Daily Market Mispricings: 2 Events Where We Disagree With Polymarket — May 4, 2026

TL;DRNaly's biggest disagreement with Polymarket on May 4, 2026 is JD Vance's already-reported Islamabad diplomacy. The market still prices visit Pakistan by May 31, 2026 at 19c YES and diplomatic meeting with Iran by May 31, 2026 at 21c YES, but we mark them 99c and 98c fair. The sharpest reason: public reporting suggests the qualifying acts already happened, while traders are still pricing future uncertainty.

Key Takeaways

Both answer flips come from the same structural mistake: traders appear to be pricing whether Vance returns to Islamabad, not whether his April 11-12, 2026 trip already satisfied the contracts.

The Pakistan visit contract is the cleanest edge in the set: 19c YES market price versus 99c YES fair value, with only a thin resolution-ambiguity discount.

The Iran meeting contract hinges on rule interpretation, but the indexed rules say indirect in-person diplomacy can qualify, which makes a 21c YES quote look too low.

These are resolution-mechanics disagreements, not macro calls on whether the broader U.S.-Iran conflict will cool.

2 Mispricings at a Glance

Event Snapshot

Will JD Vance visit Pakistan by May 31?

YES Resolves May 31, 2026 Open as of May 4, 2026 96/100 confidence

Polymarket Top Answer NO 81%

Naly Top Answer YES 99%

Max Payout if Correct +81c

0c 50c $1.00

Polymarket Naly

Why we disagree: Reuters, AP, the White House, and the market's own indexed context all point to an April 11-12 Pakistan visit already in the public record.

Event Snapshot

Will JD Vance have a diplomatic meeting with Iran by May 31, 2026?

YES Resolves May 31, 2026 Open as of May 4, 2026 95/100 confidence

Polymarket Top Answer NO 79%

Naly Top Answer YES 98%

Max Payout if Correct +79c

0c 50c $1.00

Polymarket Naly

Why we disagree: Traders seem to be confusing a failed negotiation with the absence of a qualifying in-person diplomatic meeting.

How to read this: Polymarket Top Answer and Naly Top Answer show the final answer each side sees as most likely. Max Payout if Correct shows the gross upside from the current quote to the $1 settlement if the selected contract side wins. The horizontal graph still shows where that selected side sits on a 0c to $1 range for Polymarket versus Naly.

Event 1

Will JD Vance visit Pakistan by May 31?

ForecastContract · YESResolves May 31, 2026Open as of May 4, 202696/100 confidence

+81c

Max Payout if Correct

Polymarket Top Answer NO 81%

Naly Top Answer YES 99%
Trade on Polymarket →

As of May 4, 2026, Polymarket was offering the YES side at 19c, meaning a 19-cent entry price for a $1 binary contract that pays only if JD Vance visited Pakistan by May 31, 2026. Our separate estimate is 99% YES, which implies a 99c fair price on that same YES contract. This is an answer flip because Polymarket's top answer is NO; the max payout if correct is 81c, while the fair-value edge is 80c.

Causal Chain

Cause Cause bullet: Pakistan brokered a high-level U.S.-Iran meeting and Vance was dispatched as the lead U.S. figure.

↓

Effect Effect bullet: That assignment required a physical Pakistan visit, and Reuters, AP, and the White House all place him in Islamabad on April 11-12, 2026.

↓

Projection Projection bullet: Because this contract resolves on any qualifying visit by May 31, 2026, an already-completed trip should dominate the probability unless the resolver adopts an unusually narrow reading of the evidence.

Key Factors

| Factor
▲ | Reuters published images of Vance meeting Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in Islamabad on April 11, 2026, which directly addresses the visit criterion.
▲ | AP reported that Vance led 21 hours of talks in Pakistan's capital and then departed, which is stronger evidence than a travel rumor or a scheduled itinerary.
▲ | The White House posted Vance's remarks from Islamabad, giving the public record an official U.S. acknowledgment of his presence there.
▲ | The indexed Polymarket market page shows a by-May-31 contract that traders are still pricing as if the key trip were pending, even though the public record points to an earlier April 11-12, 2026 visit.
▲ | Because the market appears to have launched after that reported visit, trader framing error is a plausible explanation for why YES still trades near 19c.
▼ | The main residual risk is not factual; it is resolution-mechanics risk if the final arbiter insists on an even narrower proof standard than the rule text implies.

Bayesian Calculation

Base rate: 19%, matching the May 4, 2026 market price on the YES side for a by-May-31 visit.

Positive update: Reuters and White House material place Vance in Islamabad, which is the core qualifying fact for the contract.

Negative update: We keep a 1-point haircut for resolver ambiguity because timing, sourcing, and market-open confusion can delay or distort settlement.

Naly estimate: 99% YES, or 99c fair value on the YES contract.

Alternative explanation: A more forgiving explanation for the market is that traders are not denying the April 11-12, 2026 trip happened; they may be pricing uncertainty about whether the resolver will treat pre-launch evidence, photojournalism, and public remarks as sufficient. That is a real arbitration risk, but it is much smaller than an 81% NO probability.

What Would Make Us Wrong

We would be wrong if the public reporting is later contradicted, if the Islamabad material is shown not to reflect a terrestrial or maritime entry into Pakistan, or if the market resolves under a house interpretation that effectively excludes already-public April evidence despite the by-date wording.

Fresh Checks

Polymarket market page: Will JD Vance visit Pakistan by May 31?

Reuters photo: Vance meets Pakistan's prime minister in Islamabad on April 11, 2026

White House: Vice President JD Vance Delivers Remarks in Islamabad, Pakistan

AP: U.S. and Iran end 21-hour talks after Vance departs Pakistan

Event 2

Will JD Vance have a diplomatic meeting with Iran by May 31, 2026?

GeopoliticsContract · YESResolves May 31, 2026Open as of May 4, 202695/100 confidence

+79c

Max Payout if Correct

Polymarket Top Answer NO 79%

Naly Top Answer YES 98%
Trade on Polymarket →

As of May 4, 2026, Polymarket was offering the YES side at 21c for a $1 binary contract that pays if JD Vance has a qualifying diplomatic meeting with Iran by May 31, 2026. Our separate estimate is 98% YES, implying a 98c fair price on that same YES side. This is also an answer flip because Polymarket's top answer is NO; the max payout if correct is 79c, while the fair-value edge is 77c.

Causal Chain

Cause Cause bullet: Ceasefire diplomacy produced an in-person Islamabad summit where Vance led the U.S. side and Iranian officials led Tehran's side.

↓

Effect Effect bullet: Once that mediator-backed meeting occurred, the key contractual question shifted from whether talks would happen to whether the format qualifies under the rules.

↓

Projection Projection bullet: Since the rules expressly allow mediated, in-person diplomacy that is publicly acknowledged or credibly reported, the contract should trade near YES unless the market is over-discounting technical ambiguity.

Key Factors

| Factor
▲ | Axios reported on April 8, 2026 that Vance would lead the U.S. team for the Pakistan talks, establishing that he was not a spectator but the core U.S. negotiator.
▲ | Reuters reported on April 10, 2026 that Iranian officials specifically wanted Vance in the lead role, which makes active participation more plausible rather than less.
▲ | AP reported that Vance led 21 hours of talks in Islamabad with an Iranian delegation led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf.
▲ | Reuters later described the Islamabad session as the first direct encounter between U.S. and Iranian officials in more than a decade, even though no deal emerged.
▲ | The indexed Polymarket rules say indirect in-person meetings conducted through mediators can qualify, so the strongest NO case is about proof and interpretation, not about whether diplomacy happened.
▲ | Because this by-May-31 market appears to have launched after the April 11-12, 2026 talks were already public, traders may be mentally treating it as a future-meeting market even though the wording reads like a retrospective qualifier.

Bayesian Calculation

Base rate: 21%, matching the May 4, 2026 market price on the YES side.

Positive update: Pre-talk reporting identified Vance as lead negotiator, and post-talk reporting placed him in the room for a deliberate diplomatic session with Iranian representatives.

Negative update: We keep a 2-point discount for the possibility that the resolver interprets with Iran more narrowly than the indexed rule summary suggests.

Naly estimate: 98% YES, or 98c fair value on the YES contract.

Alternative explanation: The charitable case for the market is that traders read no deal as evidence that the session never crossed the threshold from ceasefire shuttle diplomacy into a qualifying diplomatic meeting. If that is the lens, the market is pricing legalistic settlement risk rather than factual absence. We think that risk is real but far too heavily weighted.

What Would Make Us Wrong

We would be wrong if later clarification shows Vance was not physically present for the substantive session with Iranian representatives, if his role was judged too passive to count as active negotiation, or if the resolver excludes mediated formats despite the indexed rule language indicating they qualify.

Fresh Checks

Polymarket market page: Will JD Vance have a diplomatic meeting with Iran by May 31, 2026?

Axios: Vance to lead U.S. team for Iran peace talks in Pakistan

Reuters: Iran wanted to negotiate with Vance. They got their wish

Reuters: U.S. and Iran leave door open to dialogue after tense Islamabad talks

Conclusion

The watchpoint ahead of May 31, 2026 is not whether Vance can still create a new catalyst; it is whether Polymarket traders and resolvers fully absorb the April 11-12, 2026 public record. If new White House language, clearer Pakistani documentation, or a formal U.S.-Iran readout appears, both contracts should have little room left to stay near NO.

Methodology

We treat a 19c or 21c YES quote as both the entry price and the market-implied probability on a $1 binary contract. Then we build a separate causal estimate from public reporting, contract language, and settlement mechanics, convert that estimate into a fair cents price, and compare price versus fair value rather than headline sentiment. For resolved outcomes and calibration, see /track-record.

Disclaimer

This article is analysis, not investment advice. Prediction markets can stay mispriced longer than expected, and settlement risk can dominate factual risk when contract wording, timing, or evidentiary standards are disputed.