🏅 Top traders

Absolutely wrecked by this market but I'd do it all again, what a game

This market rules 😂

@StephenClare I concur

@MattReardon Nice!!

If France does not score this resolves YES.

Without a clearer definition this market is meaningless.

@Jelle You clearly didn’t read the comments.

@BTE if the game ended now, would it resolve positively?

@OllieBase yes if still 2-0

@Jelle It’s unclear to me what you don’t understand, can you clarify?

Is it ever the case that multiple goals are considered "the winning goal"? In a non-tied game, is there always exactly one goal that was considered the winning goal?

@RobiRahman No. There can only be one winning goal. Don’t overthink it.

How do you define a game-winning goal?

if it's 4-2 does he need to be #4 or #3? I assume #1 and/or #2 don't count.

@MichaelWheatley In that case #3 is the winner. In the case of a shootout he would need to score the last goal, which as I said in another comment is very unlikely since he is their first shooter.

@BTE What if the score goes 0-0 -> 1-0 -> 2-0 -> 3-0 -> 4-0 -> 4-1 -> 4-2? Is it still the third goal that's winning?

@Yev Good question, yes. Say, equalizer + 1.

@BTE So the first goal in this case would be the "winning" goal?

@Cutie Proposal for different resolution criteria:

"If Messi scores, and he didn't score, Argentina would not have won"? You might want to add
- This does not include own goals
- If Messi scores more than one goal which, if they all weren't scored, Argentina would not have won, this resolves positive.

So, for @Yev's case, this would only resolve positive if Messi scores at least two of those goals.

@OllieBase *"If Messi scores, and IF he didn't score, Argentina would not have one"

@OllieBase This is kinda strange because, if Messi scores, then another Argentina player scores, and then France score, it resolves positive. But I think that's still fine?

@OllieBase The problem is that doesn't really make sense except in retrospect. What I mean by that is in real time, say Argentina is losing by 2 in 90+ time and Messi scores two miraculous goals in less than 5 minutes to send to extra time. France scores in first 15 of overtime, then Messi again ties it in the second 15. Messi goes on to score on the first shot in the penalty kicks and Argentina wins on PKs 2-1. Even then, while you are watching the game, in real time, it will be impossible to argue against the Argentinian who scored the second PK being credited with the winner. Only in retrospect will analysts go back and say "well technically Messi won blah blah blah".

Well, there is the complicating factor that in a shootout it isn't always a goal that wins but arguably by a save by a goaltender, but that, like your clever suggestion, is too complicated to make sense.

@BTE This may end in a dramatic conclusion.

@ORACLE You mean people may challenge the way I resolve this market? Or do you mean watching Messi be the GOAT on the biggest stage attempting to go out like Michael Jordan??

@BTE I think any reasonable notion of "winning goal" will only make sense in retrospect. There's always the possibility that France scores 10 goals in the last minute and wins. Surely the losing team can't score the winning goal?

@Yev Of course the losing team can't. I am going off the very well established way of determining who had the game winning RBI in baseball. Though slightly different context, it works here.

@Yev And that is fair about it always being retrospect. Sometimes it isn't easy to remember who is responsible because a lot can happen before a game ends.

@BTE I agree with BTE's original resolution criteria. This is the standard way of describing game-winning goals across multiple sports (e.g. ice hockey as well). If the losing team scored n goals, whoever on the winning team scored its n + 1 goal scored the GWG (regardless of timing or ordering of goals)

@Yev not that it matters now, but the losing team could score the winning goal, in an own-goal situation