There is a lot of bluster, and doubters. I suspect he is a mana mega millionaire with hoards in alts all over the place. You also don't know how many of the NO votes are actually him and won't be there in an hour.
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,035 | |
| 2 | Ṁ724 | |
| 3 | Ṁ286 | |
| 4 | Ṁ96 | |
| 5 | Ṁ34 |
Isaac farmed bonuses from hundreds of accounts he directly controlled via API keys:
https://discord.com/channels/915138780216823849/1097673078693187734/1100293686266441739
and switched all those accounts away from betting NO all at once
Regardless of whether Isaac wins or loses, Isaac did have hoards of alts and many of the NO votes were actually him and aren't there now, which exactly matches this market description
@PatMyron I was intending this to mean will he have a trick that leads to him winning. Obviously he was gonna have something up his sleeve and it was clever, but he lost so was it really a trick or just a fail??
@BTE the example in your description is “You also don't know how many of the NO votes are actually him and won't be there in an hour.” That’s literally one of the exact tricks Isaac pulled. Nothing in the description says the trick has to work. This really ought to resolve YES.
@BTE IMO, that is one of the worst comments on this question. The word "actually" doesn't significantly change the meaning of a sentence unless the original sentence was referring to something unreal, like a work of fiction, or meant something non-literal. There is absolutely nothing in the title or description of this market that said that Isaac's trick has to succeed for it to be considered an "actual" trick. How does being unsuccessful make it any less of a trick?
@BTE also it doesn't matter that you secretly intended to ask if the trick would also win the market. You didn't actually ask that
@PatMyron See what you (likely unintentionally) did in that second sentence?!? Doesn't matter if Isaac intended to trick the NO with his army of bots, he didn't ACTUALLY trick them!!
I do hear your argument though. Still uncertain what to do but your arguments are compelling for both of our cases 🤣
@BTE That's not analogous, though. Isaac did actually trick the minnows with his army of alts, it just wasn't enough to win the market because minnows responded with stronger recruitment efforts.
@PatMyron I honestly don't think you bought this market because you rigorously read the resolution criteria, but rather because Isaac bought M$1000 of YES. That said, @JosephNoonan upon further reflection, my last comment about Pat's comment that I didn't "actually" say he had to lose does not in fact support me, it eviscerates me because they are analogous. So I agree this should resolve YES. I will compensate NO's who bet after I did for misleading you. My bad y'all.
@WinstonOswaldDrummond And it'd rely on this market existing, which he probably didn't know was gonna happen ahead of time.
@WinstonOswaldDrummond People would still keep their last share since it's basically free.
@WinstonOswaldDrummond Wouldn't they switch to buying YES (meaning they no longer hold any NO shares) if they think it will resolve that way?
@BTE I'm just betting based on the fact that the other market on the exact same question already resolved YES.
@IsaacKing There is a difference between these two markets: "Does @IsaacKing actually have a trick up his sleeve in the Whales vs Minnows market?" That "actually" changes the meaning significantly.