Let me mention a monitoring tool(s) that offends all those claiming xxx% accuracy on #polymarket… Let's say you used an on-chain monitoring tool on Polymarket that claims to identify "whale-informed transactions" with an accuracy rate of up to 95%. Sounds impressive, right? But let's look at a key figure first: of all large purchases, only 1% actually come from informed whales. That's the base probability. The tool now pops up an alert: "Whale buying detected!" Should you follow suit? Don't rush, let's break it down. Let's assume 10,000 large buy orders have just appeared in the market: The first step – finding the real whales. Only 1% of 10,000 transactions are truly informed, or 100 transactions. The tool has a 95% accuracy rate, so it can catch 95 of those. The second step – counting false alarms. The remaining 9,900 transactions were all normal transactions. The tool has a 5% false alarm rate, incorrectly labeling 495 of them as "whales". Step 3 – Settle the total. How many alarms did the tool sound in total? 95 + 495 = 590 times. But only 95 of them were true. P(Real Whale | Tool Alarm) = 95 / 590 ≈ 16% A tool that claims to have a "95% accuracy rate" tells you there are whales, but there's only a 16% chance it's true. The remaining 84% of the time, you're just following a completely random, ordinary trade. Why is this? Because real whales are so rare (1%), while ordinary trades are so numerous (99%). Even if the false alarm rate is only a small 5%, multiplied by the huge base, the number of false alarms will far outweigh the real signals. If you think 16% is alright... what if the truth is that whale/smart money only accounts for 0.01%? 😂 So next time you see an on-chain tool pop up a "whale activity" notification, don't rush in—ask yourself: how big is the denominator? twitter.com/agintender/status/...