November 11, 2026
Most days, the loudest book on the board is a sports moneyline that resolves within hours. Today the loudest books are macro — and they are saying something unusually specific about December.
As of the November 11, 2026 snapshot I'm working from, two Fed markets each turned over roughly $2M in a single session. One of them prices the probability that the Federal Reserve does nothing at its December meeting at 3.6%. The other prices a 50+ basis point increase at 11.1%. Put those two numbers side by side and you get a board that has almost entirely abandoned the idea of a steady hand — and is quietly building a tail on the hawkish side.
Here's the raw snapshot, which is where every honest polymarket analysis has to start:
Two things jump out before any interpretation. First, the hold market printed about 35% of its entire lifetime volume in one day. That is not drift; that is a repricing session. Second, both books moved in the same macro direction — away from "nothing happens," toward "something big happens." When a hold collapses and a large-increase tail firms simultaneously, the board isn't confused. It's leaning.
The number I actually care about isn't on either market page. If "no change" is 3.6% and "50+ bps increase" is 11.1%, then roughly 85.3% of probability mass sits in everything else: a 25 bps increase, a 25 bps cut, a 50 bps cut, or anything deeper.
That residual is the whole story, and it's also the limitation of this snapshot. These two books are the extremes of a ladder, and I don't have the middle rungs in front of me. An 85.3% residual could mean a market that is 80% convinced of a single 25 bps move in one direction, or one that is genuinely split between cuts and a modest hike. Those are completely different worlds, and the two markets I can see cannot distinguish them.
So the research prompt writes itself: before drawing any conclusion, pull the full December ladder — the 25 bps increase leg, the 25 bps decrease leg, the 50+ bps decrease leg — and check whether the complete set sums near 100%. Ladders that sum meaningfully above or below par are usually telling you about fee drag, stale legs, or thin depth on the unloved rungs, not about the Fed.
One structural detail worth logging: the 50+ bps increase market carries more posted liquidity ($375,625) than the hold market ($317,317), despite having roughly 63% of its lifetime volume. Market makers are willing to quote size on an 11.1% tail. That usually happens when the tail has become genuinely contested rather than decorative — a 1% lottery leg rarely attracts that kind of book.
Compare it to the 3.6% hold. At that price, the no-side is doing most of the work, and the yes-side is approaching the zone where tick granularity and fees eat a meaningful share of any theoretical edge. Prediction market odds below about 5% behave differently from odds in the middle of the range, and treating a move from 4.2% to 3.6% as "down 14%" overstates what actually happened in dollar terms.
A methodology note, because this trips people up constantly. A posted "−14.8% 24h change" on a 3.6% market is ambiguous — it can mean percentage points or relative move, and the two imply very different starting prices. I treat these figures as directional confirmation, not as precise measurements, and I reconstruct the actual move from the price history before writing anything down. Direction here is unambiguous: hold is lower on both the day and the week, and the large-increase tail is higher on both. The daily and weekly readings agree, which is more informative than either alone.
This is a research note, not a trade recommendation. Trader execution is off on this project, and nothing here is a position.
The watchlist items I'd log from this snapshot:
What I wouldn't do is treat 3.6% as "free." Low-probability legs on macro books carry headline risk in both directions, and the December calendar still has data releases ahead of the meeting that can reprice the entire ladder in a session — as this snapshot just demonstrated.
I keep running these checks — odds, depth, turnover ratios and catalyst dates — and post the notes as I go. If you want the same snapshots and the same caveats, follow the free watchlist on Telegram and compare notes with fellow traders there. It's research, openly shared, not signals.
It's the probability mass left over once you subtract the two visible legs — 3.6% for no change and 11.1% for a 50+ bps increase — from 100%. That residual covers every other outcome, including a 25 bps increase and cuts of any size. Because those legs aren't in this snapshot, the residual tells you the market expects a move but not which direction, which is exactly why the full ladder needs pulling before anyone draws a conclusion.
Posted liquidity reflects where market makers are willing to quote size, not where probability sits. The $375,625 on the large-increase book against $317,317 on the hold book suggests the hawkish tail is being actively contested rather than treated as a leftover. Tails that attract real depth usually have two-sided disagreement behind them.
Use them directionally. On a book priced at 3.6%, a "−14.8%" reading could mean 14.8 percentage points or a 14.8% relative move, and those imply very different starting prices. I always reconstruct the actual move from price history before quoting it. In this case the daily and weekly readings point the same way, which strengthens the signal regardless of the exact scale.
No. Trader execution is off on this project. Everything above is observed market data plus a methodology for reading it — depth, turnover, residual math and catalyst dates. Nothing here is a position, a signal, or advice to enter any market.
Around scheduled data releases and in the final weeks before the meeting date. This snapshot showed roughly 35% of a book's lifetime volume arriving in a single session, which is how quickly a macro ladder can reprice. For a December meeting, I'd re-run the full polymarket analysis after each major inflation or labour print rather than on a fixed daily schedule.