At time of writing, these are the top 10 markets on a mix of near-certainty and liquidity. How many of them will resolve as expected?

/MartinRandall/will-russia-invade-finland-or-swede (expected: NO)

/Tripping/will-mike-pence-win-at-least-one-st (NO)

/TheSkeward/will-google-acquire-twitter-by-eoy (NO)

/TenShino/will-ukraine-be-invaded-by-poland-b (NO)

/Tripping/will-the-little-mermaid-2023-gross-f862668cf378 (NO)

/Tripping/will-indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-739c6fcaee5f (NO)

/LivInTheLookingGlass/this-question-will-resolve-positive-8a54be80b7e4 (YES)

/Quate/will-kevin-mccarthy-serve-as-us-pre (NO)

/Odoacre/will-proof-emerge-that-the-world-is (NO)

/chrisjbillington/will-the-sun-explode-before-2025 (NO)

This is a derivative market; it will resolve exactly according to underlying market resolutions. N/A is not expected for any of these markets.

One of the neat things that some bookies and odds-makers offer is long-shot bets at useful liquidity. You can get 1000:1 returns on weird stuff if you want; it's fun and informative. Fundamentally, they do this by offering lots of those bets, and assuming that not too many of them will go wrong for the house.

Presumably one could write an arb bot that, given adequate liquidity, arbitraged this question against the underlying ones. This might allow normal users to bet on questions like this, thereby allowing normal users to bet on all of the underlying questions at the same time. This would allow a bet on "nothing surprising happens" to have a slightly more reasonable rate of return. Hopefully these questions aren't so correlated as to cause problems.

If the consistency of the resolution was logically enforced, perhaps it could even be a house bot that didn't have to supply all the capital for its bets, since some of the arb is risk-free.