Will the market embedded below have people making genuine claims both that the correct resolution is YES and that the correct resolution is NO, based on different ways of calculating the average?
Note: people being mad/upset that they lost, or arguing that they should win based on "moral grounds" or anything similar is insufficient for YES.
Since the determination of what constitutes a "genuine" claim is somewhat subjective, I will not bet on this market.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ103 | |
| 2 | Ṁ74 | |
| 3 | Ṁ54 | |
| 4 | Ṁ12 | |
| 5 | Ṁ6 |
This seems very unlikely. The resolution criteria are pretty clear and unambiguous, so there won't be a dispute over whether some situation meets the criteria, as there can be in other markets. The only type of dispute I can imagine is if someone thinks that the calculation Conflux uses to resolve the market is flawed, but given that there are many people in the comments calculating the averages, and all their calculations are consistent with one another, this also seems very unlikely.
Also, at some point, one team will be mathematically guaranteed to win, and at that point, the floor should collapse under the other team, with the market being bet to nearly 0% or 100%. In fact, it should occur slightly before that point as it becomes increasingly obvious that one team has no chance of winning. So unless the market stays extremely close, to the point where the resolution comes down to the last few minutes of trading, it will probably be very obvious who won. And the average at the end probably won't be as close to 50% as it is right now, since this convergence on the correct result will contribute to the final average.
@Conflux I think this scenario is somewhat likely, but since it’s clear what to calculate (and the rounding has a very small effect empirically) I’d be surprised if people actually disputed valid calculations, even if it’s close, right?
@Conflux Oh, related to this: Definitely double check any of these calculations before resolving. (Though it matters a bit less now that admins can re-resolve.) There are like 4 people with different scripts that may give different results, and in the past I've accidentally resolved a market wrong because I trusted someone else's bad data.
@IsaacKing Yeah, I’ll be sure to double/triple/quadruple check. I want to have a super low chance of misresolving my biggest market ever
@Conflux Although I guess I also want to do it quickly since so many people’s money is tied up…hmm
@Conflux I expect the market to converge to 0 or 100 near the end as one team gives up, so it'll probably be obvious
@Gen But yes I do agree it is very likely once it seems impossible for one team to win everyone will start to bail
@JimHays This seems extremely unlikely to me then, unless I'm misunderstanding something. People aren't just going to stick to their guns in the face of clear evidence other people provide. They'll share their scripts and recant once the flaws are pointed out.
The core question isn't subjective or ambiguous, there is a clear right answer that can be calculated explicitly.
@IsaacKing > People aren't just going to stick to their guns in the face of clear evidence other people provide.
I will be shouting stop the count if YES gets ahead again, and then complaining until the end. Trump taught me how it's done. Evidence is useless in the face of brainrot
@IsaacKing I expect this to resolve NO, but there is a lot of data, and it seems plausible someone could make a mistake in their calculation and be unwilling to engage with the evidence to the contrary, or that others will still be convinced by the mistaken calculation, even if the person who made it realizes their mistake. People might also have differences in how they think the rounding criteria should be calculated.
@JimHays Honestly I don't think it will be that close, which is probably the main thing putting this market so low