Oh man why is ~0 suddenly leading our boards ??

I'm interested in hearing from predictors of low sales: "solve dental decay" sounds like a huge huge deal to me, so are people betting low on... Poor business execution, lack of marketing, lack of demand??

@JamesBakerc884 This sounds fantastic to me, but personally I'm going to wait 12+ months to wait for some reviews before I try it myself. If everyone is thinking the same...

I think that's the hazard of going the supplement route, instead of full FDA approval.

interesting ad and an opportunity for whales

"2500+" should be similarly deprecated, right?

@JamesBakerc884 What is meant by deprecated? Will spent mana be returned to us

@jnx Scroll down. Oh it was supposed to say "disqualified". I interpret that as resolves NO.

@JamesBakerc884It doesn’t seem that way to me from the comments. Mods can’t resolve N/A. Automatically resolving NO would be unfair to the 23 YES holders, and the 3 NO holders also bought shares After “deprecated” was added.

@jnx I feel bad for creating the 10+ option; I see that a lot of people are gonna lose money off that. I'd be willing to pay people back for the money they've lost, but I'm not really willing to pay off the top two (M500 and M1300). I made about 160 off traders and maybe another 70-80 off of betting on the question itself, so I'm willing to pay about that much... i dunno. 1300 & 500 is just an awful lot :(

@Qoiuoiuoiu But “a lot of people” don’t need to lose, why not the one whale that made a mistake and would be seemingly bailed out at the expense of many others? Resolving the outcomes as normal seems the most fair especially since they continued betting NO on the assumption the market would close in their favor. I also think he might win his bet anyway as this is a speculative first product. Why should that one user be favored by default? @JamieWahls

@jnx what whale do you mean? If you mean @MichaelWheatley, he said that he was betting it down to make it obvious that it was a bad answer

@jnx I mean, what's the other option? Resolve the whole market as N/A?

@Qoiuoiuoiu As I stated the reasonable option in my view is to leave the + answers as valid. The market can still continue as normal, Mr. Wheatley’s bet are contributing liquidity to this market in support and he still has a chance of winning

@jnx But only one answer can resolve as yes

@Qoiuoiuoiu I understand the issue now. Thanks for explaining

If the literature/marketing materials are anywhere close to accurate, they'll easily sell >1000 of these.

it's an interesting questions, but the buckets are way too granular. So much work to bet.

@VitorBosshard Huh. What should the buckets be?

@JamieWahls Doesn't matter exactly, as long as it's more like 5-ish rather than 20. Let's try splitting reality at the joints:

• total flop

• flop

• modest success (roughly in line with projections from waitlist)

• sucess

• wild success

• holy shit we went viral, Oprah did it and now we're buying a factory.

You know the numbers assigned to each category better than me. The issue with too many buckets is that each one stops having this kind of intrinsic meaning, on top of the insane fiddlyness of betting M5 on a bunch of different options trying to express your true beliefs.

While there are going to be more than 0 people doing a high-effort analysis for this kind of question, most of us operate on base rates and gut feelings.

@VitorBosshard hahaI do agree and appreciate you writing this up; and propose (if @JamieWahls does recreate this) to use exactly those names in the buckets eg "Total flop: 0-2k", or "10M+ (holy shit we went viral, Oprah did it and now we're buying a factory)"

I do think the factory bit does point at something useful, which is that good categories might lead to different outcomes. E.g. maybe the difference between "Modest Success" and "Success" is the difference between "Continue executing as planned" and "hire 2 additional FTE to work on this", and you figure out where to draw the line based on what # of sales would give you the confidence to do this.

@JamieWahls you might also change the default sort order to 'old'. Makes it a nice gaussian histogram (except for the 2001-2500 bucket which must have been added later).

But I agree, fewer buckets would make betting easier. Or a numeric market. Or multi resolution with options like ”1000 or more".

@robm Good gracious i didn't realize that the sort order was affecting everyone and not just myself

Uhm... I put 100 on 10+ which seems like an easy win, then I put 10 on "other", won't that mean I will win no matter what and make a good profit no matter the outcome?

@NiklasBergstrom 10+ may end up being disqualified because it's user-added and 0-250 already exists. (And it's a market type in which the answers are mutually exclusive)

@MichaelWheatley well, that's understandable, I hope I get paid back on all my bets since it was all based on the 10+ being real...

@NiklasBergstrom Yeah, this was unfortunate. I'm surprised this is the first time I've seen this happen, now that I see how invisible the guardrails against it are.

Indeed. @Austin , could Manifold, uh, ctrl+z the "10+" option that someone added

@JamieWahls I've disabled the ability for users to add new answers. You should be able to edit the answer name to DISQUALIFIED to discourage new bets on it if you want to do that. I don't think they can undo the addition, but this kind of thing keeps changing, so maybe it's possible. We'll see when a staff member shows up.

@JamieWahls Hmm unfortunately we don't have N/A supported for this market type yet -- that's our bad. For now I'm editing the answer a bit and betting it down to make it clear that this one is not supported

(yeah what Michael Wheatley said)

@JamieWahls I've just noticed that I own every single NO share on '10+', so when this is over I can make a contribution to the Sloppy Trader Reimbursement Fund.

@MichaelWheatley figured that was the case but also figured it was worth a 10% gamble lol

@StopPunting @MichaelWheatley Ugh ok I’ll sell mine and apply to the sloppy trader fund after resolution. Incidentally any reason not to short the disqualified options to zero?

@simoj as far as I can tell it's a safe bet, but this site has taught me to be very wary of 0 percents