TL;DROn May 5, 2026, Naly’s clearest disagreements are Trump-in-China-on-May-13, where Polymarket prices YES at 53c but our fair value is just 5c, and WTI $120 in May, where the market pays only 45c YES against our 68c fair value. The sharpest reason is rule-level causality: official calendars and one-minute spike mechanics matter more than headline sentiment.
- Trump’s May 13 China contract looks overpriced because the market is paying for a narrow Eastern Time arrival technicality, not the announced May 14-15 Beijing schedule.
- The U.S.-Iran meeting contract looks underpriced because the rules count indirect in-person diplomacy, and Pakistan/Oman mediation channels are still active.
- Both WTI contracts are really spike-probability bets, not slow-drift forecasts, because any one-minute high can settle YES.
- Across all four events, the edge comes from reading the resolution mechanics and causal path more carefully than the headline tape.
4 Mispricings at a Glance
Will Donald Trump visit China on May 13, 2026?
Why we disagree: The market is paying for a narrow ET arrival technicality even though the public trip schedule still points to May 14-15 in Beijing.
US x Iran diplomatic meeting by May 31, 2026?
Why we disagree: The contract counts indirect in-person diplomacy, and active mediator channels make that qualifying path more alive than 31c YES implies.
Will WTI Crude Oil (WTI) hit (HIGH) $120 in May?
Why we disagree: This contract settles on any one-minute high, so conflict-driven overshoots matter more than where WTI closes the day.
Will WTI Crude Oil (WTI) hit (HIGH) $130 in May?
Why we disagree: A $130 print is still a tail, but one-minute-high mechanics plus Hormuz tail risk make it closer to a coin flip than 28c YES suggests.
How to read this: Polymarket Top Answer and Naly Top Answer show the final answer each side sees as most likely. Max Payout if Correct shows the gross upside from the current quote to the $1 settlement if the selected contract side wins. The horizontal graph still shows where that selected side sits on a 0c to $1 range for Polymarket versus Naly.
Will Donald Trump visit China on May 13, 2026?
The market is paying for a narrow ET arrival technicality even though the public trip schedule still points to May 14-15 in Beijing.
Causal Chain
Key Factors
| Factor | |
|---|---|
| Reuters reported on March 25 that the White House scheduled the Trump-Xi meeting in Beijing for May 14-15. | |
| Reuters reported again on April 14, in a story about Eric Trump joining the trip, that the state visit remained a May 14-15 event. | |
| The contract explicitly requires Trump to physically enter China; airspace, departure timing, and vague travel chatter do not count. | |
| A May 14 local-date arrival can still resolve YES only if it happens early enough in Beijing to remain May 13 in ET, which is a much narrower path than the headline schedule suggests. |
Bayesian Calculation
Alternative explanation: The market’s best case is that presidential long-haul travel often means a May 13 U.S. departure and a Beijing-morning landing on May 14, which could still count as May 13 in ET. If traders think the White House has already fixed an early-arrival window, 53c YES is less irrational than it looks.
Fresh Checks
US x Iran diplomatic meeting by May 31, 2026?
The contract counts indirect in-person diplomacy, and active mediator channels make that qualifying path more alive than 31c YES implies.
Causal Chain
Key Factors
| Factor | |
|---|---|
| Reuters reported on May 2 that Iran conveyed a formal proposal through mediators and said it was ready for diplomacy if the U.S. changed its approach. | |
| Reuters reported on April 25 that U.S. negotiators were scheduled to go to Islamabad even as Iran said it did not plan direct talks. | |
| Reuters reported on April 20 that a senior Pakistani government source was confident Iran would attend U.S. talks. | |
| Reuters reported on April 13 that dialogue remained alive after a tense Islamabad round ended without a breakthrough. | |
| The contract language explicitly says indirect in-person meetings through mediators qualify, which widens the path to YES materially. |
Bayesian Calculation
Alternative explanation: The market may be correctly reading the political mood: both governments could prefer signaling toughness over convening another meeting, and every failed or postponed Islamabad headline makes traders less willing to pay for diplomatic optionality.
Fresh Checks
Will WTI Crude Oil (WTI) hit (HIGH) $120 in May?
This contract settles on any one-minute high, so conflict-driven overshoots matter more than where WTI closes the day.
Causal Chain
Key Factors
| Factor | |
|---|---|
| Reuters reported on May 5 that WTI was around $104.88 after another volatile session tied to Hormuz supply-risk headlines. | |
| Reuters reported on April 2 that J.P. Morgan saw $120-$130 oil in the near term and above $150 if disruption persisted into mid-May. | |
| Axios reported on May 4 that a fully closed Strait of Hormuz had long been treated as an almost unmanageable scenario by energy experts. | |
| Reuters reported on May 4 that U.S.-flagged ships crossed the strait under military escort, which eases some immediate fear but does not restore normal shipping confidence. | |
| The contract resolves off any one-minute high in the active month, so even brief panic liquidity gaps can settle YES. |
Bayesian Calculation
Alternative explanation: The market may be saying that traders have already internalized the war premium, so even ugly Gulf headlines now fade faster as Washington proves it can escort at least some shipping through the strait.
Fresh Checks
Will WTI Crude Oil (WTI) hit (HIGH) $130 in May?
A $130 print is still a tail, but one-minute-high mechanics plus Hormuz tail risk make it closer to a coin flip than 28c YES suggests.
Causal Chain
Key Factors
| Factor | |
|---|---|
| Reuters reported on April 2 that J.P. Morgan viewed $120-$130 as plausible in the near term and above $150 under a longer disruption. | |
| Reuters reported on May 5 that WTI remained near $105 despite signs of partial escort normalization, which shows how much geopolitical premium is already embedded. | |
| Axios reported on May 4 that experts once treated a closed Hormuz as almost unmanageable, underscoring how extreme the upside path remains. | |
| Reuters reported on May 4 that the U.S. had begun protected transits, which is the main reason this call carries lower confidence than the $120 contract. | |
| Because the contract settles on any one-minute high, it requires a momentary panic print, not a stable $130 regime. |
Bayesian Calculation
Alternative explanation: The market may simply be right that $130 needs too much additional damage from an already shocked system. If traders think escorts, diplomacy, and adaptive rerouting cap the next panic leg, then sub-30c YES is reasonable.
Fresh Checks
Conclusion
The next catalysts are unusually concrete: a White House itinerary that pins down Trump’s China arrival window, any public Islamabad or Muscat meeting notice involving U.S. and Iranian representatives, and whether WTI keeps responding to Hormuz headlines with multi-dollar intraday gaps. Those three watchpoints will decide whether May 5, 2026’s biggest mispricings compress or widen.
Methodology
We start with the selected Polymarket quote on one contract side, translate Naly’s probability on that same side into a fair cents price, and then ask whether the causal path to settlement is wider or narrower than the market implies. Our public calibration and resolution history live on /track-record and /predictions/scorecard, with the broader framework explained at /methodology.
- Market price is the current entry cost and the market-implied probability for the quoted binary side.
- Naly fair price is our probability estimate for that same side translated into cents on the same $1 payoff contract.
- Fair-value edge is Naly fair price minus market price, while max payout if correct is the gross distance from the current quote to $1 settlement.
Disclaimer
This article is probabilistic analysis based on public reporting, contract rules, and live market context as of May 5, 2026. It is not financial advice, not a guarantee of outcome, and not a recommendation to trade any specific contract.