Will there be exactly 6 earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or higher worldwide by June 30?
Informed analysis adjusts for base rates of similar events. AI estimates 22% vs market's 18%, suggesting the market underprices this outcome.
Alpha Opportunity
Alpha Thesis
We evaluate the 18% probability for this science/research market. Scientific outcomes involve long timelines, peer review processes, and often require replication. Our model estimates 21%, generating a 2% edge. Scientific prediction markets often suffer from the 'exciting narrative' bias where breakthrough claims are overpriced.
📐Key Metrics
Key Findings
- 18% vs. 21% — Scientific prediction markets often underprice incremental but significant progress.
- Base Rate Calibration — Novel scientific claims typically have lower-than-expected success rates due to replication failures and peer review scrutiny.
- Expert vs. Crowd — Scientific markets benefit from domain expertise that the general crowd may lack.
- Resolution Specificity — The exact resolution criteria matter enormously for scientific outcomes.
- YES Position — Evidence suggests the market underprices this outcome.
Full Research Report
Unlock the complete analysis including probability assessment, Bayesian calculations, resolution rigor analysis, and strategic positioning recommendations across 5+ dimensions.
Alpha Quality Factors
Criteria that determine how exploitable this mispricing is
Human Bias Detected
Cognitive biases creating this alpha opportunity
General market inefficiency detected — the crowd consensus diverges from fundamentals-based analysis.
Compare Markets
Searching Polymarket, Kalshi, Manifold & Metaculus…
Market Data
Position Sizing
Kelly Criterion (per $1,000 bankroll)