https://manifold.markets/levifinkelstein/will-this-market-be-in-the-interval?referrer=Fion
The linked market resolves in a way that depends on what its percentage is when it closes. This means that the percentage it's sitting at is not representative of the community's collective probability estimate that the market resolves YES.
THIS market is a straightforward prediction, so its probability should reflect the "true" probability of levi finkelstein's market. I hope. [Edit: see comments for why this may not be quite true.]
I can't quite get my head around whether it represents an arbitrage opportunity, but users of levi finkelstein's market may be interested in hedging their bets.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ180 | |
| 2 | Ṁ106 | |
| 3 | Ṁ49 | |
| 4 | Ṁ6 | |
| 5 | Ṁ4 |
People are also trading
@oDDpANDA good point. It seems like you're probably right. My expectation was that the other market would sit at 69 and this one would shoot up to 95 or something.
I just don't see how the other market can possibly be NO. The YES side have so many limit orders in place and the NO side will always have an uphill battle to get away from the centre mark.
But then there are some big NO bettors so maybe they've figured out a plan that I haven't...
@NeonNuke I think I should resolve NO in those cases, since the question of this market is whether the linked market resolves YES.
(hopefully it's moot because it's hard to imagine a good justification for levi to resolve N/A or PROB)
@Fion Understood thanks. Though it doesn't seem like this would reflect the "true" probability then depending on how you define it. For example, if you think there's a 50% chance it NAs and otherwise 50-50, I would expect this market to trade at around 25%; whereas you could argue the "true" probability should be 50%, of course you could argue it's 25%.
@NeonNuke Yes, you're right. I've edited the description to caveat the claim about it reflecting the true probability. I still think it should be a close approximation in this case, though.