Includes resolutions even if no one corrected the market beforehand.
For example:
A market that was at <=1% and then resolved YES.
A market that was at >=99% and then was suddenly bet down to <=1%, and remains at 1% for several days, or resolves to NO right 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🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ262 | |
| 2 | Ṁ117 | |
| 3 | Ṁ80 | |
| 4 | Ṁ52 | |
| 5 | Ṁ46 |
@TravisBaker Binary market, real world market (thus no on purpose swing), 13 traders at the time of the swing, correctly resolved, moved from 1.6% to 99.8% in 2:50 minutes. This is it!
@TravisBaker Yes bloody ouch. I was a little overconfident, and it was a very unlikely event combined.
@IsaacKing I actually thought the GOP hadn't gone forward with the audit but before resolving checked and they had so I bet it up to 99 percent from 1 percent but didn't have 10 traders so didn't count apparently.
@IsaacKing I accidently spiked it down to less than 1 percent and ended up losing money on the market.
@BTE Right, so that doesn't count. It has to be a true market correction, where traders agree the new price is correct.
@A No, I'd count that as a market with a structure designed to make this occur. (Just create 100 of those markets.)
@IsaacKing Right, fair enough. Fundamentally though it's not any different than a real question that happens to be based on a well-known low probability event that can happen or not happen instantaneously.
@A I agree, but the latter type of market can have traders be systematically biased, whereas a "resolves YES with 1% probability" is obviously correct when it's at 1%.