1.6k
5.4k
3.5k
resolved Jan 1
Resolved
NO

including tests

Get Ṁ600 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ1,430
2Ṁ1,305
3Ṁ1,275
4Ṁ914
5Ṁ768
Sort by:

It's a dark proposition, but an inevitable one. Nuclear test, or used in warfare?

It should be clarified of nuclear tests count. Will this resolve to yes only if an aggressive use of a nuclear weapon take place?

predicted YES

@FabianMontero You are right, this is really unclear.

@NickAllen Non-critical radioisotope test.

bought Ṁ100 of NO

@NickAllen They conducted an experiment at a nuclear test site with explosives containing radioactive material, but they didn't actually explode a nuclear weapon. From what I'm reading, it was a chemical bomb that contained radioisotopes.

predicted NO

@JosephNoonan Departament of Energy press release makes it clear it doesn't count.

sold Ṁ10 of YES

@SjoerdSpendel Its described as a chemical explosion in that article

bought Ṁ333 of NO

the fox article also claims it's "The U.S. conducted a high-explosive experiment at a nuclear test site in Nevada hours after Russia revoked a ban on atomic-weapons testing, which Moscow said would put it on par with the United States. 

Wednesday's test used chemicals and radioisotopes to "validate new predictive explosion models" that can help detect atomic blasts in other countries, Bloomberg reported, citing the Department of Energy. "

predicted NO

Does this include nuclear tests? As written, it seems to, but there appears to be an arbitrage opportunity between this resolution (15%) and the strictly North Korean one, which has a higher probability (18%).

predicted NO

@Lsusr It does include tests, and yes there is (or, was) an arbitrage opportunity.

@jack Thanks. I'm new to this website and wasn't confident I was reading everything properly. The arbitrage opportunity is gone now.

predicted YES

@jack What about nuclear tests in which a nuclear weapon is not successfully detonated? Those seem like they would count on the NK question but not here.

@Lsusr By betting NO on the North Korea one and YES on this one? Which ratio of bet size makes the most sense in such a situation?

@LightLawliet That's the idea, but I failed to notice the case where North Korea conducts a "test" but their device fails to detonate.

I think a 1:1 bet size is the way to go. The actual optimal case is close enough to 1:1 that you should just do 1:1. The real issue is slippage. You need to keep the bet size small enough that slippage doesn't overwhelm the arbitrage opportunity.

Только вы можете предотвратить это. Я не могу. ☢

bought Ṁ25 of YES

For those wondering "why is this so high?", keep in mind that (in addition to the actual object-level reasons traders might expect this to happen) some of us are using this as a hedge. Albeit, kind of a minor one.

predicted NO

@NicholasKross Could you please explain what are you hedging against? Like winning a bit of mana in case of a nuclear war?

predicted YES

@NicholasKross Doesn't seem like a very good hedge. Both the superforecasters and the markets expect that by far the most likely source of a nuclear detonation is a North Korean test: https://manifold.markets/jack/will-north-korea-conduct-a-nuclear-36f06f22f954

A test would be an escalation, but not likely to be particularly bad by itself. If you want to hedge against wider conflict, I created

predicted YES

@jack That's a better idea, thank you!

More related questions