robinhoodApril 7, 20262h agoSt. John's at Duke - College Basketball
Will St. John's win against Duke in their college basketball game on March 26, 2027?
Signal
NO TRADE
Probability
0%
Confidence
HIGH
100%
Summary.
This market contains a critical temporal error: the game already occurred on March 27, 2026—11 days ago—with Duke defeating St. John's 80-75 in the NCAA Sweet 16. The ticker "26MAR27" uses standard YYMMMDD format indicating 2026, not the March 26, 2027 date stated in the market question. Our estimated probability is 0.0% (impossible for St. John's to win a game they already lost) versus the market's 1% implied probability. The current market price of 0.01 correctly reflects a resolved outcome where St. John's lost, representing a dead market with residual liquidity rather than an active prediction. All temporal evidence confirms this: the 2025-2026 NCAA Tournament concluded with Michigan winning the championship, rosters are being reshaped for next season, and comprehensive final statistics exist for this game. This is not a future betting opportunity but a historical event awaiting administrative resolution.
Reasoning.
CRITICAL FINDING: This is a resolved historical event, not a future prediction.
Temporal Analysis:
- Today's date: April 7, 2026
- Market question asks about: "March 26, 2027" (appears to be ~11 months in the future)
- Research findings reveal: The game ALREADY OCCURRED on March 27, 2026 (11 days ago)
- Ticker format analysis: "KXNCAAMBGAME-26MAR27SJUDUKE-SJU" uses YYMMMDD format = Year 2026, March 27th
- Conclusion: There is a date parsing error in the market question. This game already happened.
Known Historical Outcome:
- Final Score: Duke 80, St. John's 75
- Location: Capital One Arena, Washington D.C.
- Tournament: NCAA Sweet 16
- Result: St. John's LOST - Market resolves NO
Game Summary: St. John's competed well, leading 40-39 at halftime and building a 10-point second-half lead. However, Duke (No. 1 seed, 13-game winning streak) closed on a dominant 35-20 run over the final 14:30. Dylan Darling missed a potential game-tying three-pointer with 11.2 seconds remaining. Duke advanced; St. John's was eliminated.
Market Pricing Analysis: The current market odds of 0.01 (1%) for St. John's winning is CORRECT for a resolved market where St. John's lost. This represents a dead/resolved market where the outcome is definitively known.
Probability Assessment: Since the game already occurred and St. John's lost, the true probability that "St. John's will win" this specific game is 0.0 (impossible - the event has already resolved negatively).
The market price of 0.01 likely represents:
- Residual liquidity in a resolved market
- Market mechanics preventing exact 0.00 pricing
- Dead market with no active trading
Base Rate Context (for informational purposes only): Had this been a future game, the historical base rate shows No. 5 seeds defeat No. 1 seeds approximately 5-7% of the time in NCAA Tournament play. St. John's hot form (21-of-22 wins) would have made them a live underdog, but Duke's elite defense (#1 nationally) and home-region advantage (D.C.) would have justified Duke as heavy favorite. The actual competitive game (5-point margin, St. John's leading deep into second half) validated St. John's could compete.
Verification: All temporal evidence confirms this is past tense:
- Michigan won the 2026 National Championship (tournament concluded)
- Cameron Boozer projected as top-5 NBA draft pick (post-season analysis)
- 2027 championship futures already posted
- Research retrieved April 7, 2026 references the game in past tense
Key Factors.
Game already occurred on March 27, 2026 - this is a resolved historical event
Final score definitively known: Duke 80, St. John's 75 (St. John's lost)
Market resolution criteria: St. John's did NOT defeat Duke, market resolves NO
Ticker date format '26MAR27' = 2026, not 2027 (date parsing error in market question)
2025-2026 NCAA Tournament completely concluded as of April 7, 2026
Current market price of 0.01 correctly reflects resolved outcome (dead market)
No uncertainty remains - past events have probability 1.0 or 0.0
Scenarios.
Historical Reality (100% occurrence)
100%The game was played on March 27, 2026. Duke defeated St. John's 80-75 in the NCAA Sweet 16. St. John's led at halftime and built a second-half lead before Duke's comeback. This already happened 11 days ago.
Trigger: Final box score, comprehensive game reports, tournament bracket confirmation showing Duke advanced and St. John's was eliminated. Michigan subsequently won the 2026 championship.
Market Date Error Scenario
0%If the market somehow refers to a completely different future game on March 26, 2027 (nearly a year from now), it would be a regular season or conference tournament game. However, all research evidence points to the ticker referencing the already-played March 27, 2026 Sweet 16 game.
Trigger: Would require evidence of a scheduled March 2027 Duke-St. John's game, but no such scheduling exists in the research. The ticker format explicitly indicates 2026.
Impossible Reversal
0%St. John's retroactively wins a game they already lost. This violates causality and is physically impossible.
Trigger: None - past events cannot be changed.
Risks.
MINIMAL RISK: The only scenario where this analysis is wrong is if the market question refers to an entirely different future game on March 26, 2027 (not March 27, 2026)
However, the ticker 'KXNCAAMBGAME-26MAR27SJUDUKE-SJU' explicitly uses standard YYMMMDD format pointing to 2026
All research evidence references the March 27, 2026 Sweet 16 game with comprehensive final statistics
No evidence exists of a scheduled Duke-St. John's game on March 26, 2027
Market mechanics: If this is truly a dead/resolved market, the 0.01 price is accurate (St. John's lost)
Bettor risk: Anyone betting 'Yes' at any price is betting on an event that already resolved negatively
Edge Assessment.
NO EDGE AVAILABLE - RESOLVED MARKET
Market implied probability: 0.01 (1% St. John's wins) True probability: 0.0 (St. John's already lost this game)
The market price of 0.01 is functionally correct for a resolved market. The difference between 0.01 and 0.0 represents market mechanics (minimum tick sizes, residual liquidity) rather than true edge.
DO NOT BET:
- The 'Yes' side is betting on an impossible outcome (past event already resolved NO)
- The 'No' side at 0.99 offers no value (would need to lock capital for zero return on known outcome)
- This is a dead market that should be resolved immediately
If this were somehow a different future game: The market would be catastrophically mispriced at 0.01, but all evidence confirms this refers to the already-played March 27, 2026 game. The ticker format, game details, and temporal consistency all confirm this is historical data.
Recommendation: Verify market resolution status. If unresolved due to administrative error, this should resolve NO immediately based on the March 27, 2026 final score.
What Would Change Our Mind.
Discovery of a separately scheduled Duke vs. St. John's game specifically on March 26, 2027 (not March 27, 2026) that the market refers to instead
Evidence that the ticker format 'KXNCAAMBGAME-26MAR27SJUDUKE-SJU' uses a non-standard date convention where '26MAR27' means 2027 rather than standard YYMMMDD format
Official market clarification indicating this refers to a future exhibition, charity game, or other event scheduled for March 2027
Proof that the comprehensive March 27, 2026 game reports (with final score 80-75) refer to a different matchup entirely
Sources.
Get This Via API.
Access real-time prediction market analysis programmatically. Every analysis on this page is available through our REST API.
curl -X POST https://api.rekko.ai/v1/markets/robinhood/TICKER/analyze \ -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY"
Related Analysis.
9 or more upsets in 2026 March Madness Round of 64
The market is pricing 9+ Round of 64 upsets at 46% implied probability, treating 8 upsets as the most likely outcome. However, historical data (2010-2023) shows an average of 9.15 upsets per tournament under this broad definition (any lower seed defeating a higher seed), suggesting the true probability should be approximately 52%. The market appears to be overweighting 2025's extreme anomaly (only 3 upsets) while undervaluing the robust long-term average. Seed-by-seed analysis yields an expected value of 8.3 upsets, just below the threshold but well within normal variance. The broad upset definition critically includes 9-vs-8 matchups (four coin-flip games producing ~2 expected upsets), which creates a structural advantage for YES. While NIL and Transfer Portal talent concentration may be reducing upset rates, regular season data shows stable upset frequencies despite wider point spreads, suggesting tournament variance and single-elimination dynamics still dominate. Major uncertainty exists because Selection Sunday is March 15—just two days away—meaning specific bracket matchups, auto-bid quality, and injury situations remain unknown. The estimated 52% probability represents modest value against the market's 46%, but confidence is tempered (58%) by bracket unknowns and genuine uncertainty about whether 2025 signals a structural shift or statistical outlier.
Canadian team wins the Stanley Cup before the 2031 season
The market implies a 63% probability that a Canadian team wins the Stanley Cup between 2026-2030, but my analysis estimates a more conservative 52% probability—an 11-percentage-point overvaluation. This is essentially a bet on the Edmonton Oilers' championship window during Connor McDavid's prime (ages 29-33), as all other Canadian teams are non-competitive (Toronto/Vancouver rebuilding, Ottawa a longshot at +3300-4000). While McDavid's team-friendly extension through 2027-28 creates a legitimate 3-year window and the Oilers reached back-to-back Finals in 2024-2025, several factors suggest the market is overpricing this outcome: (1) Edmonton LOST both Finals, creating psychological hurdles that losing finalists historically struggle to overcome; (2) Current injuries are concerning—Leon Draisaitl has been out since March 15 with unclear playoff timeline, and McDavid has hip/groin issues; (3) Colorado upgraded to prohibitive favorite (+275-300) by acquiring Quinn Hughes; (4) The 2029-2030 seasons offer minimal value since McDavid's extension ends after 2027-28; (5) The market appears sticky at 63¢ despite recent negative developments, suggesting recency bias and McDavid halo effect rather than properly pricing injury risks and elite competition. My probabilistic model weights 2027-2028 as peak window years (12-15% each) but assigns only 6% to injury-plagued 2026 and 5% to uncertain 2030, yielding 52% cumulative probability.
Will humans colonize Mars before 2050?
The market is pricing a Mars colony by 2050 at 17.5%, but our analysis estimates just 3% probability—nearly a 6:1 mispricing favoring "No." The critical development is SpaceX's February 2026 strategic pivot to lunar colonization, explicitly delaying Mars missions by 5-7 years. This eliminates the only credible Mars settlement actor until the early 2030s, leaving merely 17-19 effective years for an unprecedented achievement requiring 15-20+ years minimum from today. The resolution criteria demands extreme technical sophistication: 10+ people surviving one full Earth year without resupply, requiring operational ISRU, radiation-shielded agriculture, manufacturing, and nuclear power. NASA's roadmap shows only exploratory missions (late 2030s/2040) with Earth resupply—no government agency has permanent Mars settlement planned. The market appears inefficiently high due to retail Musk enthusiasm not fully incorporating the recent pivot's implications, while sharp money is already favoring "No." The 24-year horizon creates false comfort; detailed milestone sequencing reveals timeline compression is nearly impossible given Mars's 26-month launch windows, 6-9 month transits, and self-sufficiency requirements. Only tail-risk scenarios (AI singularity enabling autonomous construction, or geopolitical space race) preserve ~3% probability.