This market ought to be N/A’d, something which the creator is amenable to if not for the error. Both users holding the largest YES and NO positions also think resolving N/A is a good idea. @ian, can you admin-resolve it and fix the bug that might result?

@oh +1

@oh +1

@oh Hopefully our community manager @DavidChee can handle this one!

+1. Also, since the market is going to be N/A'd, I'll close it now so that there are no new confused traders.

UPD: seems like I could do it myself! Kudos for fixing the bug, then.

@AnT - please resolve @acc holds "Yes" shares. So as per your clarification it should resolve "early" to NO

@GreyBox please see discussion in the comments, market will only early resolve if acc's position is larger than it's outstanding balance

Isn't this non-predictive?

Sorry to be a bother, but when you say "can early resolve NO if @acc holds YES shares" and expect traders to read every comment it is a little bit unfair to them.

@8 This clarification was added after I pointed out that it haven't said anything about resolving NO. So my understanding was that it can only resolve YES or N/A.

And right now it seems I'm outnumbered by the NO side 😐

This should finally teach me not to bet in non-productive markets with as little mana as I have

@MrLuke255 right, but this clarification was not added to the description before i bet mana on it, with the description clearly representing that this market would resolve NO early if acc had YES shares.

But I agree with you, N/A sounds like a great idea 😂

@AnT Would you be so kind and N/A'd this market?

btw I don't think it's possible to get @acc in trouble that way, the only effect is a YES vs. NO battle between the real users and acc keeps buying and selling so it won't have that much of a loan. It's essentially a "resolves yes if prob at close is <50%" now. And more wealthy users are on the NO side

@MrLuke255 Actually, I neither think that resolution criteria allow me that (though it rolls back @acc's profits, so maybe that can also work) nor believe that I can N/A this without "APIError: negative payouts too large for resolution".

@8 I agree that it is unfair, but from what I've been reading (and I'm fairly new so this could be wrong), it seems like it's Manifold's policy that you're supposed to read all the comments before betting at the moment. I don't think that's a good policy though.

@8 also though it seems a bit nitpicky, I think there is a difference between "can" and "will". In some contexts this could be unclear, but given the description always had "can" close and resolve any time before October 1st (and it didn't immediately resolve), we know that the description didn't imply that @acc holding yes would immediately trigger a resolve.

@MrLuke255 I think in principle you could get acc into a negative balance, but I agree that on this short timescale we're unlikely to

@8 obviously I'm biased because I want the market to resolve as stated, not N/A. Although Trong buying so much no wasn't actually good for me because it makes the math worse for building up an acc yes balance

@Gnostic But when I'll try to make it build NO balance then you can buy cheaper YES. And there are more of you on the NO side. So unless someone big joins me on YES side you will still win and not loose.

@MrLuke255 Yes but Trong pushed it so far towards no that it became very cheap to make it pick up no shares for a while. It is still cheaper than making it buy yes shares now

@Gnostic Either way, it's a fight between both sides now, it's not going to hurt @acc at all, definitely not more than the real users on the loosing side

resolves No

@8

what on earth is that clarification

when was that added? when I click 'show history' it only shows one revision, but the revision doesn't have that clarification

@jacksonpolack free profit for me

@jacksonpolack pretty sure its been there for a while

I probably jus missed it, but it's annoying history is bugged

@8 it was like that from the beginning, clarification hasn't changed that. Previously when acc was holding no it could early resolve yes. Author hasn't clarified when he will resolve

@MrLuke255 from the description, this will either resolve No or N/A

@8 https://manifold.markets/AnT/resolves-yes-if-acc-holds-no-shares#APALYNGza8rKKhMvyCy7

I attempt to make @acc go into negative balance. For that, I intend it to have a big loan on this market and then resolve market in the opposite direction (according to the title).

@AnT so will this market resolve to NO?

@AnT according to the title, this should resolve to NO right now (along with the description)

the ... title?

@jacksonpolack along with the description (as edited in the comment)

@8 At the current time, market is not going to resolve NO, since @acc has Ṁ5,895 balance and its loan here is clearly less than that.

@8 sorry if that was unclear, though it seems hard to find better wording.

@AnT its alright, but maybe add what you commented into the description so people like me dont lose 2k

@8 I agree that it should be required to put important comments into the description