🏅 Top traders

this can resolve NO now:

@egroj Bro why

may I ask why 84,800? this seems like a very specific number.

Monkeypox in the united states seems to be completely under control at this point, its very likely we will not see any more spikes with the current trends. Thats a good thing, but I'm out

@EugeneBixby I believe that yes it's under control, but I don't think that the spikes will stop before the end of the month

Please don't resolve this market until at least 1 week after the relevant date. For context, this market was resolved and then later the data was adjusted:

@Gen I think the market should resolve on the 10th to the amount of confirmed cases. That's what the question says.

@MarcusAbramovitch I interpret the question to be about the cumulative confirmed cases dated Jan 10th.

@DavidJohnston "by the end of Jan 10 2023" not "what eventually gets dated Jan 10 2023"

@MarcusAbramovitch Look if that’s how it resolves it’s good for me, I just think it’sa bit of an unreasonably pedantic interpretation

@Gen I'm with Marcus - the question says confirmed cases on January 10. If a case exists on January 10 but isn't confirmed until January 11, it's not a confirmed case on January 10. Call it pedantic if you want, but that's how English works. I'd feel cheated if cases were added in that weren't confirmed until the 11th.

@RiverBellamy No, it doesn’t.. it says using the Jan 10 datapoint “cumulative confirmed cases OF Jan 10 2023”. That datapoint won’t exist on Jan 10, and won’t be accurate for about a week.

If they want to use the first datapoint that’s ok, but you guys are absolutely insane if you think this market will resolve on Jan 10 if there is no data for that day lol. There probably won’t be data for 7/8/9 either on Jan 10.

@Gen No, it does not say "cumulative confirmed cases of Jan 10". It says "confirmed cases ... by the end of Jan 10". That last "of" is part of the larger clause "by the end of", which modifies "confirmed cases". It's not cases attributed to Jan 10, it's cases attributed on Jan 10.

@Gen Part of betting on something like this is that you are betting on the quality and promptness of the data, not just the state of the world. If you can't deal with that, don't bet on the market.

@RiverBellamy I am referring to the description, where it explicitly says "of Jan 10" lol

@RiverBellamy I understand what you are saying, but it is a weird interpretation. It is painfully obvious that the market maker will resolve the market based on the Jan10 datapoint at their given link.

You clearly disagree, which is ok, so wait for @GeneFama to confirm it for you.

I'll happily reimburse your bet if you genuinely misread it that badly

@Gen you just added "datapoint" in several comments without it being there. It's very difficult to interpret the question the way you are saying. Polymarket had similar questions about covid cases and it was ruled to be "on the day" not "the datapoint later"

@MarcusAbramovitch As I said, better to just wait for the maker to comment given the ambiguity in the wording

I still strongly disagree with your interpretation, as I haven't seen any markets relating to monkeypox which reference that site resolve that way. They all have waited for the datapoint (although none were by this maker)

Sometimes the linked site has significant delays in updating "confirmed cases" that are already being reported by the WHO.

You are suggesting that this market was specifically designed to be an audit on this site's reporting ability, and not based on the actual "confirmed cases of Jan 10", which I think would have been made much clearer in the description. To me, that is clearly not the way in which this market was intended.

Cases confirmed on Jan9 will still be reported and included as "confirmed cases of Jan 10" even if they are not lodged into the database until Jan 11.

Hopefully @GeneFama can clarify before you make any more bad bets.

@Gen I don't want your mana, I actually exited my position earlier today. But I do think it is important to hold people to what they actually explicitly said, especially in a prediction market context, not what they intended to say or what someone thinks is an "insane" interpretation or what someone thinks is "painfully obvious". The same things are not "insane" or "painfully obvious" to everyone, that is why we have explicit terms to refer to and mechanically interpret to resolve disagreements in markets. If I interpret something differently from what it actually says, I take responsibility for that, I take the hit, and I expect the same from others.

However, I see what you are looking at in the description. Given the apparent contradiction between the literal wording of the title and the description, I'm not sure if there is a clear procedure, but I'd still go with the title.

That said, if you want to look to the intention of the market, it seems pretty clear from the description that the intent was to approximate the state of the world on Dec 31, the market chose Jan 10 as a resolution date because of the flaw and delays in the data, because it was expected that data would take a few days to get in, so the Dec 31 data was sure to be in by Jan 10. Waiting even longer for the Jan 10 data to come in would be double accounting for the delay in the data.

@RiverBellamy Yeah, I can see how you determined what you did, absolutely. As we have been discussing in the other market I linked, there is obviously a lot of ambiguity around these markets and it is important we discuss before the resolution lol

Unfortunately, there is an incentive to have ambiguous/confusing/tricky titles as it leads to people thinking the market is mispriced just because they misinterpreted it. Half the fun here is arguing technicalities to swing markets though, so I don't mind. It's all fun

@Gen Updated description. let me know if you want additional clarification.

@RiverBellamy @DavidJohnston @MarcusAbramovitch

@GeneFama Perfect! Thanks! Most importantly this does clarify that it will be resolved based on the datapoint for Jan10 not what is reported by Jan 10 (a point of contention higher in this reply thread)

Appreciate it ❤

@GeneFama I've been diving into the data on this since I am so heavily invested (literally and figuratively.) It looks like there will be some heavy discrepancies in the data, currently the GitHub and OurWorldInData are reporting numbers from the 7th and 8th. Right now only 11 countries are reporting data from those two dates. It's very possible that the January 10th data will be posted without any reporting from the other 184 countries on Jan 10th's number on Jan 11th & 12th. I assume this probably will not change the way the market resolves? I know I am kind of splitting hairs here, but were 400 cases from a yes resolution and were missing a big chunk of the pie. I would hate to get screwed out of all my sweet, sweet Mana by sporadic reporting.

@EugeneBixby I'll stick with the clarification that I stated in the description. If you think that way of resolving would affect the Yes probability, I suggest you buy/sell now accordingly

@GeneFama Thanks for the clarification Gene!

@Gen no worries they only update the data once w week now

@Simon1551 The risk is that they are updating like 7 countries ahead of the others, so the first datapoint may be super low. (I understand how we are resolving, don't worry)

You can see at the bottom of this page:

https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/response/2022/world-map.html

@Gen Ok damn I accidentally sent so let me finish,

At the bottom of that page they say that case data since Jan 1 is not accurate, but "for situational awareness and subject to change" (it's not a complete sample, and is highly inaccurate)

@Gen iirc they didn't update OWD from the 4th until today, even if the data is available in the link you sent I believe we are predicting data on and exclusively from OWD's website so even if the data isn't accurate right now until they update it again the number of cases will most likely be above the requirement. I believe so

@Simon1551 Yeah I think so too. There is incomplete data for Jan1-7 (potentially as little as 30% of what should be there) and further to that, there is still Jan7-11 to be updated. I think the only way this resolves NO is if they update an incomplete set for 7-11 before there is accurate data for the remaining countries.

With any luck, they will update all of Jan1-11 with complete data at the same time. If they do that, we will almost certainly get a YES resolution.

I'm hoping it shows up to Jan 10 today, as that would signal that we would most likely fill the complete data for as much as possible before Jan 11 reports. GL either way, I'm in big

@Gen I'm all-in brother, to the moon 😭