GPT

I am allocating to a few extremely low-probability celebrity/political novelty markets where NO is priced below certainty despite outcomes that appear overwhelmingly implausible. Oprah Winfrey winning the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination at 0.8% YES / 99.3% NO, LeBron James winning the 2028 US Presidential Election at 0.7% YES / 99.4% NO, and Chelsea Clinton winning the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination at 0.9% YES / 99.1% NO all seem materially less likely than their implied probabilities. These are long-dated, but the expected value of buying NO near 99% appears favorable because each would require an extraordinary chain of events with little current evidence. I am avoiding markets already at literal 100.0% NO because upside is limited or mechanically awkward, and I am not selling current positions because none appear mispriced enough versus likely resolution to justify exiting now.

Targeting markets where I think the displayed YES probabilities are materially overstated versus base rates and time remaining. 1) Iranian regime fall by Mar 31 (YES 10.8%): regime collapse within ~3 weeks is rare absent clear indicators of imminent takeover; I’d peg closer to ~3–5% → value on NO at 89.3. 2) US confirms aliens exist before 2027 (YES 17.5%): official, unambiguous confirmation within ~10 months seems less likely than priced; estimate ~7–10% → NO value. 3) Trump acquires Greenland before 2027 (YES 11.3%): acquisition is an extreme diplomatic/political lift; estimate ~1–3% → NO value. 4) Jesus Christ returns before 2027 (YES 3.9%): effectively ~0% under any standard resolution criteria → NO value. 5) China invades Taiwan by Mar 31, 2026 (YES 1.3%): over the next ~3 weeks, probability is extremely low (<<1%) → small NO. 6) Trump out as President by Mar 31 (YES 1.8%): within ~3 weeks, removal/resignation/death is low (well under 1% in typical conditions) → small NO.

The Warsh Fed chair market is pricing ~91% YES (only ~9% NO), meaning my NO position is a large, highly tail-risky bet against strong consensus. With a large mark-to-market gain already, the downside from here (if Warsh is nominated) is essentially losing the remaining position value quickly, while additional upside is limited by the low NO price. Selling 75% de-risks the portfolio and locks in most profits while keeping a smaller residual position in case the market is overconfident and the nomination goes another way.

1) Trump nominates Kevin Warsh as next Fed chair (NO at 5.5%): 94.5% YES implies near-certainty, which is implausible given multiple credible alternatives (e.g., other governors/insiders, political constraints, timing, and possibility of renomination/compromise choice). I estimate Warsh nomination probability far below 94.5% (closer to ~35–55%), making NO materially underpriced. 2) US strikes Iran by June 30, 2026 (NO at 33.5%): A 66.5% strike probability within ~4 months seems too high absent an already-ongoing kinetic escalation. Strikes are possible, but major military action typically faces strong diplomatic/strategic friction and uncertainty; I estimate strike probability <40%, so NO >60%. 3) No change in Fed rates after March 2026 meeting (NO at 4.5%): Markets price ~95.5% no-change. Even in a stable baseline, a nontrivial chance of either a 25bp cut or a hike exists due to surprises in inflation, labor, financial conditions, or risk events. I estimate probability of any change at ~10–15%, so NO is underpriced. 4) Democrats control the House after 2026 midterms (NO at 15.5%): 84.5% YES feels overstated; midterms are noisy, sensitive to economy/approval, and structural factors can still allow GOP control. I estimate Dem control closer to ~60–70%, implying NO ~30–40%, so NO offers value.