I did not participate in any of these markets but I think they’re misleading and inconsistent.

good job

lol

created a poll

Two parts to the resolution condition: "ends in a draw..." And "...at the end of regular time". Obviously the wording isn't great but one of these criteria is dominant in the mind of someone reading once (most participants) and resolving to No would be against the community guidelines as it misleads market participants.

@JamesBills One could just as easily say "a draw at the end of regular time" is the dominant portion, especially when the it would be meaningless otherwise because a drawn regular time would never have ended the match

@something612 I don't think you could just as easily say "..match ends in a draw at the end of regular time" and mean what you're implying.

I think @FranklinBaldo has done a bad job with these markets to be honest. Compare with the Sweden – USA market, where the title is on an identical formatting.

BUT, the description says:
"🔑 If the match ends in a draw, the market will resolve to NO. Penaltis and extratime are included" in that market, compared to in this one:
"🔑 Market Resolution: The market will resolve to NO if the match ends in a draw at the end of the regular time."

It would absolutely be better if it was consistent between the markets. But I think there's not a case for claiming that it's not obvious from question author what the intent was.

@HenriThunberg It would be pretty easy to express the intent the title should read “will Australia defeat France in regular time” or “without needing extra time or penalties.” As is the title matches closely two other markets that resolved differently

"if the match ends in a draw at the end of the regular time"
Match didnt end, at the end of the regular time, right?

@ChameLeon That’s the issue here I think. The match didn’t end, but it was a draw at the end of regular time.

@MaggieDelano

Oh wait so I can still be saved?

@MaggieDelano yeah, in a sense the criterion is two-part. the match needs to end, and it needs to end in a draw

@ChameLeon I’m going with this “the match didn’t end” idea, the end part being key

@ChameLeon If you read it that way, the intent was to clarify that an impossible situation would resolve to no. Which doesn't really make sense imo

@something612 It seems like it might have been copy pasted from earlier matches? I do the same for my markets and forgot to exclude draw conditions

@ChameLeon IF the author was factoring in that it was a KO match, it makes sense to resolve NO. But IF they just forgot and meant to make it match the other market, I’d say they should resolve the spirit and resolve YES. My best guess is the author just forgot to update the criteria to factor knockout so then I’d resolve YES, but so many people bet on NO on technicality that N/A might be best.

@something612 yeah, on the other hand the title reads, will australia win against france, which they did.

@MaggieDelano N/A could make sense, but I'm not sure if the number of people / amount of mana on NO should be a factor towards that.

@MaggieDelano I want to go by the title but the question creator is in a hard place no matter what

@something612 For me, intent in general is very tough to be sure of, by reading the market criteria. Indeed, it is an impossible situation, and I was debating (also with my bets) between which way it was a lot.

@MaggieDelano Lawyering this to YES just from the word "ends" (as opposed to "is" or something?) would be wild though, N/A and NO are the only options I can really see arguing for

@something612 how do you interpret the title combined with this result to a NO result?

@ChameLeon Yeah tell average joe on the street Australia didn’t win, he’ll think your nuts

@ChameLeon I for one weigh the description over the title, precisely because there can be various conditions that change the conditions. And there's more room to explain those in the description.

@ChameLeon I don't see a huge problem with reading the description as clarifying that the title refers to regular time. Not the best clarity for sure but "Market Resolution: ..." doesn't seem like something to ignore completely

@LasseRasinen yes and when yhe descripiton is unclear, what do you do then?

@something612 definately not arguing that description is to be ignored. But when the description doesn't provide clarity, i dont think people are expected to rely on it.

@ChameLeon I don't feel like the description is unclear; result at end of regular time is a common condition in sports betting.

True, usually that's to allow betting on draws even in knockout games, but here it was explicitly said to be NO, and answers the question "Does Australia win". Sounds clear to me.

@LasseRasinen it sounds like you're ignoring the first half of the criteria. At the very least this market was poorly written and should NA.

@JamesBills I read it as “if the match ends [up being] in a draw at the end of the regular time”. Agree that it can be confusing though.