Can You Make a Steady Profit by Blindly Following Polymarket's Pre-Game Win Probability to Bet on NBA Games?

marsbitPublished on 2026-04-17Last updated on 2026-04-17

Abstract

The article investigates whether blindly betting on NBA teams with higher pre-game win probabilities on Polymarket guarantees profits. Backtesting data from the 2025-26 regular season (1,096 games) shows that a strategy of consistently betting $100 on the team with the higher pre-game probability resulted in a net loss of $2,054 (ROI: -1.87%), indicating that the market is efficient and prices are accurately set. Further analysis reveals that returns varied significantly by team. Certain teams, such as the Trail Blazers (POR, 19% ROI), 76ers (PHI, 14%), Spurs (SAS, 12%), Lakers (LAL, 11%), and Hornets (CHA, 9%), consistently outperformed market expectations when favored. In contrast, top-performing teams like the Celtics, Knicks, and Nugks had ROIs close to zero or negative, showing their probabilities were efficiently priced. The weakest teams showed extreme ROI variations but had insufficient sample sizes for reliable conclusions. The key takeaway is that blindly following pre-game probabilities is not a profitable strategy overall, but targeting specific teams may yield better results.

When trading NBA games on Polymarket, perhaps you, like many others, have had this experience: before the game, you see one team's win probability is significantly higher than their opponent's, only for them to collapse in the fourth quarter and get swept away (like the recent Hornets and Heat game—I lost so much on that bet I started questioning my life).

Since everyone says Polymarket is a "truth machine," does that mean I can just blindly bet on the team with the higher pre-game win probability and easily make money?

To test this hypothesis, I backtested the 1,096 regular-season games of the NBA 2025-26 season. The data reveals the truth—

Blindly following the market won't make you money, but you won't lose much either; the pre-game probabilities are fully priced in.

Blindly Buying with the Market Guarantees a Loss

The backtesting strategy was very simple:

Used the average probability from 3 minutes before the game as a benchmark
Traded $100 per game
Always bought the side with the "higher win probability"

Results:

Total amount spent: $109,600; total amount returned: $107,545.2; net loss: $2,054
ROI: -1.87%

This shows that Polymarket's prices are quite efficient; the market has fully priced in the teams' win probabilities, leaving no "arbitrage" opportunity.

The difference in ROI likely comes from other dimensions like transaction costs and emotional premiums. If you insist on "buying blindly," you might as well bet against the market; that would yield a 1.87% profit.

The Real Value: Not All Teams Are Created Equal

The above backtest was for the overall sample of a thousand games. I then broke it down from multiple angles to try and find parts that break free from the market's gravity:

By week: Random walk
By probability: Still a random walk. That is, betting on pre-game win probabilities of 50%, 60%, versus 70%, 80% showed no difference in returns.
By team: Here, clear differences emerged.

Some teams live up to the market's trust—

When the market thinks they will win, they are more likely to actually win.

POR (Trail Blazers): ROI 19%
PHI (76ers): ROI 14%
SAS (Spurs): ROI 12%
LAL (Lakers): ROI 11%
CHA (Hornets): ROI 9%

Why do these teams show such differences? As the author previously had little knowledge of NBA teams, I first had a hypothesis:

Are they the strongest or the weakest teams, thus having high expectation consistency?

But upon checking, the facts proved otherwise. Except for SAS (Spurs), the other four teams are only ranked in the middle to slightly above average positions.

What about the teams with the best records? Actually, the market has already fully priced them in. The average ROI from blindly buying their higher probability is only 2.16%; the pre-game betting probabilities contain no水分 (water).

DET (Pistons): ROI 1%
BOS (Celtics): ROI 4%
NYK (Knicks): ROI 3%
OKC (Thunder): ROI -2%
DEN (Nuggets): ROI -5%

What about the weakest?

Here, there's extreme divergence. These teams hardly ever have games where the market favors them to win. For example, the Nets (BKN) only had 7 games with a win probability greater than 50%, won 5 of them, resulting in an ROI of 21%; whereas the Pacers (IND) had only 8 games greater than 50%, won 4, but had an ROI of -20%. The sample size is too small to serve as a trading reference.

This means, theoretically (only theoretically!), POR (Trail Blazers), PHI (76ers), SAS (Spurs), LAL (Lakers), and CHA (Hornets) are the range划定 (delineated) by the existing data for following.

Trending Cryptos

CitreaCTR

wrapped stUSDTWSTUSDT

Velodrome FinanceVELODROME

BrevisBREV

ZRX（0X）ZRX

Ethena price prediction: Will the $0.08 zone keep ENA’s recovery alive?

The Ethena (ENA) price has risen 14.11% from its July 8 low, recovering the $0.08 resistance zone to trade at $0.082. Despite this recent gain, the overall trend remains bearish, with the token down 94% from its all-time high. Positive developments include the launch of the Robinhood Earn feature, where ENA represented over 70% of user asset allocations, significantly boosting the Robinhood Chain's TVL. However, a large transfer of 1.231 billion ENA ($94 million) between unknown wallets created mixed signals. Technical analysis shows long-term bearish dominance, with price action below key former support. The ongoing bounce from $0.08 requires sustained buying pressure to continue. Key resistance is seen at the $0.105-$0.125 zone. Analysts suggest a potential bounce to that zone could present a selling opportunity, while current price levels offer unclear risk-reward for swing traders. The $0.08 level is crucial for keeping the recovery alive.

ambcrypto23m ago

Ethena price prediction: Will the $0.08 zone keep ENA’s recovery alive?

ambcrypto23m ago

Claude Accused of Becoming Dumber by the Entire Internet, Anthropic Steps In to Reveal: It’s Not the Model That’s Tricking You

When users complained that Claude was "getting dumber," the root cause wasn't the AI model itself. In an official blog post, Anthropic clarified the critical difference between two key settings in Claude Code: Model and Effort. Model refers to the core "brain"—the fixed, trained weights of a specific AI (like Sonnet, Opus, or Fable). Changing the Model addresses *capability* ("can it do this?"), but its knowledge is static post-training. Effort, however, controls the AI's *approach and thoroughness* for a specific task. A higher Effort level instructs Claude to read more files, run tests, perform verification, and complete multi-step reasoning before responding, significantly increasing its "work output" for that job. Conversely, low Effort leads to quicker, less thorough replies. This distinction explains the March 2024 uproar where users experienced a sudden drop in Claude's performance. The cause was not a model change but Anthropic quietly lowering the *default* Effort setting from "high" to "medium" to reduce latency, which was later reverted. The key insight is that a smaller, capable model (like Sonnet) on high Effort can often outperform a larger, more powerful model (like Opus) on low Effort for many tasks. The article provides a practical troubleshooting framework: if Claude makes an error, first check the context and instructions. If it seems to skip necessary steps or validations, increase Effort. If it diligently attempts the task but fails conceptually or makes consistent factual errors despite good context, then consider switching to a more capable Model. The takeaway is a shift in focus: effective AI programming is less about always choosing the "strongest" model and more about intelligently *orchestrating* models and effort levels—acting like a project manager to assign the right "brain" with the right level of diligence for each job, optimizing both results and cost.

marsbit29m ago

Claude Accused of Becoming Dumber by the Entire Internet, Anthropic Steps In to Reveal: It’s Not the Model That’s Tricking You

marsbit29m ago

Will the Ethereum Foundation Evolve into a 'Mascot'? Diversified Organizations Are Fragmenting Its Functions

The Ethereum Foundation (EF) is undergoing significant internal turmoil and functional erosion. Following its largest-ever layoff of 54 staff (20% of its workforce) and a major organizational restructuring announced in June, its Protocol Support Team has been officially dissolved. This comes alongside the high-profile resignation of key figures like co-executive director Xiaowei Wang, bringing senior departures this year to at least eight. Criticism of EF's rigid structure, opaque decision-making, and perceived lack of a clear value narrative for ETH has intensified within the community. The layoffs have catalyzed the emergence of independent, non-profit organizations like Ethlabs and Ethereum Institutional, founded by former EF researchers and members. These entities are now taking on core functions such as protocol research/development and institutional adoption, effectively fragmenting the EF's traditional leadership role. Concurrently, EF's security team is adapting to technological change, deploying specialized AI agents to audit Ethereum's codebase, which successfully discovered a critical vulnerability (CVE-2026-34219). While EF states AI complements rather than replaces researchers, it signals a potential future shift in its operational model. Faced with these challenges—internal restructuring, talent drain, the rise of competing organizations, and AI integration—the Ethereum Foundation appears to be stepping back from a central commanding role. Analysts and community observers speculate it may increasingly transition towards a symbolic "ecosystem mascot" function, while decentralized initiatives drive Ethereum's future growth and institutional adoption.

marsbit55m ago

Will the Ethereum Foundation Evolve into a 'Mascot'? Diversified Organizations Are Fragmenting Its Functions

marsbit55m ago

Is LIT’s burn worth $42 million enough to spur the altcoin’s next big rally?

Lighter (LIT) has experienced significant volatility, rallying 18% over the past week but facing potential overbought conditions. After a warning of a correction toward $2, the price dipped to $2.3 before recovering to $2.60. A major catalyst was the recent burn of over 15.6 million LIT tokens (worth ~$42 million), representing 6.3% of the circulating supply, which may have spurred short-term bullish momentum toward $3. Technical analysis on the 1-day chart shows a bearish divergence with the RSI, signaling a potential pullback despite strong demand. The key Fibonacci retracement level to watch is $2.30. On the 4-hour chart, LIT is forming a range between $2.31 and $2.68. The suggested strategy is to wait for a breakout above $2.70 to target $3.06-$3.21, or a breakdown below $2.31 for a likely deeper retracement below $2. In summary, while bullish momentum persists, traders should monitor the range boundaries for the next directional move.

ambcrypto3h ago

Is LIT’s burn worth $42 million enough to spur the altcoin’s next big rally?

ambcrypto3h ago

Nearly a Hundred Players Rush into Embodied Data: With 4.47 Billion Yuan in Financing in One Year, Who Can Really Make Money by 'Selling Data'?

The domestic embodied AI data industry has attracted nearly 100 players, with 70 focused on data collection and 27 on data infrastructure. In the past year, 15 independent embodied data service providers raised approximately 4.47 billion yuan. Despite this growth, the sector remains early-stage, fragmented, and faces significant challenges. Data collection methods are diverse, categorized into four main routes: teleoperation of real robots, human demonstration without a robot (using motion capture, exoskeletons, etc.), simulation synthesis, and distillation from internet videos. Most companies (43%) adopt hybrid approaches, combining multiple routes, as no single method can meet all training needs. Teleoperation alone is pursued by 31% of players, often by state-owned platforms and robot companies, while newer firms favor asset-light, no-hardware human demonstration. Independent data service providers now form the largest player group (40%), indicating the emergence of a distinct industry segment rather than just a subsidiary function for robot makers. Two-thirds of all players are "embodied-native" startups, while one-third are companies that pivoted from fields like AI data annotation, which are more prevalent in the data infrastructure layer. Current annual industry capacity is estimated at 1.6-1.8 million hours plus 70-80 million data points, with a short-term goal to increase this 15-20 fold within 1-3 years. Data collection factories are spread across 20 provinces in China, concentrated in the Yangtze River Delta, Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, and Pearl River Delta regions. Financially, the 4.47 billion yuan raised in the past year pales compared to the 43.8 billion yuan raised by the broader embodied intelligence sector in just the first half of 2026, highlighting that data remains a less "sexy" bet for investors. The 15 funded independent providers show clear stratification: a top tier led by a unicorn (Lightwheel Intelligence, 3.1 billion yuan), a middle tier of 11 firms raising tens to hundreds of millions, and an early-stage tier of 3 companies. Sixty-nine investment institutions have participated, but none have made concentrated bets, reflecting uncertainty about viable business models. Over half of these funded companies are less than a year old, most are at pre-A or A rounds, and profitability remains largely unproven. In summary, the embodied data industry has become an independent track creating jobs and local economic activity. However, it is still nascent, with unformed consensus, unsolved problems, and unproven business models. The coming 1-2 years will be a critical validation window to see if companies can build sustainable, profitable businesses purely by "selling data."

marsbit3h ago

Nearly a Hundred Players Rush into Embodied Data: With 4.47 Billion Yuan in Financing in One Year, Who Can Really Make Money by 'Selling Data'?

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

How to Buy T

Welcome to HTX.com! We've made purchasing Threshold Network Token (T) simple and convenient. Follow our step-by-step guide to embark on your crypto journey.Step 1: Create Your HTX AccountUse your email or phone number to sign up for a free account on HTX. Experience a hassle-free registration journey and unlock all features.Get My AccountStep 2: Go to Buy Crypto and Choose Your Payment MethodCredit/Debit Card: Use your Visa or Mastercard to buy Threshold Network Token (T) instantly.Balance: Use funds from your HTX account balance to trade seamlessly.Third Parties: We've added popular payment methods such as Google Pay and Apple Pay to enhance convenience.P2P: Trade directly with other users on HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): We offer tailor-made services and competitive exchange rates for traders.Step 3: Store Your Threshold Network Token (T)After purchasing your Threshold Network Token (T), store it in your HTX account. Alternatively, you can send it elsewhere via blockchain transfer or use it to trade other cryptocurrencies.Step 4: Trade Threshold Network Token (T)Easily trade Threshold Network Token (T) on HTX's spot market. Simply access your account, select your trading pair, execute your trades, and monitor in real-time. We offer a user-friendly experience for both beginners and seasoned traders.

12.4k Total ViewsPublished 2024.03.29Updated 2026.06.02

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of T (T) are presented below.