A "40-60 wiggle" means the market goes down to 40% or below, and then up to 60% or above. This market resolves to YES if 10 or more 40-60 wiggles occur before market close.
Inspired by another market
https://manifold.markets/Spindle/this-market-will-wiggle-a-lot
with vaguer resolution criteria.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,599 | |
| 2 | Ṁ136 | |
| 3 | Ṁ43 | |
| 4 | Ṁ38 | |
| 5 | Ṁ33 |
My original prediction
1. Pretend this is a game-theory problem assume that everybody is acting purely "rationally" to maximize their M-profits. (A very dangerous assumption here!) Then if you attack the problem by working backwards, the answer seems to be that it will resolve to NO (although I'm not completely sure about even this). You can work through it step-by-step, but the basic reason is that under our assumptions, everybody will solve the game and arrive at the same conclusion... so there won't be any wiggles.
2. If you throw in even a single actor who isn't "rational" -- or even if someone suspects that someone else suspects that such an actor might exist -- the above reasoning falls apart. Here in the real world there are lots of people who would mess around just for fun.
3. Aha! Actually, I think causing wiggles is free on Manifold: if you buy and sell shares, the total cost to you is exactly zero. This gives a clear winning strategy: make 10 wiggles, then buy it all the way up to YES.
4. Since (2) makes wiggles more likely, and (3) gives a solid (I think) winning strategy, I predict this market will resolve to YES.
5. If (3) happens, I'd like to make another similar market with different rules -- require different users or something.
@Boklam Thanks for posting your prediction.
Creating wiggles is only sometimes free. In this case, I had to pay a total of M$100 or so to Velocity, a trading bot that automatically buys when I lower the price and sells when I raise the price. Usually this is a good thing for the markets, by improving the price stability - but here it's the opposite of what I want when I'm intentionally creating wiggles lol. It was still worth it because there was over M$1000 available for the taking.
@jack Aha! So Velocity made some money off this too.
And the person who placed a $1000 limit order lost big-time. (Right?)
@jack Yeah I totally didn't think it through here lmao
I placed orders at 59 and 41 so they would have to be filled if the task were to be completed (Or I get filled only at 41 and I complete the task myself.)
For some reason I also placed habitual "stink" bids at 10 & 90 (just incase spindle or a newbie came along to play games). Obviously I wasn't thinking about it properly when I did that. If I'd seen those bids as an outsider I'd have done the same thing Jack did.
@jack dammit, I started teaching myself the API an hour ago just so I could do that without anyone scooping me :)
