Prop bets for the NFL draft!
If you are adding answers be sure to specify if it is only on the first day or on any day of the draft
Draft day= the first day April 25th
I reserve the right to N/A an answer for any reason. Please add answers.
1,000
3.00
@SirCryptomind maybe I'm misreading the logs but kinda bs that you were able to unresolve an incorrect resolution and then profit 100% off the correction. I know its only 100 mana or whatever but eh
@dglid not participating in this market but here's the video.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnnoeDjHVVU
edit: couldn't help myself I put 10 on it
-
The NFL Draft was very fun to watch live last night with this community! I also learned a lot, mainly that if you know where to look, you can learn who the picks are before they're read on stage! 🤯🤯🤯 (h/t @SemioticRivalry after I observed @NFL )
@ScottHuston clearly thinks the TE drafted in the first round doesn't count as an offensive lineman.
@aok @AlexanderMiller I don't think this market should have resolved NO. TEs should be included in this count and it should resolve YES.
@aok I tend to think that TEs are entirely seperate from Olinemen despite often being on the Oline. I think that usually the term offensive linemen refers to only guards, tackles, and centers.
@aok @JamesF counterpoint here: page 16 of the official NFL rulebook defines a TE as a separate position from an offensive lineman for jersey numbering purposes (Rule 5, Article 2).
I see what you're saying @aok but since colloquially (at least in my experience) TE is not usually considered an offensive lineman, given the ambiguity here, I think it should rule either N/A or in favor of the spirit of the answer since there's at least some evidence to suggest it's aligned with the the letter of the answer.
Also in favor of not considering TE as an offensive lineman is that in the Wikipedia article, it states "Like offensive linemen..." which suggests it's a different thing than an offensive lineman proper (in this case, a hybrid role).
@dglid @aok https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_football_offensive_linemen wikipedia doesn't have any tight ends on the list of offensive linemen
@aok I think the biggest thing is that tight ends are eligible receivers which offensive linemen aren’t and have to declare themselves as one
@aok A TE is not an offensive lineman. An offensive lineman is a OT, OG, or C. It is not a subjective term.
@JoshuaWilkes the vast majority of the volume on this happened after the first round had concluded, over an issue of definition.
@kurt this is a little more ambiguous as there as some DEs (like Von Miller) that are officially listed as linebackers but never play off the line so I would definitely consider them DEs
@aok I hadn't checked the log.
Honestly I think if people trade repeatedly* over issues of definition after an event has concluded, they are inherently assuming a chance that they will lose Mana.
It's simply not fair to previous participants to come in and bet like that and then demand an NA, when instead you could either assume the risk and accept the loss, or ask the creator to clarify what they meant (in practical terms not a real option here, but eh)
*It might be a little different if someone makes one bet after an event
@JoshuaWilkes I agree it's unfair to previous participants, but there really weren't many besides us.
Right here, you should have known that something was up and that losing your mana was a possibility.
@JoshuaWilkes I knew it was a definition issue, and this was after the event had concluded. Definitional issues that arise after the event concludes aren't great.
@aok if you had stopped betting much sooner I would have a little more sympathy (probably not enough, because I think this is still a clear cut case). However, if you keep betting, especially when the market is so low, I think you are assuming the risk.
https://manifold.markets/dreev/how-bad-is-it-to-resolve-a-market-a?r=Sm9zaHVhV2lsa2Vz
This is discussed a bit here
@JoshuaWilkes So you're saying because I bought at 7%, I retroactively assume the risk of my previous buys at 95%?
@aok in this specific case, yes, I am saying that.
Buying at 95%, you can fairly claim that you thought it must resolve to YES.
However, when you bought at 7% you implicitly accepted that it might resolve YES or NO and not N/A, allowing you a huge return, so you can no longer argue that N/A is the only fair option because people were betting after the event on a matter of definition.
(Just for the avoidance of doubt, I think there could be other reasons to resolve a market N/A after this happens, including that it was ambiguous, but that's directly on the merits of its ambiguity, not on the fact that people were betting on a matter of definition)