Shipping successfully targeted in Hormuz on...?

According to the latest prediction market data for the query “Shipping successfully targeted in Hormuz on...?”, traders have formed a strong consensus.

Currently, September 23 is dominating the market with an overwhelming 98.3% chance of winning. September 21 follows in second place at 93.3%, while September 26 sits in third with 61%. The betting volume for this specific market has already reached $74.1K, reflecting intense industry interest.

To better assess where each potential outcome stands, the market can be segmented into three distinct trading tiers based on implied probability and contract pricing:

🥇 Tier 1: The Dominant Leader

• September 23 (98.3%): Currently commanding the highest probability, September 23 is heavily favored by the order book. Traders looking to back this outcome face a “Buy Yes” contract price of 98¢, signaling a high degree of market conviction. This contract alone has generated $1.8K in volume.

🥈 Tier 2: The Primary Challengers

• September 21 (93.3%): Positioned as the most viable alternative, September 21 maintains a 93.3% chance of resolving true. Its “Buy Yes” shares currently trade at 93¢.
• September 26 (61%): Sitting in third place with a 61% probability, the market shows measured skepticism toward September 26, treating it as an outside wildcard unless momentum shifts.

🥉 Tier 3: The Long-Tail Options (Combining for ~0%)

Beyond the top three choices, a wide field of macro variables and long-shot outcomes are being tracked. While their individual probabilities hover low, they represent crucial hedges for speculative traders:

• Alternative Options: This includes September 25 (51.5%), September 29 (47.5%), and September 30 (40%).
• Speculative Volume: Despite low statistical likelihood, certain long-tail contracts like September 28 are still attracting notable interest.

This market will resolve to "Yes" if a kinetic strike is conducted on, or forceful seizure of control is taken of, a commercial ship within the defined area on the specified date, between 12:00 AM and 11:59 PM GST (UTC+04:00). Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".

The defined area consists of the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Gulf of Oman. An incident occurring outside these three bodies of water will not qualify, including in the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Aden, or the Red Sea.

No attribution is required. A qualifying incident will count regardless of the identity of the party responsible, regardless of whether any state or group claims responsibility, and regardless of whether responsibility is denied, disputed, or never established.

Attacks on military vessels will not be considered.

Missile/drone strikes targeting a ship that are intercepted or otherwise do not directly impact the vessel will not be considered, regardless of damage through debris.

Seize control refers to forcefully boarding and taking control of a commercial ship.

Qualifying incidents include, but are not limited to, drone and missile strikes, aerial bombings, and kinetic actions carried out by operatives in person. Damaged caused by mines will not qualify.

The primary resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible reporting.

The occurrence, location, and timing of a qualifying incident will be primarily determined based on a consensus of information available from the resolution sources. Where multiple sources conflict regarding the occurrence, location, or timing of a relevant incident, this market will remain open until the earlier of: i) the confirmation of the occurrence, location, and timing of the incident based on a consensus of information available from the resolution sources or ii) 3 full calendar days (GST) from the date of the first credibly reported evidence of the incident. If this period would extend past the end date, this market will remain open to allow for 3 full calendar days to pass. If, at the end of the third calendar day, conflicting reports remain as to the occurrence, location, or timing of the incident, the incident will be judged on the totality of information available from the resolution sources at that time. No single statement, denial, or presentation of evidence will govern where it is contradicted by the totality of information.

While human consensus and speculative volume shape the broader prediction market, our quantitative algorithms offer a data-driven counter-perspective. By analyzing fundamental signals, underlying trends and historical distributions, our AI Valuation model calculates an independent “Fair Value” probability for each outcome.

Comparing this Fair Value against the current Trade Value uncovers major disparities — known as the Expected Value (EV) Gap. Contracts with a positive EV Gap represent statistically underpriced outcomes, whereas a negative EV Gap flags a potential market overreaction.

Top AI Alpha & Mispriced Arbitrage Opportunities

Based on the latest data model run, several key contracts stand out with significant deviations:

• The Most Overvalued Outcome September 26 currently trades at 61%, but our AI places its Fair Value at just 42.4%. This creates a large negative EV Gap of -18.6%, suggesting the crowd may be overhyping this outcome and driving the premium too high.
• The Best Value Play (Highest EV) Our model identifies September 25 as the premium value opportunity on the board. While the market only assigns it a 51.5% trading probability, our AI’s Fair Value assessment sits at 90.9% — yielding an impressive +39.4% EV Gap.
• Under-the-Radar Dark Horses Other notable discrepancies include September 30 (EV Gap: +26.3%) and September 20 (EV Gap: +7.2%). These long-tail opportunities are heavily discounted by the live order books despite stronger statistical backing from our predictive model.