robinhoodApril 14, 20269h agoSt. John's at Duke
Will St. John's win against Duke on March 26, 2027?
Signal
NO TRADE
Probability
0%
Confidence
HIGH
100%
Summary.
This market should have already resolved. The game between St. John's and Duke was played on March 27, 2026—18 days ago—and Duke won decisively 80-75 in the NCAA Tournament Sweet 16. Multiple official sources (NCAA.com, ESPN, Sports-Reference) confirm identical final scores and game details. Our estimated probability for St. John's winning is 0.00 (they already lost) versus the market's implied 0.01 probability for YES (99% for NO). The market has correctly priced this outcome at near-certainty for NO. There appears to be a date discrepancy in the bet question (states "March 26, 2027" but ticker and all evidence points to March 27, 2026), which may explain why this market remains unresolved despite being a completed historical event. This is not a predictive exercise—it's verification of a known past result where St. John's definitively did not win.
Reasoning.
CRITICAL TEMPORAL ISSUE: This game has already been played.
Today's date is April 14, 2026. The research findings conclusively demonstrate that Duke defeated St. John's 80-75 on March 27, 2026 - which occurred 18 days ago.
Date Discrepancy Analysis: The bet question states "March 26, 2027" but all evidence points to the game having occurred on March 27, 2026:
- Multiple official box scores confirm March 27, 2026
- The game was part of the 2026 NCAA Tournament Sweet 16
- All sources retrieved on April 14, 2026 reference this as a completed past event
Verified Historical Result:
- Final Score: Duke 80, St. John's 75
- Location: Capital One Arena, Washington D.C.
- Context: NCAA Tournament Sweet 16 matchup
- Multiple credible sources (NCAA.com, ESPN, Sports-Reference) all confirm identical results
Game Summary: St. John's led 40-39 at halftime and kept it competitive (16 ties, 10 lead changes), but Duke's interior dominance proved decisive. Duke outrebounded St. John's 40-27 and scored 40 paint points vs. 28. Despite St. John's hitting 13 three-pointers (41.9%), Duke's size advantage with Cameron Boozer (22 pts, 10 reb) and Isaiah Evans (25 pts) was too much.
Resolution Status: St. John's did NOT win this game. The market should resolve NO with absolute certainty. The current market odds of 0.01 for YES appropriately reflects near-zero probability, as this is a completed historical event with a verified outcome.
There is no predictive analysis to perform here - this is pure historical verification of a game result that occurred 18 days ago.
Key Factors.
Game already played on March 27, 2026 (18 days ago)
Official result: Duke 80, St. John's 75 - Duke won
Multiple credible sources confirm identical final score
St. John's did NOT win, therefore bet should resolve NO
Current market odds of 0.01 for YES correctly reflects zero probability
No predictive uncertainty - this is historical fact verification
Scenarios.
Historical Reality (Actual Outcome)
100%Duke defeated St. John's 80-75 on March 27, 2026. This already happened. St. John's did not win.
Trigger: Official NCAA box scores, ESPN game recaps, and Sports-Reference data all confirming Duke's 80-75 victory on March 27, 2026
Date Interpretation Error Scenario
0%If the bet truly refers to a future game on March 26, 2027 (nearly a year from now), then predictive analysis would be required. However, no evidence supports a scheduled 2027 matchup.
Trigger: Evidence of a scheduled Duke vs St. John's game in March 2027, which does not currently exist in the research
Market Resolution Error
0%Market fails to resolve to NO despite clear historical evidence of Duke's victory. This would represent a technical/administrative error.
Trigger: Market remains unresolved or incorrectly resolves to YES despite verified Duke victory
Risks.
Possible date typo in bet question (says 2027 but means 2026) could create resolution ambiguity
If market operator interprets this as a future 2027 game rather than the completed 2026 game, resolution could be delayed
Administrative error in market resolution process
Extremely remote possibility of score being corrected/amended by NCAA (has never happened in modern era for a completed tournament game)
Edge Assessment.
ABSOLUTE EDGE FOR NO (betting against St. John's winning):
The market odds of 0.01 for YES (99% implied probability for NO) are actually CORRECT and appropriate. This is a completed historical event - St. John's lost 75-80 to Duke on March 27, 2026.
No betting edge exists because the market has correctly priced this at near-certainty for NO. The 1% probability assigned to YES likely reflects:
- Tiny liquidity premium for those wanting to exit positions
- Administrative resolution risk
- Market mechanics (prices rarely go to exact 0.00)
Recommendation: If you can bet NO at odds better than 0.99, there is guaranteed profit assuming proper market resolution. However, with 18 days having passed since the game, this market should have already resolved. The fact it hasn't suggests possible administrative delay or date confusion.
The estimated probability of St. John's winning is 0.00 (they already lost), making any YES position worthless and any NO position a guaranteed winner upon proper resolution.
What Would Change Our Mind.
Discovery of evidence that a different Duke vs St. John's game is actually scheduled for March 2027 (currently no such evidence exists)
NCAA officially correcting or overturning the March 27, 2026 game result (unprecedented in modern tournament history)
Clear platform communication that the bet question date is a typo and confirms resolution based on the March 27, 2026 game (would make NO a guaranteed win)
Market operator clarification on why this hasn't resolved despite being 18 days past the game date
Sources.
- 2026 NCAA Tournament Sweet 16: Duke 80, St. John's 75 - Official Game Result
- Isaiah Evans scores 25 as top-seeded Duke survives St. John's upset bid
- Duke vs St. John's Box Score - March 27, 2026
- St. John's riding 21-1 run into Sweet 16 matchup with Duke
- No. 1 seed Duke enters Sweet 16 on 13-game winning streak
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.
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.
Will Democrats sweep all swing state Governor races in 2026?
The market prices a Democratic sweep of all six swing-state governorships (PA, MI, WI, GA, AZ, NV) at 34%, but our analysis estimates the true probability at approximately 18%—nearly half the market's implied odds. This represents a meaningful overvaluation. The core issue is parlay mathematics: even with generous 75-80% win probabilities for each individual race, the compounded probability of perfection across all six drops to 18-26%. Our race-by-race assessment identifies Pennsylvania (Shapiro) as highly favorable (~85%), Wisconsin and Arizona as moderate holds (~60-65% each), but Michigan's open seat (~55%), Georgia's flip attempt (~45%), and especially Nevada's incumbent-unseating challenge (~40%) create substantial failure points. While races aren't fully independent—a Democratic wave could create correlated wins—the market appears to overweight wave scenarios or 2022 Democratic overperformance patterns without fully accounting for the brutal requirement of zero losses. The ensemble analysis (primary: 18%, OpenAI: 23%, Google: 15%) converges on significant underpricing of NO at current 66% implied probability versus our ~82% true likelihood of failing the sweep.