excluding the first minute
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ9,682 | |
| 2 | Ṁ3,558 | |
| 3 | Ṁ2,215 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1,862 | |
| 5 | Ṁ1,072 |
We are very close to the point where if anyone buys any more NO or doesn't have enough for their YES limits, then Jackson can make this make this resolve YES and make a profit. NO holders, be cautious and make sure you can enough limit orders that you can fund.
No holders have this in the bag as long as we don't make stupid mistakes.
@ValeriiR The order book seems to imply that you would need 1 million mana to clear all the orders at 69%
@TobyBW Probably less, because some people in the order-book have more orders than mana balance
If the market is rational, it should never be above 69% until it is below 69% 😂
@jskf going by the displayed probabilities in the trade log, not floating point rounding errors in the API
@eclair4151 Agreed, though I would say it's the nature of the market rather than a scam, per se. The obvious strategy for this kind of market is to put a lot of money on YES, wait until there are sufficient NO bets, and then sell a small portion of your bet so that it drops below the threshold (alternatively, buy NO votes to put the answer below the threshold and then immediately buy YES before the market creator has a chance to close - this was how the previous market resolved). Assuming that the YES bettors are rational, there is literally no way for a NO bet to win. At least it's just fake internet money; hopefully the losers learn something?
.
@Fion Good point; I had missed that. I guess if you put a limit order of YES which is has an expected value which would equal that of your NO bet, then you win either way. Interesting.
Still, it seems that such a strategy would need to have more Mana dedicated to a YES limit order, so it would still work out on the whole to be the equivalent of a YES bet. Is that strategy any better than placing a YES limit at 68% without a corresponding NO position.
At any rate, I maintain that any pure NO bet (without a hedge) is a losing proposition. It appears to me that the limit orders for YES at 69% are insufficient to prevent the YES holders (esp the market creator) from trivially resolving the question whenever they want.
@Fion Actually, I think I misunderstood this. When you place a limit order of "YES" on a market that you are already betting "NO" in, it would sell your NO shares to fill the limit order, right? In that case, the NO bet with the hedge makes a lot of sense to me. The market will probably almost certainly resolve YES, but doing it this way allows you to buy NO at 70% and sell it at 68% (for a small profit) and then buy YES at 68% which is better than buying YES at 70% to begin with.
@DanielParker yeah, I think I agree with you on the main points now. A crucial point is that as you say, a YES order effectively sells a NO position.
Betting NO without a cancelling order is a very risky strategy. (I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say "losing". Depends on a couple of factors.)
Betting YES above 69% is also risky though. If all the NO bettors play perfectly, then you lose with this strategy. If it's not clear why, think about what happens when the YES bettors try to bring about the YES resolution: they sell some YES. As they sell, they're selling into the NO bettors' YES limit orders at 69%, basically cancelling out everybody's position. If any YES bettor forgets to do this, but you remember, you'll find yourself at 0 net position and the market still at 69%. If you bought at 70 and sold at 69 you make a small loss.
So I think it's fair to say that NO bettors who don't perfectly cancel with a YES order had better hope that some YES holders will forget to sell. YES bettors who buy above 69% had better hope that NO bettors don't set cancelling orders. (YES bettors are also kind of hoping that other YES bettors will sell first though, which is another interesting dynamic, and slightly uncomfortable if you're YES and the close date gets close.)
Finally, just to say that I don't think it's worth talking much about 68%. If the market ever gets there, only one person will get the chance to buy at 68, and if they're smart they'll buy all the way up to 100%. And nobody's limit orders at 68% will get filled. Due to rounding in the interface, it will display 68% before it gets to the point where limit orders sit. Once it displays 68, nobody will sell any more YES, and nobody will buy NO. All that'll happen is the person who gets it there for a moment buys it straight up to 100.
@Fion It looks like it would currently cost Ṁ46,411 to pay off all of the limit orders at 69 (or Ṁ37,096 for the market creator, since the largest limit order is his). The market creator could easily afford to pay that, but it doesn't look like any of the other YES holders could afford to do so. Assuming no other whales get involved, this market is simply going to resolve to whatever he decides to resolve it to (either he'll pay just enough to force the value to 68% and then immediately buy straight up to 100% just before the market closes, or else if the limit orders are deep enough, he'll instead sell all of his YES shares and buy NO shares instead, whichever approach is more profitable - either way he is guaranteed to win). The losers will either be the people who bet YES or else those who bought NO (without a limit order at 69). It looks like currently it would be more profitable to him to resolve to YES, but that could change.
@DanielParker yeah, which way it's profitable for him to go depends on the balance of how many NO bettors have failed to cancel Vs how many YES bettors have left big limit orders. I haven't bothered to check the numbers but I still think the only safe strategy is to bet NO and cancel. Otherwise you're gambling based on other people's behaviour (and the more you bet on that gamble, the more you incentivise other bettors to make it resolve against you).
@Fion Hmm. Thinking about it more, the NO bet with a cancellation order might not be as safe as I had thought. If a whale (e.g. the market creator) buys out all of the limit orders into a large NO position just before market close without going below 69, then wouldn't all of those new YES positions which were previously NO positions lose out? Or is the position just cancelled in that case?
@DanielParker yeah, the YES orders need to exactly cancel the NO position for it to be safe. If the YES orders are too big, then the scenario you describe is indeed a worry.
Somebody like me, buying lots of NO and placing lots of YES orders does run the risk of having miscalculated at some stage.
As an example of cancelling orders, say the market was at 70%. I buy 30 NO, which gives me 100 NO shares. I then place a limit order at 69% for 69 mana, which if filled would give me 100 YES shares. 100 YES shares and 100 NO shares immediately cancel out to give 100 mana. So in the end I spent 30 + 69 = 99 and I ended up with 100.
@DanielParker but also, note that "buying out all the orders so you have a large NO position" is
Only possible if there are either lots of YES bettors or some NO bettors with "overbalanced" orders
Risky! Because if a whale does this, and then at the last second one of the YES bettors sells just enough to drop below 69, the whale who NO'd through all the limit orders loses big time. Even if they manage to sell their NO before market close, they'll be selling almost all of it at a loss.
@DanielParker I think it's helpful to bear in mind that you can only make a profit if you're taking somebody else's mana. Whether you manipulate it to YES or NO, that only works by exploiting other people's risky or misguided strategies. That's why I said earlier that if everybody on the NO side employed a strategy like mine, there's no YES mana to be made in profit.
(Finally, just to note that the top three NO bettors are me and my alts, so there's no free mana to be made from us! I believe the next few have balanced as well (although I haven't checked carefully). Might be a bit of mana to be won from @acc though!)