🏅 Top traders

dumb

Misleading question, it shouldn't have been expressed as a singular if you were going to count people loosely related to the actual winner

@Tripping I don't think they're "loosely related" tbh

@Tripping unless 'colin' https://x.com/MrBeast/status/2029970184887214343

is a manifolder I think this is straight up bullshit

@Tripping see this:

The winning team was not just a single person working on this.

@Tripping colin is the winner, if he's allowed to say a million other people were on his ''''team'''' then that's just making shit up

@Tripping The market description has always quite clearly stated its policy towards a winning team, no?

@bens https://mrbeast.salesforce.com/

https://x.com/MrBeast/status/2029970184887214343

All of this specifies a singular winner, 'colin'

they did not say a team won, they said colin won

if a team won then mr beast would have said that a team won

This is pretty clearly just horseshit that's completely against the spirit of the actual competition as ran by mrbeast

If mrbeast in his announcement of the winner said that a team won then I would not be complaining. But he didn't, he said colin won. All of this other shit is just informal posturing and does not affect the fact that colin, a single individual, won

If you provide proof that colin is a manifolder then fair enough, otherwise this is obviously not how this market should be resolved based on who the actual competition holders have said actually won in their actual communications as listed in the actual description

@Tripping I lost 25k mana on this and I think it's perfectly reasonable. The market description said from the beginning that team members would count as long as they receive a portion of the reward money from the officially winning person. Every market title has ambiguities and they're ideally resolved by the description text. So what's the problem exactly?

@xjp I don't think it matters how much mana you win/lose, it matters whether the market resolves correctly. It's a distraction to talk about how much mana you're losing

@Tripping The relevance is that I'm hardly biased in favour of a YES resolution.

@Tripping I'm tend to agree.

@Chumchulum I really don't understand what the problem is. A market is resolving based on its clearly stated resolution criteria.

@xjp they dont need to receive the money btw, just need a promise that they will receive the money

@SavioMak exactly, what a ridiculous criteria

@Tripping The resolution criteria was fine, but I agree the question was badly phrased and did not match the criteria. Unfortunately, the insiders were disincentived from asking for a correction to the title, because the resolution criteria already supported their position pretty unambiguously.

@JimHays Frankly none of this even struck me.

Anyone who trades on Manifold enough, knows to always check the description. About half the markets have something in there that changes odds significantly. So I just looked at the market+description, and traded based on that.

But I agree with a general conversation about having title+description of markets matching better, probably something to ask @ Mods about. This would be a Manifold wide change in culture, and I would be very happy to support it.

I think a “share of the prize money split” is a perfectly fine definition. The title does not completely capture all details of the question, but that’s inevitably true for most titles. Maybe it would have been slightly more precise with “a” winner in the title, but many titles do not aim for maximum precision and that’s fine

@Tripping I genuinely can't see where you're coming from.

If someone comments on this market within a week after the official contest winner(s) are announced, proving to my satisfaction that their Manifold account belongs to the winner or a member of the winning team, and the account existed before the Super Bowl, this market resolves YES.

The Manifolder can be on a winning team, meaning that they contributed meaningfully to the official winner's solution and are promised a cut of the prize money.

It's just plainly stated. Your proposed alternate resolution concept would go directly against the stated and unedited resolution criteria. It would be clearly violating the market.

@Tripping Sure, the title would've been more accurate if it were "Will the winner of Mr. Beast's $1M Super Bowl puzzle or someone contributing to their solution and promised a share of the prize be a Manifolder?" Not sure Manifold would let me write a title that long though... I would've written "a winner" if I'd thought of it.

The website explicitly encouraged teaming up. It would be extremely unlikely for a single person to win a puzzlehunt of this scale all by themselves. I think requiring a single designated winner is mostly to make it easier for the contest organizers to send money to the team.

@CDBiddulph I find your title reasonable, but I guess you can add an asterisk or [READ DESCRIPTION] in the title in the future where title/resolution criteria differ too much

@SavioMak I don't want every market on the site to have [READ DESCRIPTION] in the title. I think that should be reserved for only the most potentially misleading markets, and this one isn't any more so than average.

There’s other succinct versions that would have been more accurate:

Will a Manifolder be a winner of MrBeast’s Million dollar Puzzle?

Will a Manifolder win some of MrBeast’s Million-Dollar Puzzle cash?

Will a Manifolder be on the winner’s solving team for MrBeast’s Million-Dollar Puzzle?

This was not egregious by any means, but if people had to guess at the resolution criteria from title alone, I think a lot of people would have thought this was a NO, so something tighter would have been preferable imo

@xjp I disagree, this is definitely more misleading than average. I don't mind because I have learned to basically not trust titles, but it is in fact misleading

@JimHays Yep, I agree that replacing "the winner" with "a winner," or any of these other options, would've been clearer

This is all easier to point out in retrospect, of course