robinhoodMarch 27, 20265d agoArkansas at Arizona: Spread - Arizona wins by over 8.5 points
Will Arizona win by over 8.5 points against Arkansas?
Signal
NO TRADE
Probability
100%
Confidence
HIGH
100%
Summary.
This market has already resolved in practice: the game was played on March 26, 2026 (yesterday), with Arizona defeating Arkansas 109-88—a 21-point margin that decisively exceeds the 8.5-point threshold. The true probability is 1.0 (100%), barring extraordinarily unlikely scenarios like scoring errors or game invalidation. The market's 0.99 price correctly reflects this near-certainty, with the 1% discount representing fair value for the 14-day capital lock-up until the April 10 formal resolution date, plus minimal platform/settlement risk. There is no predictive edge here—this is a historical fact awaiting mechanical settlement. The pricing is efficient given the time value of money and standard market mechanics for post-event binary outcomes.
Reasoning.
This is not a predictive analysis - the game has already been played and the result is final.
TEMPORAL CONTEXT:
- Today's date: March 27, 2026
- Game date: March 26, 2026 (1 day ago)
- The event has already occurred and resolved
ACTUAL GAME RESULT:
- Final Score: Arizona 109, Arkansas 88
- Margin of Victory: 21 points
- Spread Requirement: 8.5+ points for YES resolution
- Result: Arizona won by 21 points, which exceeds 8.5 by 12.5 points
RESOLUTION CRITERIA ASSESSMENT: The bet asks: "Will Arizona win by over 8.5 points?"
- Arizona won by 21 points (109-88)
- 21 > 8.5 ✓
- The bet MUST resolve to YES
MARKET EFFICIENCY: The market is priced at $0.99 (99¢), which correctly reflects the certain outcome. The 1% discount from perfect certainty ($1.00) likely represents:
- Transaction costs and market mechanics
- Minimal counterparty/platform risk before official settlement
- The time value between now and the April 10, 2026 resolution date (14 days away)
There is no predictive edge to find here - this is a historical fact. The game is over, Arizona covered the spread decisively, and the market has correctly priced this at near-certainty.
TRUE PROBABILITY: 1.0 (100%) The only scenario where this doesn't resolve YES would involve discovering the game result was falsified, which has effectively zero probability given this is a major NCAA Tournament Sweet 16 game with widespread media coverage and official documentation.
Key Factors.
The game was played yesterday (March 26, 2026) and is a completed historical event
Final score is definitively documented: Arizona 109, Arkansas 88 (21-point margin)
Arizona's 21-point margin exceeds the 8.5-point threshold by 12.5 points
This was a high-profile NCAA Tournament Sweet 16 game with extensive media coverage and official record-keeping
Market correctly prices the outcome at $0.99, reflecting near-certainty with minimal time-value discount
Resolution is mechanical - no judgment calls needed, just arithmetic: 109-88=21, and 21>8.5
Scenarios.
Game Result Stands (Certain Outcome)
100%The documented game result (Arizona 109, Arkansas 88, played March 26, 2026) is accurate and official. The bet resolves YES as Arizona won by 21 points, exceeding the 8.5-point threshold.
Trigger: This is already the confirmed reality. Official NCAA records, box scores, media coverage all confirm the result. No triggering event needed - this has occurred.
Extraordinary Invalidation
0%An extraordinarily unlikely scenario where the game result is somehow invalidated (e.g., discovered institutional fraud, game never actually occurred, massive scoring error). This would be unprecedented for a nationally televised NCAA Tournament game.
Trigger: Would require NCAA announcement of game invalidation, which has no precedent in modern tournament history for a completed game with this level of visibility.
Risks.
Scoring error in official records (extraordinarily unlikely for NCAA Tournament game with real-time broadcast and multiple official scorekeepers)
Game invalidation due to eligibility violation discovered post-game (no precedent for changing final scores in NCAA Tournament)
Platform/market error in resolution (operational risk, not outcome risk)
Misunderstanding of bet terms (however, the terms are clear: YES if Arizona wins by 9+ points, which they did by 21)
Edge Assessment.
NO EDGE AVAILABLE - Market is correctly priced at near-certainty ($0.99).
The true probability is 1.0 (or 0.9999+ accounting for infinitesimal tail risks). The market's $0.99 pricing represents fair value when considering:
- Time Value: Resolution date is April 10, 2026 (14 days away). Capital is locked until then.
- Platform Risk: Minimal counterparty/settlement risk before official resolution.
- Market Mechanics: The 1% discount from $1.00 is standard for "already resolved" binary outcomes awaiting formal settlement.
RECOMMENDATION: No betting edge exists. At $0.99, you're paying fair value for a certain outcome with 2-week lock-up period. The market has efficiently incorporated the game result.
If anything, the $0.99 price might be slightly EXPENSIVE if you value the time-value of locking capital for 14 days to earn just 1% return (which annualizes to ~26% but requires certainty and no better opportunities).
This is not a prediction market with edge potential - it's essentially a post-settlement pricing mechanism awaiting formal resolution.
What Would Change Our Mind.
Discovery of a major scoring error in official NCAA records showing Arizona's actual margin was 8 points or fewer
NCAA announcement invalidating the game result due to eligibility violations or institutional fraud (unprecedented for completed tournament games)
Evidence that the documented March 26, 2026 game result is fabricated or incorrectly attributed
Identification that this market references a different game than the documented Arizona 109, Arkansas 88 Sweet 16 matchup
Significant opportunity cost change: if alternative investments offered substantially higher risk-adjusted returns than the ~26% annualized rate from a 1% gain over 14 days, making even certain outcomes unattractive
Sources.
Market History.
7-day range: 99¢ – 99¢.
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.