If we had fresh eyes on this, would we really conclude that the win rate for military and defense longshot bets is just temporary?
It feels like a sunk-cost fallacy to walk away from looking deeper just because markets are usually volatile.
There's a consistent pattern here, which suggests that the underlying information structure or participant behavior for these types of bets is different.
For instance, defense budgets or long-term geopolitical strategies don't shift overnight like a Central Bank's interest rate decision, which can change based on one press conference.