[Poll] How much do you enjoy limit orders with the new UI?
Resolved
85%
Aug 11
M$242 bet

💬 Proven correct

Charlie
Charlie sold M$7 of NO
90%
0
Charlie made M$1!
MattP
Matt P is betting YES at 77%
0
ArthurMilchior
At the very least, I think it should have a link or an overlay explaining what it means, what is expected in each field. Because here, I've looked at "quick/limit" and no idea whatshowever how it's supposed to be used, what it does
0
MattP
Matt P is betting YES at 77%
@ArthurMilchior it's a way of saying you're willing to buy YES or NO at a given price that is different than the current price. Aka "I won't pay M$0.50 for a YES share, but I would pay M$0.33 for a YES share"
0
MartinRandall
It'd be neat if the graph showed visually how tight the limit orders were over time. Perhaps by showing how far a m10, m100, and m1000 order would move the market in each direction via a green gradient, taking account liquidity and limit orders. This can also be a visual cue to bet or update: if there is a tight green gradient at 50% and I think the true odds are 90%, either I can make a lot of mana, or I'm wrong.
0
MattP
Matt P is betting YES at 77%
@MartinRandall this would be cool, and a potential better use for the green shading than the current "shade down" (which I prefer to no shading at all but also am aware isn't informationally useful).
0
Charlie
Charlie sold M$7 of NO
90%
0
Gigacasting
Limit orders are executing as market orders
0
MartinRandall
0% - can no longer get this to work. I tried to set up a limit order to buy m1 of NO at 10% on a market currently at 6% and it told me: > Max NO payout M$999 (+99900.0%) Which seems wrong. After selecting to place the bet, it turned out my limit order was: > NO 99.9% M$10
0
JamesGrugett
@MartinRandall Terribly sorry, last change introduced a different bug, which should be fixed now.
0
MartinRandall
@JamesGrugett Thanks, back up to 50%.
0
Charlie
10% only because it’s crashing for me on mobile and desktop on this market (doesn’t crash for other numeric markets): https://manifold.markets/cosmo/win-100-how-much-cash-will-nomic-ha-be4cb3906a73
0
JamesGrugett
@Charlie Thanks for reporting! It's fixed now!
0
Charlie
@JamesGrugett thanks for fixing!
0
cos
Cosmo bought M$1 of YES
80%
0
JoyVoid
10% - I know I was the one who advocated for this change, but I realize now that this option is way less flexible, and I miss the advanced configuration multiple orders allowed (maybe propose it under an advanced tab?). It also feels less intuitive, but that might be because I got used to normal limit orders? In particular maybe the defaults should be 0% and 100% so that it matches the intuition of greyed out placeholders? Also, this new UI crashes my browser tab from time to time
0
jack
Jack is betting NO at 75%
@JoyVoid How is it less flexible? You can leave one empty and then it just puts in a single limit order exactly as before (as far as I know). Maybe it's not obvious that you don't have to fill in both boxes?
0
JoyVoid
Hmm, right now for instance, the market is at 77%, low's placeholder is 69% and high's placeholder is 79% Maybe it's just placeholder as suggestion and not placeholder as value, in which case I don't find it obvious
0
JamesGrugett
@JoyVoid Thanks for weighing in @JoyVoid! I updated the UI again — hopefully this is more intuitive! What do you think? The placeholders were suggestions, yeah! But I'm not sure that's clear. I could try removing them, but I thought it looked empty. Also, I can look into the crashes.
0
JamesGrugett
Ok, I just removed the placeholder labels so it just shows '0' in the percent inputs. Hopefully users just gloss over that, while subtly informing them they should enter a number.
0
JoyVoid
@JamesGrugett 0 works well, you could also try with YES at 100% and NO at 0% to indicate the default behavior. Thanks for weighing in, I'll try them a little and update my percentage!
0
JoyVoid
@JamesGrugett Also, may I ask if there is a reasoning for not allowing more decimals? I'd like to bet on markets that are at 99.5%, and I'd love to be able to bet, e.g 99.3% or 98.5, the higher we are the more those matters.
0
MattP
Matt P is betting YES at 82%
@JoyVoid I'd also like the ability to bet to the tenth place. Could be beneficial to only allow it when the probability is above 90% or below 10%, though. Otherwise you'd get very annoying 0.1% increment limit order fights, which aren't really useful or informational outside of the extreme high and low end.
0
JoyVoid
85% - seems nice, and it hasn't crashed since changing to a modal. I haven't used the upper and lower bounds at the same time. By far the Max Payout is what I'd change: Being able to know how much I'd get if it resolved to the probability (especially for pseudonumeric markets), how much I'd get for YES and NO, etc.
0
jack
Jack bought M$10 of NO
This is much better for me! But I'm betting that it's a bit confusing to many people. If you wanted to make it more familiar and perhaps easier to understand, I think you could probably just change the labels around a bit - label low = YES and high = NO and then it basically becomes the same as before, except imo easier to use (one less click to switch between yes/no, and easier not to accidentally bet the wrong direction).
0
jack
Jack is betting NO at 64%
90%
0
jack
Jack is betting NO at 64%
Also the current fill indicator is very helpful!
0
Gigacasting
Gigacasting is betting NO at 75%
With no background text and a move to YES/NO labels (and amount listed first, not last) would be clearly better than before; without those it’s a bit of an eyesore
0
Gigacasting
Gigacasting bought M$1 of NO
Too complex for everyone just betting on one side; and messy for market making Original was clean/simple and worked
0
MattP
Matt P is betting NO at 73%
@Gigacasting *whispers* you should give a probability in your answer
0
Gigacasting
Gigacasting is betting NO at 67%
Spreads are useful: every 5% above/below 50% but purely as an additional tab
0
MattP
25%. I'm not beyond persuadable, but I still find it clunker than explicit YES/NO orders and don't quite understand how it works. Why is the amount placed on the books different for the YES and NO orders when I place both at the same time? Why does that change if I only place 1 order at once? It's unintuitive. (what I'm talking about is if you enter, say, 50% and 95% and an amount of M$100, the NO order only ends up as an M$10 order, paired with a YES order of M$100)
0
JamesGrugett
@MattP Yup, good points. When you choose both low and high limits I think it should be more explicit. Basically, it buys equal and opposite shares so they if both orders are filled, the shares cancel, and you just have profit. Because probably one of the Yes or No shares is cheaper than the others you would put less money on it. I still think this is the right way to do it.
0
MattP
Matt P is betting NO at 64%
@JamesGrugett yeah, I figured that out after a bit of messing around with it. We'll see, maybe I change my mind later. Practically speaking I usually want to put bands at various probability levels (effectively hacking to provide differing liquidity in different bands) so I tend to place limit orders a single YES or NO at one time. The benefit of the new interface doesn't quite outweigh the mental friction yet, though that very well may change with use.
0
dreev
99% -- so nice!
0
JamesGrugett
Note that I just switched up the betting interface for limit orders. Check it out! Then weigh in with your thoughts here!
0

Play-money betting

Mana (M$) is the play-money used by our platform to keep track of your bets. It's completely free for you and your friends to get started!