how did you pick 3.56995 ?

@Odoacre This is the lowest parameter where the map becomes chaotic. See the wikipedia page linked in the description for more.

I'm confused by this. In what situations does this resolve YES? It seems to sit at 72%, where x intersects the given parabola. So is it YES if x>3.56995*x*(1-x)? or less than? please explain

@TobyBusickWarner The market will resolve to a probability. So if you hold a single YES share at the end it will be worth 3.56995*x*(1-x).

@TobyBusickWarner I think it resolves to PROB the nearest whole percent of the formula. So if it were to close at the current 71% market value, the formula gives 0.7350527… and it would resolve to 73%

@BoltonBailey well, there would be some rounding of the formula result for the payout

@deagol sorry I think that would resolve to 74% due to rounding, not 73% (unless @BoltonBailey decides it’s the truncated whole percent?)

@deagol Rounded to nearest percent

Sniper alert: NO at 72% becomes profitable if it closes below 28%

similar with 71 needs 27 at close for breakeven, profits below that

@deagol this snipe was made even more enticing since my alert 🤷‍♂️

The current description sounds like you apply the function once, i.e. the outcome is a parabola. But the fact that you mention chaos theory sounds like you want to apply the function iteratively...? Can you confirm that the reward is just a parabola?

@FlorisvanDoorn The reward is just a parabola. I was thinking there was some potential for people to try to calculate iterates of the function to get an advantage by preempting other trades, but in retrospect, I don't think this is very likely.

@FlorisvanDoorn I should probably redo this and try to think of resolution criteria that make the market strategies actually depend on whether the map is chaotic or not. Maybe one relatively simple way could be to have the market close at a random time and let the payout be f(price 1 hour before close)

@BoltonBailey Ok here we go

50% gives x=0.5, not x=50, right?

@wylderai Correct

@BoltonBailey Also the first "x" in the question was meant as a variable, not a multiplication sign. Hopefully that goes without saying.