Strategy Report

市场胜算

99.8%

Polymarket 认为 YES

我们的胜算

82%

Agents61 认为 YES

差了多少

-18%

我们比市场更不看好 YES（少 18 个点）

确信度

约 80%

我们对这个判断把握较大（大约八成）

胜算合理区间 74%–90% · 结算规则风险中等 · 引擎 模板草稿

Executive summary

Agents61 82% vs market 99.8% (gap -17.8%) on “Will 1win launch a token by October 31, 2026?”. High confidence; resolution risk Medium.

Why the market may be wrong

Red-team and resolution ambiguity pull Agents61 below the live mid — market may be overweighting YES story momentum.
Bayesian blend refuses to fully anchor on Polymarket mid; crowd volume ≠ calibration.
General: separate base rates from story momentum.

Why the market may be right

Live mid 99.8% is backed by $1.1M volume — informed flow may already be priced.
YES mid 99.8% with $1.1M notional. Crowded tape ≠ calibrated probability; thin books exaggerate gaps. Use mid as a prior, not a truth.
If settlement rules match the headline question tightly, crowd calibration is more trustworthy.

Bull / YES evidence

Market still assigns 99.8% to YES with $1.1M volume — the path is considered live.
General: separate base rates from story momentum.
Catalyst calendar before the end date can reprice quickly if confirming data prints.

Bear / NO evidence

Kill-shots: (1) resolution text does not match the intuitive question, (2) data used is stale vs end date, (3) narrative double-counts the same catalyst already in the mid.
Crowd is YES-heavy — ask what would have to be true for NO, and whether that path is underpriced.
If resolution wording is stricter than the headline question, YES is overstated.

Key catalysts

· Official data / decisions before Nov 1, 2026
· Major headline that changes the settlement-relevant fact pattern
· Liquidity shock on Polymarket that moves mid without new information

Invalidation conditions

Settlement source resolves on a technicality Agents61 underweighted.
A single high-credibility print arrives that the template pass could not see live.
Market mid was already incorporating private or faster information.

Scenario analysis

YES

90%

Confirming catalysts land before the end date and resolution wording matches the intuitive YES path.

Base

82%

Central research blend of base rate, market mid, and red-team haircut on this pass.

74%

Settlement ambiguity or missing catalyst keeps YES from clearing the resolution bar.

Risk assessment

Resolution

Medium

Liquidity

Low

Information

High

Event

Medium

Overall

High

Resolution check

Source: https://polymarket.com/event/will-1win-launch-a-token-by
Deadline: Nov 1, 2026
Ambiguity: Medium

Resolution draft on file: “This market will resolve to "Yes" if 1win officially launches a token by 11:59 PM ET on the date specified in the title. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No". Only an official token launched by 1win after the cre…” — score ambiguity before trusting any edge.

· Headline question ≠ exact settlement criterion
· Data source named in rules is delayed or contested
· Partial / technical outcomes that map awkwardly to YES/NO

Agent stack

News Agent

Implied ~97%

Latest headlines & narrative shift

Narrative around “Will 1win launch a token by October 31, 2026?” is active on public wires. Treat headlines as unverified until tied to a resolution criterion. Recent volume ($1.1M) suggests the story is priced, not ignored.

Data Agent

Implied ~99%

Hard numbers on file

Market YES ≈ 99.8%. Volume $1.1M. Close window: Nov 1, 2026. No private dataset on this pass — numbers are market microstructure + public context only.

Base Rate Agent

Implied ~40%

Historical / class base rates

Class base rate for general events is rarely equal to the live mid. Start near a conservative class prior (~40%), then update with market and domain evidence — do not anchor only on the tape.

Domain Expert

Implied ~95%

Category specialist lens

General: separate base rates from story momentum.

Market Agent

Implied ~99%

Polymarket price & volume read

YES mid 99.8% with $1.1M notional. Crowded tape ≠ calibrated probability; thin books exaggerate gaps. Use mid as a prior, not a truth.

Bayesian Agent

Implied ~70%

Likelihood update vs prior

Blend base-rate prior with market likelihood. Posterior sketch ≈ 70% before red-team haircut.

Contrarian Agent

Implied ~1%

Why the crowd may be wrong

Crowd is YES-heavy — ask what would have to be true for NO, and whether that path is underpriced.

Red Team

Implied ~96%

Hunt judgment errors

Kill-shots: (1) resolution text does not match the intuitive question, (2) data used is stale vs end date, (3) narrative double-counts the same catalyst already in the mid.

Resolution Agent

Settlement rules & ambiguity

Risk Agent

Tail paths & model risk

Model risk: template/LLM research can sound calibrated while missing a settlement edge case. Position risk is out of scope (no trading). Treat Probability Gap as a research prompt, not a bet size.

Prediction Clerk stacks isolated research notes into a probability — not a bet ticket. No wallet, no order routing.

Sources