Including "Other," how many answers will this question have when it closes?
If more than one answer is correct, the most restrictive of the correct answers will resolve to Yes. For example, if one answer is "An even number" and another answer is "Six," and there are six answers when the question closes, then "Six" would resolve to Yes because it is more restrictive than "An even number." And similarly, "A number divisible by 3" would be more restrictive than "An even number" if those were the only two correct answers.
If I determine that more than one correct answer are equally the most restrictive correct answer, then I will split the decision evenly between the most restrictive correct answers.
Please don't add an answer that is equivalent to an answer that has already been added.
I won't be changing the closing date/time of this question or betting on it myself. I also won't be adding any further answers myself.
Update 2025-24-01: Going forward, I would appreciate it if all answers are legible to all traders. And if anyone adds "The number of answers this question has" or anything equivalent to that, that will be treated as the least restrictive answer (equivalent to "Any number") and automatically resolve to No (since "Odd" and "Even" have already been added, which are both more restrictive than "Any number") when the question closes (even though it is technically a variable finite set of N=1).
Update 2025-25-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Most Restrictive Answer Parsing:
The most restrictive answer is interpreted as a finite set that includes all other answers that are single static integers.
This finite set is considered less restrictive than any individual answer within the set.
Update 2025-25-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarifications on Resolution Criteria:
All sets are treated as finite sets.
Set members are counted between 1 and 100 to determine restrictiveness.
Update 2025-25-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Additional Clarifications:
Equivalent sets (e.g., "prime number between 1 and 100") cannot be added to increase restrictiveness.
Update 2025-25-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarifications on Restrictiveness:
Variable values are considered less restrictive than static values.
Static values (e.g., "100") remain the most restrictive when resolving the market.
Update 2025-28-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarifications on Restrictiveness:
Adding extraneous elements to an answer does not increase its restrictiveness for tiebreaking purposes.
If multiple answers are deemed equivalent in restrictiveness, the first added correct answer resolves to Yes, and subsequent equivalent answers resolve to No.
No answer is more restrictive than a single static value; adding variable conditions (e.g., "100 and...") does not increase restrictiveness.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ8,747 | |
| 2 | Ṁ4,970 | |
| 3 | Ṁ1,969 | |
| 4 | Ṁ814 | |
| 5 | Ṁ759 |
People are also trading
@Longtimecarp there's a big difference between saying "please don't do a thing" and having a specific policy for how to respond if somebody does do that thing. The description did not say that duplicates would be excluded, and as far as I know, nobody asked in the comments what the policy on duplicated answers would be before it happened.
Note also that your proposal would be very vulnerable to exploitation.
@Longtimecarp From my earlier comment: "And I guess I should add another nuance here that if 2 answers are deemed equivalent (e.g., "100" and "50 + 50"), then the later equivalent answers will resolve to No and the first (assuming it was correct and the most restrictive) will resolve to Yes."
So I have said that equivalent answers would be allowed with an "only the first one counts" tiebreaker.
@Fion "Note also that your proposal would be very vulnerable to exploitation."
Come on, the market was far more exploitable without my proposal, in fact it ended up be exploited by a single user forcing 100.
I’m okay with not agreeing, but just to understand do you consider these 5 ideas or just one?
@Longtimecarp "the market was far more exploitable without my proposal, in fact it ended up be exploited by a single user forcing 100."
I'm not sure there's a big difference. With your proposal, when the market was sitting on 38 answers, I could have added 62 answers that were all the same and forced resolution to 39
@Longtimecarp I will agree that I found it a bit annoying that the question was flooded with "resolves no" instead of random five digit numbers but I decided that ultimately it didn't make a difference and had the same effect.
Otherwise I would have had to have a moderator remove those answers and extend the close date just so they could be added back as random numbers.
@Fion Yeah but with the possibility of editing the questions, so someone could have simply edit a question, making it the same and change it to 38
Even without considering editing, you could still have bet on 39 only once there were no more available question slots. So, you would have had to create the questions first, and then you could have placed your bets. However, with the current state of the market, it was possible to create 100 and bet on 100 even before all the questions were created because this value was locked from the beginning.
@AndrewKeen In the end, as the creator of the market, the final decision on how to resolve it is absolutely yours. However, if I had been the one to resolve the market, I certainly wouldn’t have taken duplicates into account, also, because I noticed a particular attention to detail in analyzing potential problems by responding in the comments. So, I thought the question would be a bit deeper, but evidently, it wasn’t the case."
@Longtimecarp I would definitely do some things differently if I were ever to make a spiritual sequel to this question. I didn't know there was a limit when I created the question, but I knew if there was a reachable limit, that this was one possible outcome. Ultimately, the question was "How many answers will this question have when it closes?" without any strict rules about disallowing duplicates, and I certainly never made any mention of not counting duplicates for the purpose of selecting which answer would resolve to Yes.
Please remove duplicates right before closing 🤣
Please don't add an answer that is equivalent to an answer that has already been added.
@snazzlePop No. I didn't consider that a strict rule since I put "please" in front of it and I had a tiebreaker for handling equivalent rules.
It wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome if she had put random numbers in there instead of "resolves to no."
@AndrewKeen "it wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome if she had put random numbers in there instead of "resolves to no."
yeah, she could have, but she didn't
@ian if you’re feeling spicy, today would be a fun day to push an update that allows for >100 answers on MC markets 🌶️😜🤣
@Bayesian Bagelfan said the superbowl market works fine, maybe it's more than 30 answers where it starts going south?