Liz Truss has resigned, and the Conservative Party will appoint a new Prime Minister.
Will Boris Johnson be the next PM?
Related questions
๐ Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | แน256 | |
| 2 | แน153 | |
| 3 | แน113 | |
| 4 | แน95 | |
| 5 | แน72 |
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63368396 "Boris Johnson pulls out of Conservative leadership race"
@MichaelBennett You don't have to do arbitrage if you don't want to try to make extra money, and resolving N/A causes people who happened to make their correct bets on this market lose their winnings.
It's one thing to do it in the first few hours of a new market, but it is a misresolution which affects people's profits, and shouldn't be done without a reason resolving correctly is impossible, that'd justify tagging as misresolution.
(I'm not currently in profit here myself, but still object to a misresolution in my favour.)
@jbeshir I'm unconvinced. Yes, people who have improved their positions will not get the benefit of that, but nobody is actually losing anything relative to the status quo ante. And it's not like people have made plans on the basis of their expected winnings. So it doesn't feel to me like they would have much grounds to complain. Having lots of duplicate markets around makes Manifold more about finding arbitrage opportunities and less about accurate predictions (which I thought was supposed to be the whole point of the exercise - it's in the name after all).
@MichaelBennett I think you need some hard to verify assumptions to be met before markets being N/A'd doesn't make predicting your true probability on them hazardous, because even at relatively low rates, "heads I win, tails the market is N/A, what are you complaining about, you're no worse than status quo ante" makes many bets ill-advised.
In particular, you need to know that market creators aren't biased in their evaluation of whether to N/A the market based on whether they stand to win or lose, that other people can't create more markets, induce volume, and try to get ones they've had losses on N/A'd, etc.
Expected N/Aing also has a similar problem to amplified odds markets, in that your expected return is lowered so you need a higher distance from what you perceive the true odds to be before it exceeds the general interest rate of Manifold and is worth trading on.
I think bringing in this by encouraging N/A'ing is a significant problem for people who just want to make predictions and win if they're right and lose if they're wrong, and other people who just want to see the assigned odds.
On the other hand, that other people are having fun by arbitraging or running arbitrage bots doesn't seem like a significant problem to me at all. I'm doubtful of cultural damage from a few people playing arbitrage bots, and leaderboard is kind of weird anyway and I suspect likely to be overtaken by automated traders sooner or later- they can just catch more opportunities more reliably. I'm not sure what you meant about things being in the name, but "Markets" is in the name and I think arbitrage and automation are features of healthy markets.
Agreed, this is not a good reason to N/A markets and having duplicate markets is a problem that can be better solved with better automation to arbitrage.
There are still disadvantages to duplicate markets, e.g. liquidity is split across markets, they each have separate comments which means people either duplicate their comments or some info is missing from each market. But this isn't solely an issue with duplicate markets, it's also a problem with different but highly related markets, and it's a tough problem to solve in general.
@MichaelBennett I thought about doing so, but I'm worried that resolving to N/A will annoy people who already traded on it, and that I'd get reported for "Improperly resolved". This was the first market that was created on the topic (right after Liz Truss quit).
@FRCassarino I do think duplicate markets are kind of annoying, but at the same time, they serve its purpose. As an example, Jack created his own Boris market after me, but he also has a much more extensive track record of resolving his markets correctly, so from a trader's POV the two markets are not indistinguishable from each other.
@FRCassarino Eventually I'd like a market creator to be able to declare "this market will resolve like that market" at which point the two markets can merge liquidity pools and limit orders and so forth.
@FRCassarino I think that's good in some situations but like you said, there are cases where the authors have different track records and so the markets shouldn't be simply merged together.
@jack If an author sets their market so that it will always resolve exactly like another one, and that's irreversible, then I think that the markets can be merged, because that removes the author reputation from the mix.
This is an interesting question!! They probably should call a new election but I doubt they will. Johnson was elected, so it makes more sense to let him back in than it does to choose a second unelected leader in less than two months. Let Boris finish out his two terms as long as he promises to resign at the end of the term, or call a new election immediately upon being appointed.
