Polymarket Predictions – Are They Really That Accurate?

A New Lens on Global Events, But Not Without Its Blind Spots

Polymarket has carved out a unique position in the modern information ecosystem as a decentralized prediction market. It allows users to wager money on the outcomes of real-world events, effectively turning the process of speculation into a form of data generation. From geopolitical developments and high-stakes elections to cultural contests like Eurovision, Polymarket users trade “yes” or “no” shares priced according to perceived probabilities. These prices shift in real time, guided by the financial decisions of thousands of participants.

But how accurate is it really? The answer is nuanced. In some cases, Polymarket has outpaced traditional forecasting tools, particularly in political contexts. In others, especially where information is sparse or outcomes are highly subjective, it has faltered. Understanding where and why Polymarket succeeds or fails requires a closer look at the platform’s structure, its user behavior, and the context in which it’s applied.

A Market Built on Information and Incentives

Polymarket runs on the Polygon blockchain and uses the USDC stablecoin for transactions. This infrastructure supports its decentralized model, where users essentially speculate on future outcomes by buying and selling shares in response to posed questions. For example, “Will candidate X win the election?” or “Will country Y default on its debt by the end of the year?”

The price of each outcome reflects market consensus: if “yes” shares are trading at $0.70, that implies a 70% perceived probability of that outcome. Since participants can profit from being right, they are financially motivated to research, anticipate changes, and act quickly. This incentive structure can drive rapid and sometimes surprisingly accurate responses to unfolding events.

Unlike traditional polling, where participants often have no real stake in their answers, Polymarket introduces a cost to being wrong. That distinction can produce sharper, more timely insights – especially when news breaks quickly and narratives shift in real time. It’s an application of the “wisdom of crowds” principle, made liquid and measurable.

Political Forecasting

Polymarket has demonstrated particular strength in fast-moving political environments. During the 2022 U.S. midterms, the platform anticipated a Republican win in the House before many polling aggregators adjusted their models. Similarly, for the 2024 U.S. presidential election, traders on the platform closer to the election dismissed Kamala Harris as a serious contender, and correctly favored Donald Trump.

This call stood in contrast to much of the mainstream media, which portrayed the race as more competitive. That contrast points to one of Polymarket’s strengths: it’s not constrained by reputational risk or editorial narratives. It reflects what people believe, not what they feel comfortable saying in public or within politically charged contexts.

However, while Polymarket was directionally accurate, it did misjudge the magnitude, slightly underestimating Trump’s share of the popular vote. This may have been influenced by memories of the 2016 election, where Trump won via the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote. The misalignment serves as a reminder: even when correct on the outcome, markets can be wrong on the details.

Missed Calls and Misplaced Confidence

But Polymarket’s successes are balanced by some notable failures. The selection of Robert Prevost as the new Pope blindsided not only the global media but also Polymarket traders. Up until the very last moments before the announcement, Cardinal Pietro Parolin was priced with a 63.5% chance of victory, followed by Luis Antonio Tagle at 25.4%. Prevost, by contrast, had a microscopic 0.3% chance.

In tightly controlled, opaque processes like papal conclaves, the market lacks the kind of real-time feedback and leaks that allow it to function effectively. The wisdom of crowds is of limited value when the crowd has nothing to go on. This incident also reveals a potential danger: that Polymarket odds may reflect speculative echo chambers rather than grounded assessments, especially in domains where hard information is scarce or non-existent.

Herding, Liquidity, and Market Distortion

The 2025 Romanian presidential election further exposed the platform’s mixed reliability. Crin Antonescu was initially the favored candidate to face George Simion in the second round, based on both polling and Polymarket activity. But as the vote count began and results trickled in, momentum visibly shifted toward Nicușor Dan. Polymarket users responded quickly, betting heavily in his favor and eventually correcting the odds.

In the runoff between Simion and Dan, similar dynamics played out. While Simion entered as the slight favorite, live data on election day again pushed the market toward Dan. This shows how Polymarket can adapt in real time – but it also points to how heavily it relies on incoming data streams. Without them, the market can misprice risk for hours or even days.

An even more concerning aspect was the outsized influence of a small number of traders. Transparency tools revealed that the two largest holders of “yes” shares for Simion were also the largest holders of “no” shares for Dan. This kind of double exposure can create artificial confidence in one outcome, simply because of capital concentration. In small or medium-sized markets, a few aggressive positions can distort the signal that Polymarket aims to provide.

Polish Election and the Problem of Premature Certainty

Polymarket’s performance during Poland’s 2025 presidential election highlighted its recurring struggle with premature consensus. In the runoff between Rafał Trzaskowski and Karol Nawrocki, the market gave Trzaskowski an overwhelming 80% chance of victory by election day. Nawrocki’s odds lingered at just 20%, despite both candidates signaling the race would be razor-close.

Only after a late poll hit at 11 p.m. local time – when Nawrocki’s victory became nearly certain – did the market adjust. By then, many bettors had scrambled to recoup losses, reinforcing just how slowly markets can react when sentiment gets locked in too early.

Ironically, at the beginning of the second-round campaign, Polymarket came closer to the truth. For a brief moment, Nawrocki was even the favorite. Yet users abandoned that signal in favor of a premature narrative.

The market also exhibited signs of manipulation in the early days. With no clear frontrunners yet announced, a group of users placed early bets on fringe figures like Romuald Starosielec, Waldemar Witkowski, and Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk. None of them ultimately ran. The effect resembled a “pump-and-dump” scheme, common in crypto and equities markets: draw in uninformed bettors with inflated odds, then exit. In this case, it somewhat worked – some users took the bait, but they didn’t bet big.

Cultural Contests and Subjective Judgments

Polymarket also ventures into cultural predictions, such as the Eurovision Song Contest. These events are harder to forecast objectively because they mix taste, geopolitics, and performance dynamics. In 2025, the platform followed mainstream betting markets and placed Sweden’s KAJ as the clear favorite. Austria’s JJ and France’s Louane were next in line.

But the final results surprised everyone. Austria’s JJ won, thanks to strong jury support, while Israel’s Yuval Raphael – who had been largely ignored by Polymarket – made a dramatic rise during the public vote count. Once again, the market failed to adjust quickly to a developing trend, in part because of herd behavior and over-reliance on conventional wisdom. The subjective nature of music competitions makes them uniquely difficult for prediction markets, but the failure to even account for dark-horse possibilities suggests that Polymarket’s crowd can sometimes be narrow-minded, not farsighted.

Structural Limitations and Legal Gray Zones

Accuracy on Polymarket is deeply tied to liquidity. When many users are trading, the platform becomes more reliable, responsive, and reflective of broader sentiment. In niche or low-interest markets, however, the odds can be misleading. Low volume opens the door for manipulation and can magnify the influence of a few confident bettors.

Polymarket has found itself in the crosshairs of regulators around the world. A central issue lies in the platform’s use of decentralized, crypto-based prediction markets, which many governments classify as unregulated gambling. Because users are staking real money – albeit in the form of stablecoins like USDC – on the outcomes of real-world events, authorities often view the platform as operating without proper licensing.

Polymarket has faced a series of international bans, with countries like Poland, Singapore, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Thailand, and Taiwan blocking or planning to block the platform due to violations of local gambling laws and concerns over unregulated crypto-based betting. These actions reflect a growing regulatory pushback against decentralized prediction markets operating without proper licenses.

These actions underline a growing global resistance to crypto-based betting platforms that fall outside established legal frameworks. The core challenge is that Polymarket operates in a gray area. It is not a traditional bookmaker, but it enables the same financial behaviors using blockchain and decentralized technology. Governments, in turn, are increasingly unwilling to tolerate this ambiguity – especially given concerns about consumer protection, illicit finance, and market manipulation.

Polymarket vs. Traditional Polls

Polymarket is often framed as an alternative to traditional polling. In reality, it works best when viewed as a complementary resource. Polls use structured sampling and statistical models to paint a picture of what people believe, while Polymarket reflects what people are willing to bet on. That added financial commitment often brings sharper discipline to predictions, but it doesn’t eliminate bias, noise, or irrational behavior.

In high-volume, high-information contexts, Polymarket can outperform traditional forecasts, even sometimes dramatically. In more obscure or emotionally charged environments, its predictive power weakens. Still, when used together with traditional tools, prediction markets can offer early signals, detect shifts in public mood, and surface scenarios that might otherwise be ignored.

Ultimately, Polymarket doesn’t promise certainty. What it offers is a real-time mirror of informed conviction – tempered by liquidity, shaped by information flow, and sometimes distorted by overconfidence. For observers of politics, economics, or culture, it’s a useful lens. But like any lens, it has its own distortions.