Will Trump publicly insult someone on...?

根据「Will Trump publicly insult someone on...?」的最新预测市场数据，交易者已形成强烈共识。

目前，August 25 以压倒性的 94.5% 获胜概率主导市场；August 19 以 93.5% 位居第二，August 28 以 92% 排名第三。该市场的下注量已达 $49K，反映出市场的高度关注。

为了更好地评估各潜在结果的位置，可依据隐含概率与合约定价将市场划分为三个明显的交易梯队：

🥇 第一梯队：绝对领跑者

• August 25 (94.5%)：August 25 目前拥有最高概率，深受订单簿青睐。看好该结果的交易者面对的「Buy Yes」合约价为 95¢，显示出市场的高度确信。仅该合约就已产生 $4.2K 的成交量。

🥈 第二梯队：主要挑战者

• August 19 (93.5%)：作为最可行的替代选项，August 19 保持着 93.5% 的成真概率，其「Buy Yes」份额目前成交价为 94¢。
• August 28 (92%)：以 92% 的概率位列第三，市场对 August 28 持谨慎怀疑态度，除非势头转变，否则视其为外围黑马。

🥉 第三梯队：长尾选项（合计约 0%）

在前三名之外，还有大量宏观变量与冷门结果被持续追踪。尽管单个概率偏低，但它们是投机交易者的重要对冲：

• 替代选项：包括 August 27 (90.5%)、August 26 (90%)，以及 August 12 (89.5%)。
• 投机成交：尽管统计概率偏低，像 August 14 这类长尾合约仍吸引着可观的关注。

This market will resolve to "Yes" if Donald Trump makes a public statement in which he insults any non-fictional individual on the specified date (ET). Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".

A public statement is any written, verbal, or recorded statement which is either made in a public setting, published by the speaker, or on the record to media, and the direct language of which is made publicly available. Statements made in private that are subsequently leaked will not qualify, even if credibly reported. Narrations and paraphrasings do not qualify.

Images and videos posted on verified social media accounts will only qualify if they contain insulting language clearly directed at the individual, whether within the content itself or in an accompanying caption. A quote post will only qualify if added language independently qualifies as an insult; a repost of another account's post will not qualify.

A public statement qualifies as an insult if it mocks, degrades, or disparages the individual either personally or professionally. This includes calling the individual a clearly insulting trait (e.g., weak, stupid, disloyal, a failure), using an insulting nickname (e.g., Crooked Hillary), using other clearly derogatory language, or using the negative form of a positive trait in a clearly derogatory manner (e.g., “He isn’t smart”, “He has no judgment”). Disparaging the individual in their professional capacity will qualify (e.g., "He is a disaster candidate," "He is terrible at his job"); however, negative comments directed at the individual's specific actions, policies, or decisions will not qualify (e.g., "He has bad policies," "He is wrong about healthcare").

A statement made in direct reference to the individual will qualify even if they are not named, so long as it is reasonably clear from context that they are the subject.

The resolution sources will be public statements made by Donald Trump and a consensus of credible reporting.

人群共识与投机成交塑造了更宏观的预测市场，而我们的量化算法提供了数据驱动的反向视角。通过分析基本面信号、底层趋势与历史分布，我们的 AI 估值模型为每个结果独立测算出一个「公允价值」概率。

将该公允价值与当前交易价值对比，可揭示出重大背离——即期望值（EV）差。正 EV 差代表统计上被低估的结果，而负 EV 差则提示市场可能存在反应过度。

顶级 AI Alpha 与错误定价套利机会

根据最新一轮数据模型测算，以下几个关键合约存在显著偏离：

• 最被高估的结果：August 31 当前交易价为 86.5%，但我们的 AI 测算其公允价值仅为 72.4%，形成 -14.1% 的较大负 EV 差，表明人群可能过度炒作该结果、把溢价推得过高。
• 最佳价值标的（最高 EV）：我们的模型将 August 21 识别为盘面上最具价值的机会。市场仅给予其 71.5% 的交易概率，而我们 AI 的公允价值评估为 84.5%——形成可观的 +13% EV 差。
• 被忽视的黑马：其他值得注意的偏离包括 August 9（EV 差：+5.5%）以及 August 17（EV 差：+4.1%）。尽管我们的预测模型给予更强的统计支撑，这些长尾机会仍被实时订单簿大幅低估。