> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://polymarketguide.gitbook.io/polymarketguide-archive/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://polymarketguide.gitbook.io/polymarketguide-archive/case-studies/astros-vs.-dodgers.md).

# Astros vs. Dodgers

On July 5, 2025, the *Astros vs. Dodgers* market resolved incorrectly in what became one of the most glaring misresolutions in Polymarket’s history. The Houston Astros defeated the Los Angeles Dodgers in a dominant 18 to 1 victory. Yet the market resolved to the Dodgers.

<figure><img src="/files/FYvSE4XgAqPgRps9sEzq" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

This was a market with no ambiguity or subjectivity. The outcome was simple, objective, and uncontested. Every major sports outlet, including MLB itself, reported the Astros as the clear winner. It should have resolved cleanly but instead caused losses totaling over $217,000. While Polymarket shortly after issued refunds to affected users [via an official statement on X](https://x.com/Polymarket/status/1941605981638508859), the incident remained a major topic of concern within the broader Web3 and crypto community.

<figure><img src="/files/aLqrw5vThxWnwhYhowR3" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

The error occurred during the height of the [Suitgate saga](/polymarketguide-archive/case-studies/the-suitgate-saga.md), which only added fuel to the fire. That market, titled *Will Zelenskyy wear a suit before July?*, had already drawn heavy criticism over its resolution process and set the stage for deeper scrutiny of UMA and its role as oracle.

<figure><img src="/files/5AblUNqok6Btbyux97u9" alt=""><figcaption><p><a href="https://x.com/omeragoldberg/status/1942658736016802049">Omer Goldberg X post</a></p></figcaption></figure>

After the *Astros vs. Dodgers* misresolution, discussion around UMA exploded on social media. Users flooded X with accusations, calling UMA a scam oracle and highlighting its history of controversial decisions. Headlines circulated about UMA whales, manipulated proposals, and the reappearance of actors like aenews. Aenews, who had been tied to multiple past scandals including the most infamous in Polymarket history, the Ukraine minerals scandal, was once again at the center of the controversy. Many posts went viral even as some pushed misleading or outright false narratives.

<figure><img src="/files/7hb0grRoR5l6juwS1KIN" alt=""><figcaption><p><a href="https://x.com/Tyler_Did_It/status/1941581909835870389">TylerD X post</a></p></figcaption></figure>

#### **Coming Up**

This case study will examine how such an obvious outcome was allowed to misresolve, and why no one stopped it in time. It will take a closer look at the inner workings of UMA’s proposal and verification process, the actors involved, and what steps can be taken to improve future market integrity. Most importantly, it asks how a system built on transparency can rebuild trust when it breaks down in such a public way.