The largest gap on today’s board is LoL: Dplus KIA vs Hanwha Life Esports: Polymarket priced DK at 49%, while our estimate is 5% (a 44-point divergence). If the match result information is already public but settlement lags, markets can look efficient in theory yet remain temporarily mispriced in practice.
Key Takeaways
- The biggest errors appear where information updates faster than market settlement mechanics (DK-HLE).
- In NBA and Hungary election markets, pricing seems to underweight base-rate structure (spread-implied win odds; seat-conversion math).
- The Iran uranium contract looks like a subset-event trap: a broad diplomatic thaw does not imply the very specific outcome required for resolution.
- Bitcoin April target pricing likely underweights right-tail jump risk from positioning squeezes, but remains capped by strong resistance.
Summary Comparison Table
| Event | Polymarket | Naly | Gap | Why We Disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LoL: Dplus KIA vs Hanwha Life Esports (BO3) | 49% | 5% | -44 | Evidence points to HLE 2-0; unresolved market likely timing/settlement lag. |
| Thunder vs. Clippers | 31% | 69% | +38 | Spread/moneyline context implies OKC closer to upper-60s win probability. |
| Hungary Election: Fidesz-KDNP wins ___ seats | 52% | 40% | -12 | Seat-model aggregates show Fidesz below majority threshold more often than not. |
| US obtains Iranian enriched uranium by May 31 | 16% | 8% | -8 | Talks may progress, but direct US possession is a narrower, politically constrained endpoint. |
| What price will Bitcoin hit in April? | 19% | 28% | +9 | Current spot/positioning suggests higher odds of touching upper bracket than market implies. |
Live Market Prices
1) LoL: Dplus KIA vs Hanwha Life Esports (BO3) - LCK Rounds 1-2
Market vs. our view: 49% vs 5%
Causal chain
- If the match has effectively concluded with HLE winning 2-0, DK’s true win probability collapses toward zero.
- Polymarket can remain stale until official resolution data is ingested.
- Traders who anchor on pre-match priors can overpay for already-lost outcomes.
Key factors
- Post-match discussion and match-tracking pages indicate HLE 2-0 on April 8.
- Event timing aligns with a likely post-result but pre-resolution window.
Bayesian calculation (simplified)
- Prior: 49%
- Evidence likelihood ratio (DK win | reported 0-2 result) is near 0
- Posterior: ~5% after source-quality/settlement-lag discount
Alternative explanation
- Data-source mismatch or disputed map/result feed could briefly justify non-zero pricing.
What would make us wrong
- Official resolver posts DK as winner due to rules/forfeit/remake edge case.
Fresh checks:
- Reddit post-match thread (Apr 8, 2026): https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1sfo0dy/dplus_kia_vs_hanwha_life_esports_lck_2026_rounds/
- Strafe match page (Apr 8, 2026): https://www.strafe.com/match/dplus-kia-vs-hanwha-life-esports-round-1-lck-2026-9374cb/
2) Thunder vs. Clippers
Market vs. our view: 31% vs 69%
Causal chain
- Moneyline/spread structure implies OKC as clear favorite.
- A favorite of this magnitude generally wins materially more than one-third of outcomes.
- Injury/fatigue noise lowers confidence but does not erase the structural edge.
Key factors
- Market chatter and line snapshots around Thunder roughly -7 / heavy moneyline favorite.
- ESPN injury report flags uncertainty but not enough to flip baseline.
Bayesian calculation (simplified)
- Prior: 31%
- Convert spread-implied win chance to roughly high-60s
- Apply variance haircut for late scratches/back-to-back effects
- Posterior: ~69%
Alternative explanation
- If key OKC players sit late, pregame line-based inference overstates true win odds.
What would make us wrong
- Confirmed late absences for SGA/major rotation plus Clippers full-strength lineup.
Fresh checks:
- Sports Chat Place preview (Apr 8, 2026): https://sportschatplace.com/nba-picks/la-clippers-vs-oklahoma-city-thunder-prediction-4-8-26-nba-picks-today/
- ESPN game page/injuries (Apr 8, 2026): https://www.espn.com/nba/game/_/gameId/401811018/thunder-clippers
3) Hungary Election: Fidesz-KDNP wins ___ seats?
Market vs. our view: 52% vs 40%
Causal chain
- Seat outcomes are nonlinear: vote share does not map one-for-one to majority control.
- Recent poll aggregates show TISZA lead and seat projections with Fidesz often below majority thresholds.
- Incumbency/system advantages matter, but current polling spread suggests market overweights historical incumbency.
Key factors
- Euronews reported polls showing TISZA lead and seat simulations unfavorable to Fidesz majority.
- PolitPro trend projects Fidesz below 100-seat majority line.
Bayesian calculation (simplified)
- Prior: 52%
- Poll-seat model shift: strong negative update
- Institutional advantage adjustment: partial offset
- Posterior: ~40%
Alternative explanation
- Opposition vote efficiency could underperform polls in district-level conversion.
What would make us wrong
- Late polling miss plus Fidesz overperformance in constituencies producing majority seat conversion.
Fresh checks:
- Euronews (Apr 1, 2026): https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/04/01/hungarian-opposition-tisza-party-cements-lead-ahead-of-april-elections-polls-show
- PolitPro polling trend: https://politpro.eu/en/hungary
4) US obtains Iranian enriched uranium by May 31?
Market vs. our view: 16% vs 8%
Causal chain
- Diplomatic progress can still resolve into domestic downblending/verification rather than physical US custody.
- “US obtains uranium” is a narrow subset of all possible agreement structures.
- Hard political constraints on both sides reduce odds of this exact transfer pathway before May 31.
Key factors
- Oman-linked reporting emphasizes zero stockpiling/downblending frameworks.
- AP reporting shows talks progressing but still politically constrained and indirect.
Bayesian calculation (simplified)
- Prior: 16%
- P(any deal by deadline) moderate-low
- P(US physical obtainment | deal) lower still
- Posterior: ~8%
Alternative explanation
- A face-saving technical mechanism could still be interpreted under rules as “US obtains.”
What would make us wrong
- Public announcement of transfer/custody arrangement explicitly matching market resolution criteria before May 31.
Fresh checks:
- Anadolu via Omani FM comments (Feb 28, 2026): https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/oman-says-us-iran-talks-reach-agreement-on-zero-stockpiling-of-enriched-uranium/3842447
- AP negotiations update (Feb 26, 2026): https://apnews.com/article/bfea0dff34c28a998de1e323fe203914
5) What price will Bitcoin hit in April?
Market vs. our view: 19% vs 28%
Causal chain
- Spot BTC is trading around the low-70k range (latest print near $71.7k), close enough to upper target zones for a touch scenario.
- Positioning dynamics (crowded shorts/possible squeeze) can create short-lived spikes that resolve “hit” contracts.
- Main drag is repeated resistance and macro risk shocks.
Key factors
- Current BTC quote shows large intraday range and proximity to key trigger levels.
- Recent crypto market notes describe resistance near $71k-$75k and squeeze potential.
Bayesian calculation (simplified)
- Prior: 19%
- Distance-to-target and volatility regime: positive update
- Resistance/macro risk: negative offset
- Posterior: ~28%
Alternative explanation
- If macro risk-off returns, BTC can stay pinned below target despite occasional rallies.
What would make us wrong
- Sustained rejection with daily closes back under support, reducing probability of any April touch.
Fresh checks:
- Live BTC quote (Apr 8, 2026): tool snapshot showed ~$71,683, intraday high ~$72,519
- Crypto.com macro note (Apr 2026): https://crypto.com/en/market-updates/btc-price-april-2026-macro-data
Methodology
We use a repeatable superforecasting workflow: base rates, causal drivers, and explicit Bayesian updates versus current market-implied probabilities. We then track calibration and Brier performance on resolved calls in our public record: /track-record.
Disclaimer
This is probabilistic research, not investment advice. Forecasts can be wrong due to new information, model error, liquidity distortions, and resolution-rule nuances specific to prediction markets.