Resolves NO if this market closes with over 9000 YES shares outstanding.
Otherwise resolves yes
Related questions
๐ Top traders
I think I must be missing something: why do so few people hold no positions? Was it just profitable enough to sell NO and guarantee a very slightly smaller profit?
@Heliscone After the sudden YES buyout investing in NO in any way at such low % brought miniscule rewards in the form of a very low payout. I'm assuming people just didn't want to switch sides and gain almost nothing in return in case a big turnaround happens on the YES side as a result of market manipulation.
Anyone can force this to resolve NO, at no cost, by trading with his own alt.
pancakes already has 10000 shares and shows no sign of selling any. Looks like the fix is already in. But can we trust this? Surprising pancakes isn't giving appearance of selling some even if they have agreed not to sell below 9000. Wouldn't that create doubt and the ability to sell more at a higher price?
Over 19000 yes, that happened fast. But are they worthless? or can they be sold? Selling 15000 at 1% seems very confident they won't or can't be sold.
@ChristopherRandles Maybe it's a strategy to sell a bunch of YES shares during the last minute to drive the count down? idk
@ChristopherRandles This was because of hi buying NO down to ~0%, so pancakes only needed to spend M145 to build that position.
So selling a couple thousand shares right before closing is VERY VERY profitable assuming YES resolution. The concern for pancakes, if they are planning to sell last-minute, should be that this happens:
pancakes sells some YES, down to ~0%.
Another person spends a little bit of mana on YES at this cheap price and gets a huge position...Either back-deal or just being annoying (harumph.), there are lots of ways to profit on that.
So, if I knew for a fact that pancakes was baiting, I would manalink a friend to have them set up a LO at 0.5%, to build up 7000YES position, as I bought large amounts of NO down to below 0.5%. In that situation, I think the profit by [me as I buy NO] and loss of [my friend as they build up YES] cancel, and then since I know my friend will hold that position, I can profit off everyone else who buys YES on the contingency of baiting. Not sure if I articulated that well.
As of now though, I'm just going to hold my YES position, since I think pancakes is probably baiting (I don't see many trolly-style huge losses in their portfolio), and it's more interesting to me this way!
@Heliscone My strategy is always hold because some quirk in my mind that goes: sunk costs? well let the rest sink too!
Selling a lot at 30-90% then paying someone to place buy order of M90 at 1% and filling that for them might make a lot of sense. But selling at 1% without first selling at higher values, when you cannot place a book order to buy at less than 1%, where is the sense in that?
With it going over 19000 selling 10k might not have been enough to get a true judgement and getting all the yes holders to sell 75% of their holding seems unlikely to be achieved. Now it is less than 19000, pancakes could sell most of his holdings at 1% or above and make a profit. I doubt the price will go below 1% if you cannot place a buy order at less than that so I struggle to see a way out after selling 15000 at 1%. Seems like way too much to risk for only a tiny profit which seems unlikely.
I guess you can work it out but it seemed useful to note it here. Market has been running 18 days with 12 days to go. At time of writing yes positions total 2355. So rate of yeses being added appears not to be high enough, but may have more orders and bets towards end of market, chance is at 31% so that may tempt people to push price up while rate of new users is less than required to reach 9000 and probably lots of other considerations. e.g. pushing up to over 9000 doesn't make sense but 3 or 4 people/bots thinking they can profit in last few seconds seems a significant risk.
Is it useful to have notes like this or are they just annoying? (If consensus is they are annoying I will try not to do it often.)
For people who'd bet up lots, do you really want to ruin your calibration scores?
Take it from me who bet in a "will I bet 500M NO" market, the calibration calculator gets unhappy when you do stuff like this.
@42irrationalist Dang it! (I actually have not so much faith that someone will bet up beyond 9000 shares but I can always hope โฆ)
@Heliscone a perfect calibration graph would imply every trade spent enough mana to bring the probability to the true odds. Which means your profit on the last marginal mana spent was zero. If you're actually trying to maximize profit per mana, then the calibration graph should not be like that. Your yes bets should be above the line and your no bets should be below the line. But also the graphs are useless now because of small sample size, since they restricted it to the 3 largest bets in each bucket.
@JonathanRay Oh, I did not know that... I thought that betting from 10->30% or 90->30% all resulted in the 30% bucket?
Is the calibration calculation or just the graph only using the 3 largest buckets? And why would they do that? I'm not sure I understand...
@JonathanRay I like how Metaculus implemented the calibration graph much better.
@Heliscone Just do it like everyone else: Use Metaculus for calibration, use Manifold for gambling ๐
@Heliscone hmm
Perfect calibration would result in all green points being above the line, all red points below, and a score of zero.
My score shows as -0.01 is that good or bad?
Related questions
