******FINAL UPDATE 10/7: We can now finally resolve this! Yougov released a poll today showing Vance winning the debate 41-32. That is an extremely strong win and meets multiple criteria I set forth. We now have 4 credible polls all in the same direction for Vance (+1, +2, +2 and +9), showing a clear pattern for Vance. This last poll was even outside the margin of error of 2.9. Thank you for your patience on this one. The early data was very, very close and inconclusive (in my best judgment based on my criteria). We have now seen a strong pattern emerge with the 4 released polls and a decisive win with this last poll. It was not easy to manage this one, but I'm glad we were able to clearly get there. Thank you to all those who participated and congrats to those who scored big with picking Vance when he was an underdog.
*****Update 10/4. New poll released that meets the criteria shows Vance 48 to Walz 46. Wow, this is as close as it comes. Per my last update, we are still in "tie" territory. If no more polls released, this will be a tie (and be voided). If we see one more credible poll (e.g. that meets the criteria) that has Vance winnning by any amount, this will resolve Vance. https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/10/4/harris-leads-trump-by-3-improves-standing-on-economic-issues
**UPDATE 10/2: The two post-debate snap polls were released, and it is incredibly close. CBS/Yougov has it 42 Vance, 41 Walz and 17 tie with a margin of error of +/- 2.7 pts. CNN has it 51 Vance, 49 Walz and a margin of error of +/- 5.3 pts. These are both well within the margin of error. Given that both are very close and within the margin of error, if these are the only polls, I would currently resolve this as a tie and void the market (per my original resolution criteria). However, I am going to keep this open for 10 more days to see if any traditional polling come out on this question in the next week or so (these polls can take up to a week or more to be conducted). If we see 1 more poll comes out and it is still just as close (2 points or under for Vance, a tie or Walz win), then I am going to declare it a tie and void the market. If we see 1 more poll indicating a Vance win strongly (3 points or more) or multiple polls all in the same direction as the snap polls (+1 or more for Vance), then I will call it for Vance, as we will have seen a pattern in one direction (per my resolution criteria of showing a pattern even if within the MOE). Please let me know if you have any questions.
https://x.com/CBSNewsPoll/status/1841320255810847104?s=19
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/politics/election-poll-walz-vance-debate/index.html
Who will the polls say won the debate between the two? Will resolve based on credible polls post-debate regarding this specific question. Credible polls are those using a large sample, scientifically valid process and have a pollster rating of 1.9 or higher on 538 (which is about 100+ pollsters). Examples include CNN/ssrs and you gov snap polls and Ipsos poll, which all did polls regarding the winner of the presidential debate and meet the criteria. I plan to resolve within 48 hours if all the snap polls show a clear winner. If the winner is less clear, I will wait 10 days to see if any additional polling is released to make it decisive. I will not include any party or SUPER PAC pollsters, unless they have a rating of 1.9 or higher on 538. If 1) there is a truly split polling result among credible polls (i.e. two polls show Vance won and two show Walz won) or 2) all poll results are within the polls stated margin of error and don't show a clear pattern (e.g. Walz +2, Vance +3, Walz +1), I will declare it a tie and void as N/A. For example, the Margin of error for the CNN/ssrs poll was +/- 5.3 points. If the polls are within the margin of error but all point in same direction (e.g. 3 polls with Vance +4), I will consider that a Vance victory.
If there is no debate or there is only 1 or no polls that meet the criteria, I will resolve n/a and return the funds. If there is more than one VP debate, this will resolve based on the FIRST one.
NOTE: Edited 10/1 to be clearer on resolution criteria.
1,000
1.00Vance can only be said to win because he appeared to be articulate and spoke at the rate of speed commonly found in a used car ad or side effects noted at the end of a drug ad. His was not speech to inform and educate; his speech was intended to baffle and impress - a sort of verbal emperor’s new clothes.
@JenniferdeJung I hadn't really noticed Vance talking quickly, but I wouldn't think that sort of thing would be a signalling game - just trying to communicate as much information as possible in the limited timeframe of a debate.
******FINAL UPDATE 10/7: We can now finally resolve this! Yougov released a poll today showing Vance winning the debate 41-32. That is an extremely strong win and meets multiple criteria I set forth. We now have 4 credible polls all in the same direction for Vance (+1, +2, +2 and +9), showing a clear pattern for Vance. This last poll was even outside the margin of error of 2.9. Thank you for your patience on this one. The early data was very, very close and inconclusive (in my best judgment based on my criteria). We have now seen a strong pattern emerge with the 4 released polls and a decisive win with this last poll. It was not easy to manage this one, but I'm glad we were able to clearly get there. Thank you to all those who participated and congrats to those who scored big with picking Vance when he was an underdog.
@DanielHeinz are they actually buying Walz, or just selling Vance? I've bid it up a few times but I'm not made of mana...
@DanielHeinz Yeah tbh would have been better to resolve to 50/50 in case of tie. Not a super informative market otherwise
*****update 10/4. New poll released that meets the criteria shows Vance 48 to Walz 46. Wow, this is as close as it comes. Per my last update, we are still in "tie" territory. If no more polls released, this will be a tie. If we see one more credible poll (e.g. that meets the criteria) that has Vance winnning by any amount, this will resolve Vance. https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/10/4/harris-leads-trump-by-3-improves-standing-on-economic-issues
The three polls that meet the criteria all have Vance winning, and that would resolve a tie? But a forth would resolve Vance? This is frankly ridiculous.
The description says clearly that a pattern within margin of error would not be a tie. There was zero mention that close wins would be worth more or less. On the contrary, it was specified that a pattern within the margin of error would still count.
@cthor honestly, this is a very close call. I originally was going to call a tie if all results were withing margin of error (I.e. only the first two options). I decided to add option 3 to allow for an exception to that if it was obviously a pattern. +1, +2,+2 is very close. In my example, it was 3 polls of +4, which is a clearer pattern. My second option for a tie was really meant to cover any situation within the margin of error that is close (as this is distinguished from #1, which is a split decision). I know I have Walz with a win as an example in #2, but really this was anything within MOE that wasn an obvious strong pattern, otherwise it is the same as #1. I added #3 as an exception and only if a clear pattern would I resolve despite the polls being within the MOE. 2 polls does not make a pattern. Per my last update, if the third was clear (+3 or more), I would resolve it. Instead we got a very minor advantage which is statistically a tie. If there is another poll though for Vance, it would be enough of a pattern, even if it is an extremely small and narrow win. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It is the line I drew when we had only 2 very close results. I suspect we will get another poll and this will all be moot anyway.
The line has to be drawn somewhere. It is the line I drew when we had only 2 very close results.
This line was drawn well after all the bets had been made and is in direct contradiction to the previous description as I've frequently pointed out. That your examples were +4 and not +2 or +1 is irrelevant since both are within the margin of error. If you wanted "within the margin of error but not too close" to still resolve tie then you should have put that in the description beforehand, but you didn't.
You're ignoring every single trader on this market and instead deferring to a description that has been frequently edited after the fact and was never clearly written. This effectively amounts to "I'll resolve however I feel like it." Even if more polls come out to make this moot for this market, this isn't the right way to run markets.
@cthor that was always my intention with option 2. How else would you distinguish it from option 1? Sorry if you don't think it was clear enough, but it is not correct that I am just resolving this how I feel like after the fact. I am resolving it based on the criteria I set and what they are intended to delineate. We ended up in literally the closest of situations between the criteria and has made this a bit difficult, but I am doing my best to make it stick to what I laid out. You just see #2 differently. I'm not ignoring every trader, as many bet on Walz. Please give me some understanding here ; I am trying to be as fair as possible given the closes results. I have no skin in this; I didn't bet on this result.
@JRR Option 1 is all wins but split decision 2-2. Option 2 is all results within the margin of error and split decision 2-1. My reading is that you think a "win" is a margin greater than the margin of error, and that you separated these cases because you'd resolve a 2-1 split of wins in favor, but a 2-1 split of results within the margin as a tie, and that's what distinguishes them.
Yes, this reading is different from your intention. The wording is ambiguous and poorly written. That's why you deferring to it endlessly and doubling and tripling down is frustrating.
I'm not ignoring every trader
The threads below have many traders suggesting 50-50 for a tie, and when I read this question initially a 50-50 for a tie was in the description. You've ignored all of these people, despite it being the most sensible thing to do for a tie. Questions shouldn't resolve N/A for an outcome that is fairly likely (especially given your definition of tie) and not at all unusual.
Similarly, a set a polls all with Vance leading (+1, +2, and +2) would by any reasonable person be counted as a clear pattern in favor of Vance, and I'm not the only person to have commented this. And in the case where it isn't a pattern, why would a forth poll at +1 or +2 change that? Rather than addressing any of these concerns you've continued making random updates that you'll call it one way or another as you see fit, deferring to a description that is both ridiculous and was never clear on this case in the first place.
@JRR I think the thing that seems a bit unreasonable is that, given you decided to make this poll win or void, thereby denying any tie, you should in a case on the borderline be inclined to call a winner of the event. Otherwise you’re denying ppl who bought Vance low a chance to be rewarded, twice: “polls aren’t decisive enough”, and “in the event of indecision, this market is completely meaningless.” You even said yourself that you have been right on the fence after the release of the third poll. I think, respectfully, you should be leaning the other way given that you’re on the fence. Like, it would be more consistent to say, “If it’s win or nothing, I should in an edge case prefer someone winning than this market not resolving.” If you had initially set a 50/50 possibility, as many have retrospectively suggested, that might be a different story, but you sort of backed yourself into this corner
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/politico-snap-poll-division-debate-00182131 Another poll comes out split down the middle. Can we have 50/50? N/A reverting realized gains is harsh
@StarkLN Interesting data point, but does not count in the resolution of this as does not fit criteria. Politico/focaldata are not rated pollsters on 538
The resolution criteria are still unclear ("one more poll... Just as close... 2 points or under for Vance... Tie" vs. "multiple polls... +1 or more for Vance... call it for Vance" are overlapping criteria with different outcomes). Anyhow, I sold my position in Vance to cash out, and then re-invested in case he wins.
@SeekingEternity Shouldnt be overlapping. Scenario A) there is only one more poll. If that is the case, if it is 2 or under for Vance (+2, +1, tie, or for walz) then it will be declared a tie. If it is Vance +3 or more, this will resolve for Vance. Scenario B) there are two or more new polls released. If that is the case, and the multiple polls point in the same direction, even if not by a strong margin (all are Vance +1, +2, +3, or more) than will resolve for Vance. If they show a tie or some show Walz winning, it will be resolved a tie. I don't see overlap, but please point out if I am missing something.
@JRR I assume you mean by number of polls released by a specific point (end of the fifth?)? And in the case of more than one coming out, if they are e.g. (+6 Vance, tie, +4 Vance), that resolves as a tie even though the overall trend is clearly Vance and the first poll is clearly for him? I agree that with those conditions it's no longer overlapping.
@SeekingEternity It would be by 10 days out from the debate, to give enough time for traditional polling firms to ask about it. I will see how many have come out at that point and resolve based on those. Your hypothetical is a fair one....if 2 more come out that are that strongly for Vance but one is a tie, that would be enough of a pattern with zero saying Walz won to settle for Vance. If one says Walz +1 though, I would consider that a split decision. I highly doubt we will see three more polls on this though...we will be lucky if we get one more.
Intriguing to me is that Walz gained as much if not more in favorability, despite already being largely favorable to start with.
Even though one candidate appeared more confident, the other may get the outsize payoff for appearing more relatable.
Also intriguing is how overwhelmingly positive the cordiality ratings were. Might backfire for Vance, as it accentuates the contrast with debates where Trump is present (at a time when voters are keen to nudge national debate towards more cordiality). Seems likelier to me than people associating the Trump ticket and all the baggage he carries with Vance’s moment of cordiality.
@njmkw Well, I only sold half. So please do not resolve n/a, I've been in since he was at 30% and I think his tie and I deserve this. ;-)
https://manifold.markets/ManifoldPolitics/will-tim-walz-win-the-vp-debate?play=false
Not sure if this links properly, but the Manifold Politics closed the sweepstakes bet in favor of Vance.
@RyanSem different resolution criteria, but are you sure it resolved? I think it is just locked. Theirs is based on ipsos polling, which I don't think will be released for days (if at all)
@JRR My notification said resolved but the money isn't in my account so I'm not sure now. Still fairly new to the site.