Polymarket is still pricing "Iran x Israel/US conflict ends by April 15?" near a coin flip at 47c YES, but our fair value is only 18c YES. In a $1 binary contract, 47c YES is both the current entry price and roughly the market-implied probability; our separate 18% probability estimate implies an 18c fair price on that same YES side. That 29-cent gap is the biggest divergence in today’s slate, and it matters because the calendar is now doing more work than diplomacy.
Across the five contracts below, the common pattern is straightforward: markets are still charging too much for dramatic outcomes that require both a fresh catalyst and very little friction. Our base case is that resolution windows are shorter than traders think, operational hurdles are higher than headlines imply, and recent price action has already shown where the market starts to run out of fuel.
- The biggest mispricing is the April 15 Iran conflict-end contract: time decay is now a stronger force than diplomacy headlines.
- Kharg Island still looks firmly under Iranian operational control; strikes are not the same as loss of control.
- Oil tail-risk is real, but jumping from mid-90s WTI to $120 or $130 in the remaining April window still requires a much larger disruption than the market currently has.
- Bitcoin is close enough to $75,000 to stay live, but range-bound trading and resistance near recent highs make 50c YES too rich.
5 Mispricings at a Glance
Polymarket Top Answer
No 53%
Naly Top Answer
No 60%
Max Payout if Correct
+47c
0c
50c
$1.00
Polymarket
Naly
Why we disagree: Failed April 12 talks and an April 22 ceasefire expiry leave too little time for a qualifying end-state.
Polymarket Top Answer
No 74%
Naly Top Answer
No 93%
Max Payout if Correct
+26c
0c
50c
$1.00
Polymarket
Naly
Why we disagree: Ongoing tanker loadings suggest operational continuity, while true loss of control requires occupation or transfer, not just strikes.
Polymarket Top Answer
No 54%
Naly Top Answer
No 72%
Max Payout if Correct
+38c
0c
50c
$1.00
Polymarket
Naly
Why we disagree: Prices retraced after the ceasefire and $120 now needs a much larger shipping or production shock.
Polymarket Top Answer
No 74%
Naly Top Answer
No 90%
Max Payout if Correct
+23c
0c
50c
$1.00
Polymarket
Naly
Why we disagree: $130 is a true tail outcome from current levels and likely needs an outright severe Hormuz shutdown.
Polymarket Top Answer
YES 54%
Naly Top Answer
YES 62%
Max Payout if Correct
+50c
0c
50c
$1.00
Polymarket
Naly
Why we disagree: ETF inflows help, but price is still below resistance and macro uncertainty has repeatedly capped rallies.
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.
+47c
Max Payout if Correct
The quoted market price is 47c YES, meaning traders are paying 47 cents for a contract that pays $1 if the conflict is judged ended by April 15, 2026. Our estimate is 18% YES, which implies an 18c fair price on that same YES side; that is different from the 47c max payout available to a trader buying the opposite NO side at 53c, and different again from the 29c fair-value edge between market and our estimate.
Causal Chain
Cause
Failed April 12 talks removed the most immediate diplomatic path to a formal end.
↓
Effect
Without a deal, the existing ceasefire becomes a temporary pause rather than a clean resolution mechanism.
↓
Projection
With only two days left until April 15, the contract now needs an unusually fast political conversion from fragile truce to recognized end-state.
Key Factors
| Factor |
|---|
| ▲ |
AP reported on April 12, 2026 that U.S.-Iran talks ended without agreement. |
| ▲ |
The same reporting said the fragile ceasefire is due to expire on April 22, 2026, which undercuts the idea that the conflict is already effectively over. |
| ▲ |
Trump’s blockade threat raises the chance of renewed coercion rather than settlement. |
| ▲ |
Markets often overweight the word “ceasefire” and underweight whether it legally or operationally satisfies contract resolution. |
| ▼ |
Late-stage time compression matters: once the window is this short, each unresolved procedural issue becomes fatal. |
Bayesian Calculation
Base rate: 47% from the market’s starting coin-flip framing.
Positive update: The April 7 ceasefire proved both sides were at least willing to pause and negotiate.
Negative update: The April 12 failure means the pause did not convert into agreement, while the calendar now leaves almost no margin for a qualifying end by April 15.
Naly estimate: 18% YES.
Alternative explanation: The bullish case is that both sides may prefer to quietly freeze the conflict and let media language drift toward “over” even without a signed settlement. If contract adjudicators treat de facto de-escalation as sufficient, 47c YES is less crazy.
What Would Make Us Wrong
We are wrong if a rapid diplomatic announcement arrives before April 15 that clearly reframes the April 7 ceasefire as a durable end rather than a temporary truce. A surprise third-party guarantee or joint statement could move this from procedural deadlock to yes-resolution very quickly.
Fresh Checks
+26c
Max Payout if Correct
The quoted market price is 26c YES, so traders are paying 26 cents for a $1 contract that resolves YES if Kharg Island is no longer under Iranian control by May 31, 2026. Our estimate is 7% YES, implying a 7c fair price on the YES side; that differs from the 26c max payout available on the opposite NO side at 74c, and from the 19c fair-value edge between market price and our fair value.
Causal Chain
Cause
Recent strikes increase attention on Kharg, which keeps seizure scenarios visible in traders’ minds.
↓
Effect
But physical damage or repeated raids do not automatically change sovereignty or operational control.
↓
Projection
Unless an outside force can occupy, administer, and hold the island, the contract’s bar for “no longer under Iranian control” remains very hard to clear.
Key Factors
| Factor |
|---|
| ▲ |
Multiple maritime and satellite-tracking reports through early April still showed tanker presence and loading activity around Kharg. |
| ▲ |
AP reported experts saw troop seizure as risky and possibly unnecessary relative to blockade strategies. |
| ▲ |
Occupation is operationally harder than bombing fixed targets. |
| ▲ |
Iran can retain control even if throughput drops or facilities take intermittent damage. |
| ▲ |
Markets may be anchoring to how important Kharg is, not to how difficult it is to forcibly and durably take it. |
Bayesian Calculation
Base rate: 26% from the market’s current pricing.
Positive update: Kharg is strategically central, so it remains an obvious escalation target.
Negative update: Continued loading activity and the absence of credible reporting on occupation or governance transfer sharply lower the chance that control actually changes hands.
Naly estimate: 7% YES.
Alternative explanation: The bullish case is that the market is not forecasting a classic amphibious occupation, but some looser real-world collapse of Iranian command, evacuation, or internationally recognized loss of effective control. If adjudication leans functional rather than formal, YES has more room.
What Would Make Us Wrong
We are wrong if military escalation shifts from punitive strikes to a sustained operation that physically prevents Iran from administering the island. A verified landing, foreign security perimeter, or explicit declaration of transferred control would invalidate our conservative view quickly.
Fresh Checks
+38c
Max Payout if Correct
The quoted market price is 38c YES, meaning the market is pricing a 38-cent entry for a $1 contract that pays if front-month WTI touches $120 during April 2026. Our estimate is 22% YES, so our fair value is 22c on that same YES side; that differs from the 38c max payout on the opposite NO side at 62c and from the 16c fair-value edge between market and our estimate.
Causal Chain
Cause
The market is extrapolating from war-driven upside spikes and Hormuz headline sensitivity.
↓
Effect
But after the ceasefire announcement, oil retraced sharply, showing that current conditions do not by themselves sustain crisis pricing.
↓
Projection
To reach $120 from here, the market likely needs a fresh shipping outage or production hit materially worse than the one already partially repriced.
Key Factors
| Factor |
|---|
| ▲ |
AP reported on April 8, 2026 that oil plunged below $95 after the ceasefire headline. |
| ▲ |
AP’s April 10 futures update shows WTI still well below the $120 trigger. |
| ▲ |
Goldman’s cited scenario work still placed April averages far below $120 absent a more severe disruption. |
| ▲ |
Tail spikes can happen intraday, but the trigger requires a large move from current levels in a narrower remaining time window. |
| ▼ |
OPEC+ supply additions and demand uncertainty still work against runaway upside once panic cools. |
Bayesian Calculation
Base rate: 38% from the market price.
Positive update: Hormuz remains a genuine tail-risk chokepoint, so the door to a spike is still open.
Negative update: The retrace after ceasefire headlines suggests the market needs a new and larger shock, not just continued tension, to print $120.
Naly estimate: 22% YES.
Alternative explanation: The bullish case is that oil options and geopolitical gamma can create a short-lived overshoot far above fair macro value. If another disruption hits during thin liquidity, WTI does not need to stay at $120 for long to resolve YES.
What Would Make Us Wrong
We are wrong if the Strait of Hormuz faces a fresh closure, if key export infrastructure is disabled again, or if military escalation directly targets tanker flows in a way that forces physical scramble buying. This contract is mostly about rare path-dependent spikes, not monthly averages.
Fresh Checks
+23c
Max Payout if Correct
The quoted market price is 23c YES, so traders are paying 23 cents for a $1 contract that resolves YES if WTI touches $130 in April 2026. Our estimate is 8% YES, implying an 8c fair price on that same YES side; that is distinct from the 23c max payout available on the opposite NO side at 77c and from the 15c fair-value edge between market and our estimate.
Causal Chain
Cause
Traders see a live geopolitical premium and assume convexity can carry oil much higher.
↓
Effect
But $130 is not just “more of the same”; it implies a substantially worse supply shock than the market is currently living through.
↓
Projection
Once the post-ceasefire retrace proved the panic premium can evaporate fast, the remaining path to $130 became a narrow true-tail scenario.
Key Factors
| Factor |
|---|
| ▲ |
Current spot and futures references remain far below $130. |
| ▲ |
Even bullish bank scenarios discussed in recent reporting do not treat $130 WTI as the base case. |
| ▲ |
The April window is shrinking, so distance-to-trigger matters more every day. |
| ▲ |
For this contract to win, you likely need not just tension but a severe interruption to physical flows. |
| ▲ |
Markets often underprice the difference between “headline volatility” and “infrastructure-loss volatility.” |
Bayesian Calculation
Base rate: 23% from the market.
Positive update: Wartime energy markets can overshoot and remain highly headline-sensitive.
Negative update: The required move is too large from current levels, and most public forecasts still sit far below $130 without a genuine chokepoint failure.
Naly estimate: 8% YES.
Alternative explanation: The bullish case is that this is a pure gap-risk trade: if one overnight event suddenly freezes transport through Hormuz, prices can leap far beyond what linear forecasting models imply. Traders may be paying for convexity rather than central tendency.
What Would Make Us Wrong
We are wrong if markets move from disruption fear to confirmed physical shortage. A full or near-full Hormuz stoppage, major regional production outage, or sudden military attack on energy-export infrastructure could produce the sort of vertical repricing this contract needs.
Fresh Checks
+50c
Max Payout if Correct
The quoted market price is 50c YES, meaning traders are paying 50 cents for a contract that pays $1 if Bitcoin trades at $75,000 during April 2026. Our estimate is 38% YES, which implies a 38c fair price on that same YES side; that differs from the 50c max payout on the opposite NO side at 50c and from the 12c fair-value edge between market and our estimate.
Causal Chain
Cause
ETF inflows improve the medium-term bid and keep upside scenarios alive.
↓
Effect
But spot price is still below resistance, and repeated macro shocks have capped breakout attempts.
↓
Projection
Unless fresh demand can push Bitcoin decisively through the low-70s ceiling, the market is still paying too much for a $75,000 touch this month.
Key Factors
| Factor |
|---|
| ▲ |
Bitcoin was around $70,792 on April 13, 2026, still below the target. |
| ▲ |
Recent ETF inflow reports show institutional support has improved versus the February washout. |
| ▲ |
Citi’s March view of range-trading near $70,000 still fits current price action better than a clean breakout narrative. |
| ▲ |
Bitcoin previously traded above $74,000 in March, so the contract is plausible, but proximity alone is not edge. |
| ▲ |
Geopolitical and macro volatility can support Bitcoin as an alternative asset, but they can also tighten liquidity and interrupt rallies. |
Bayesian Calculation
Base rate: 50% from the market.
Positive update: The target is close enough that one strong risk-on day or ETF-led squeeze could do it.
Negative update: Price remains under resistance and recent flows, while supportive, have not yet forced a decisive breakout through $75,000.
Naly estimate: 38% YES.
Alternative explanation: The bullish case is simple: Bitcoin does not need a full trend change, only a marginal extension. If ETF inflows persist for several sessions and traders chase momentum, the final few thousand dollars can disappear quickly.
What Would Make Us Wrong
We are wrong if institutional inflows keep compounding while macro conditions stabilize enough for crypto beta to expand. A single strong weekly close above recent resistance could turn this contract from range-bound to reflexive very fast.
Fresh Checks
Conclusion
The watchpoints here are concrete: any surprise diplomatic statement before April 15 for the Iran contract, any verified change in who physically administers Kharg Island, any renewed disruption to Hormuz shipping that pushes oil back into panic mode, and any sustained Bitcoin move through the low-$70,000 resistance zone. Until one of those catalysts actually arrives, the cleaner trade is fading markets that are still overpaying for dramatic outcomes.
Methodology
We compare the market-implied probability from the quoted contract price with Naly’s internal fair-value estimate, then ask whether the remaining path to resolution is easier or harder than the market assumes. We focus on causal bottlenecks, operational constraints, and calendar compression rather than headline heat. Our broader prediction methodology and historical calibration are tracked on our track record.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and reflects probabilistic judgment, not certainty. It is not financial, legal, or investment advice, and prediction markets can remain mispriced longer than expected.
