🏅 Top traders

@FranklinBaldo resolves to No?

@ms_test From my understanding it resolves to PROB -10% so if it's 50% at close it will resolve as 40%

@Simon1551 From description: “if result<=0 resolves NO”

@ms_test oh right right that's correct

@Preen isn't it dangerous to buy so many NO shares?

@Simon1551 I think it's possible to create a set of limit orders (large sell orders at 90%+, slightly less large orders at 85%, and so on) such that it's not profitable to do a last second take through (although this does depend on them not getting too large positions, so yeah agreed it is dangerous to continue buying NO until I've actually done the math)

@Preen Sadly I didn't consider that the order sizes would have to be growing exponentially so I don't actually have enough mana to put out enough orders to protect the 92% (exponentials grow/decay fast). But I can still put out some limit orders that are guaranteed to be profitable if filled so I'll do that to mitigate my losses some.

Here's the spreadsheet I used to confirm that these limit orders will be profitable if filled:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QwPkkmjztoHvX5D0h250W0f1Y-tqP88RYTEJv14wT3k/edit#gid=1154073404
feel free to make a copy if you want to do the same

@Preen I really appreciate your dedication 😂

This is basic game theory guys. Everyone buy No and we all profit!

@jonsimon honestly it pretty funny seeing the large betting asymmetry between this market and the linked variant. I'm attributing this to "people have a general bias for voting yes when confused"

@jonsimon More evidence for this

@jonsimon Actually, the one reason I haven't bet tons in this or the variant market is since I'm worried about this Spindle character doing something odd... since they have definitely shown an aversion to making profitable bets 😂