Better Markets challenges Kalshi’s forecasting value after Senate race upsets

Better Markets is questioning the predictive value of election contracts after Kalshi favored the eventual losing candidate in the South Carolina, Iowa and Kansas Senate races for most of the month before Election Day, according to the group.

In a November 4 fact sheet, Better Markets argues that the midterm results support treating election contracts as gambling rather than forecasting. Its criticism centers on whether market prices provided useful insight into unexpected results.

A challenge to the information in market odds

The group acknowledges that favorites generally win but says the markets offered no particular insight into the upsets. That distinction is central to its argument: identifying the likely winner in most races does not necessarily demonstrate an advantage in anticipating surprises.

Better Markets also suggests that bettors may merely be following polls rather than contributing independent information. In its assessment, election-market odds offer no greater guarantee of a result than sportsbook odds. The claims presented are the group’s interpretation of the results, not a separate assessment of Kalshi’s forecasting performance.

What it means for prediction markets

• The criticism concerns forecasting value. Better Markets points to three Senate races where Kalshi favored the eventual loser for most of the preceding month; that observation alone does not establish how the markets performed across all races.
• Information independence is the key question. If bettors primarily follow polls, as the group suggests, market prices may add less insight than readers expect.
• Favored does not mean certain. An upset is consistent with an outcome carrying less than certain odds. Evaluating forecast quality requires more than identifying which candidate was favored.