Last Updated: 2026-10-26
An election headline is not a settlement rule. “Wins the popular vote,” “is projected to win,” “is certified” and “takes office” can describe different events. This guide shows how to compare those contracts without treating a winning historical purchase as proof of skill. The examples are synthetic; no current election recommendation, wallet-performance claim or regional eligibility assurance is made.
Make a contract record before comparing prices
Scroll sideways to see every column. Keyboard: focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Field | What to preserve | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Event | Full contract URL, identifier and exact question | Similar titles need not have the same payoff |
| Winning condition | Named person, party, office or procedural event | A nomination is not a general-election victory |
| Evidence source | The source named in that contract | A media projection and official certification can differ in timing |
| Deadline | Timestamp, timezone and what must happen by then | Voting day need not be settlement day |
| Exceptions | Withdrawal, replacement, recount, cancellation and ties | An ordinary yes/no story may omit decisive clauses |
| Market state | Quote time, executable side and depth for the intended quantity | Last trade, midpoint and available ask are not identical |
Polymarket's resolution documentation says predefined market rules govern resolution. Read the actual contract rather than substituting this general page. A disputed or delayed result can affect access to capital; an oracle process does not make every ambiguous sentence unambiguous.
Two questions illustrate the problem: A pays if a named outlet projects Candidate X by November 6; B pays if X is inaugurated in January. A projection by the deadline followed by a different inauguration outcome would pay A but not B. This is a hypothetical rule comparison, not an assertion that either contract is currently listed. Buying A and the opposite of B does not automatically create a fixed payout.
A poll percentage is not a winning probability
Suppose a poll estimates 51% of a defined two-candidate vote for X. That is an estimate of vote share in the sampled population under the poll's methods. It is not a 51% probability of winning. A forecast needs assumptions about turnout, undecided voters, sampling and non-sampling error, changes before the election and the actual electoral rules.
If a model treats every state polling error as independent, it may understate the chance of several states moving together. Run alternative shared-error and turnout scenarios. Keep the poll's field dates, population, mode and weighting beside the forecast. An old poll published today is not a new measurement of today's electorate.
Compare a contract's price with a probability estimate only after matching the outcome and time. Record the model version and the information available then. Neither a large account's order nor a viral clip establishes that probability. A price gap is a reason to inspect assumptions, not proof of a mispriced contract.
Evaluate forecasts without selecting only winners
A share bought at $0.50 that later pays $1 was a profitable purchase before costs. That outcome alone does not show that the true probability exceeded 50% when bought. A 60% forecast still allows the other outcome 40% of the time.
Keep all forecasts, including those on markets you did not trade, with timestamps and resolved outcomes. A simple diagnostic is the Brier score, the average squared difference between forecast probability and the observed 0/1 outcome. A 0.60 forecast followed by a win contributes 0.16; the same forecast followed by a loss contributes 0.36. One observation cannot establish calibration. Compare an appropriate baseline over the same questions and treat related state/national results as correlated evidence, not independent experiments.
Cost, quantity and time have separate denominators
Synthetic example: 1,000 shares bought at $0.60 cost $600. Selling all at $0.67 produces $670, a $70 gross gain or 11.67% on the purchase cost. Fees and other costs reduce it. If that occurred over exactly half a year, simple annualization is 23.33%; compounding two identical periods gives 24.69%. Neither calculation predicts a second opportunity or makes an unsold quote executable.
A one-cent spread is not zero friction. Buying 1,000 shares at $0.61 and immediately selling at $0.60 loses $10 before fees. Displayed daily volume does not establish how much is available at either price now. An exit plan can fail when depth disappears or trading stops; the fully paid share can lose its entire purchase cost, plus costs incurred.
Review correlation and the opposing case
Several state contracts supporting the same national thesis can lose together. Counting four tickers does not make four independent risks. Map each contract's payout across shared scenarios, including an outcome in which the state and national results diverge. Exposure limits should come from the reader's own constraints, not a universal bankroll percentage supplied by an article.
Write the strongest contrary case before recording a forecast: which assumption could be wrong, what evidence would change it and what remains unknown? That helps make a later review possible; it is not a guarantee against bias. Keep preferences about an election separate from estimates about it.
Before comparing venues, confirm the specific product is available to you under its current rules and relevant requirements. Compare fees, funding and settlement terms using the same payoff and quantity. No VPN or other access workaround is suggested. You can do this research worksheet without depositing or placing a trade.
Educational analysis, not financial advice. Synthetic examples are not historical trade results. Other site pages may contain disclosed affiliate links; this guide does not claim personal election-market profits or recommend a candidate position.