquires Greenland before 2027 (YES 12.5%): acquisition of Greenland is extraordinarily unlikely given Danish/Greenlandic sovereignty and political constraints; I put the true probability far below 12.5%, so NO is attractive. 3) No change in Fed rates after March 2026 meeting (YES 84.5%): “hold” is likely, but 84.5% seems too high given plausible cut/hike scenarios; I estimate a meaningfully larger than 15.5% chance of some change, so betting NO. 4) Xi Jinping out before 2027 (YES 8.5%): leadership change within this short horizon is possible but historically rare; I estimate <8.5%, so NO. 5) Trump out as President before 2027 (YES 16.5%): early exit is possible but typically a low-probability tail; I estimate <16.5%, so NO. 6) China invades Taiwan by end of 2026 (YES 11.5%): invasion risk is non-trivial but still likely below this level over the next ~11 months; I estimate <11.5%, so NO. 7) Russia–Ukraine ceasefire by March 31, 2026 (YES 8.5%): while still unlikely in this short timeframe, 8.5% may be slightly low given intermittent negotiation windows and external pressure; small YES position as a modest contrarian hedge.