Includes resolutions even if no one corrected the market beforehand. (As long as the resolution was accurate.)
For example:
A market that was at <=1% and then resolved YES.
A market that was at >=99.5% and then was suddenly bet down to <=0.5%, and remains at <=0.5% for several days, or resolves to NO shortly afterwards.
Only counts binary markets. Does not include any market with less than 10 traders at the time of the swing. Does not include any market with a structure designed to make this happen. (Like the creator offering to pay back all the traders or something like that.) Does not include someone spiking the market and it being corrected shortly afterwards. Does not count incorrect resolutions. Does not include any swings that occurrred before this market was created. (Though if this has already happened I'd still like to know about it.)
Markets on various swing sizes:
1,000
3.00@firstuserhere No? The market is at 99.1% but it didn’t start from 0.1%, so it’s not a 99% swing as defined
@AdriaGarrigaAlonso See my comment below. It's about the monkeypox market, not this one.
@jskf There were only 9 positions at the time of the swing. Does 10 traders mean 10 unique traders? That seems like the most logical interpretation. Just pointing this out though.
@ShadowyZephyr The criteria state "Does not include any market with less than 10 traders at the time of the swing." The market itself states that is has "10 traders" in the UI. No one could have traded on it after it resolved. Interpreting "traders" as "active positions", when there is literally something in the UI called "traders" would be rather odd, in my view. If anyone does think it's ambiguous, I would still argue it should be resolved in my favor, because my interpretation is definitely reasonable, and "at least 10 traders" is clearly there to exclude some uninteresting cases. It's not a core part of the thing being predicted.
@ShadowyZephyr I agree that it is very important that Isaac makes an informed decision, so I will additionally point out that @ShadowyZephyr and I are in the same league, and this market switched our rankings.
@jskf True, that’s how I noticed. Although I’m not disagreeing with you lol. I agree with your interpretation.
Id rather point it out before one of the NO bettors tried to lawyer this point.
@IsaacKing now that you have been thoroughly informed, please resolve in my favor so I can pay back my loan and will not go into crippling debt.
@IsaacKing "Does not include any market with less than 10 traders at the time of the swing." 10 is not less than 10
@firstuserhere Right, that's the point. I'm confused why anyone would think the condition has not been met, and I'm asking for clarification.
@IsaacKing The condition has been met, I was just pointing out there were only 9 positions.
I was confused about the fact that there has been an example for months and no one has pointed it out, and I figured maybe that's why, because people misinterpreted what the question meant?
Edit: It was at 0.7% when it resolved, Jack bet it down to 0.7%, so it counts right?
@IsaacKing The final trade before it resolved to YES. From description, "A market that was at <=1% and then resolved YES."