How do I check whether a prediction market will resolve the way I expect?
Read the full rules, not the title. Check that the question is unambiguous, the official source is named, the cutoff time and timezone are explicit, and the void and dispute rules are clear. If any of these is missing, the contract can settle differently from how you read it.
The checklist records what you verified, flags blockers and warnings, and exports a summary to keep with your trade notes.
- Best for
- Resolution review before size or arbitrage
- Primary output
- Readiness score with blockers and warnings
- Use before
- Any market with ambiguous wording or multiple venues
Key points
- Flags blockers before you place the trade
- Covers single-venue and cross-venue trades
- Exports a summary for your trade notes
Method and assumptions
Why resolution rules matter
A market title squeezes a contract into one line. Settlement depends on definitions, the official source, timestamps and each venue’s void and dispute rules.
You can be right about the event and still lose on the rules: a result announced after the cutoff, a source that reports it differently, or a void that refunds instead of paying.
- Ambiguous wording invites a different reading
- Venues can define the same event differently
- A missing timezone or cutoff can flip the result
- Void and dispute rules decide messy outcomes
How to use the checklist before a trade
Copy the market title and the official source into the form. Then check each rule against one question: would another trader reading the same text reach the same answer?
For a hedge across venues, confirm that both contracts settle on the same event, source and deadline. Similar titles are not proof.
- Capture the market title and official source in writing.
- Check wording, cutoff, timezone, void rules, and dispute rules.
- If the trade spans venues, confirm wording parity explicitly.
- Save the summary with the trade so the reasoning survives later review.
Worked resolution example
You want to hedge a Fed rate market across two venues. One contract says “by July”, the other “before the July meeting concludes”. If the cut lands on the last day of the meeting, one contract can pay while the other does not.
In the default checklist, six of nine checks are confirmed. Void rules, dispute rules and cross-market parity are still open, so the result is Needs review: settle those before adding size.
- Different phrasing can make two markets non-equivalent
- A blocker is a structural problem, not a detail
- Saved notes let you audit the decision later
Common mistakes in resolution review
The usual failures are reading only the title, assuming the official source is obvious, and keeping no notes for a later dispute.
In cross-venue arbitrage, traders often check the price math carefully and never check that both contracts resolve on the same logic.
- Assuming similarity instead of proving parity
- Ignoring cutoff and timezone detail
- Skipping void or dispute rules because they seem unlikely
- Not saving written notes for future review
Blockers: An unresolved blocker means skip the trade or cut the size. A better price does not pay for a contract that can settle against your reading.
Frequently asked questions
Why is timezone such a big deal in prediction markets?
Because many event outcomes depend on exact timing. A market that says "today" or "by Friday" can resolve differently if timezone is unclear across venues or official sources.
Can this checklist help with single-venue trades too?
Yes. Even if you are not hedging across platforms, resolution ambiguity can still damage a directional trade.
What should I do if the checklist returns blockers?
Clarify the contract first, reduce size materially, or skip the trade. A blocker means the structure is not yet reliable enough for confident execution.
Is a high checklist score enough to make a trade good?
No. It only means the contract structure looks safer. You still need good pricing, execution, and risk management.