Wisdom is a misnomer.

When the betting group is fairly representative of the acting body, e.g., a cross section of the voting public, it's a bit like crediting them with wisdom for knowing their own mind. Like crediting you for wisdom for knowing what you're likely to eat for lunch. Let's survey Bob to get his views on where he will be dining. Wow! Bob's predictions turned out to be more accurate than those of our experts (who happen to be affiliated with local restaurants)!

When they are betting on matters apart from their influence, such as the date when Hussein will be removed, or against their own interests/desires, as when they bet on the opposing candidate, then it seems to me to be a matter of judgment, which is arguably akin to wisdom and arguably different, wisdom being considered more of a virtue, e.g., prudence.

And maybe therein lies the rub: Reliance on the collective prediction of gambling masses, their ostensible good judgment, may further reduce the role/influence of wisdom. Actual decision makers may make choices influenced by the judgment of gamblers who were not considering what was best or wise but rather only what was likely. Thus a crowd betting that decision makers will be imprudent may influence them to be so.

The influence could occur if decision makers trust the judgment of the gamblers', or could occur if the gamblers' predictions are seen as expectations, decision makers generally feeling as they usually do, that doing what is expected is the safest course of action.