At what odds would you bet that UFOs will not be revealed to have a worldview-shattering origin by mid-2028?

Never closes

1000 to 1 or greater

500-1 or greater

100-1 or greater

10-1 or greater

2-1 or greater

1-1 or less

See Results

This is a poll meant to measure Manifold's opinions on a market without accounting for the bond rate. Choose the option with the most extreme odds at which you would bet that UFOs are not aliens, time travelers, demons, etc.

Assume you wouldn't have to lock the capital up and that your counterparty pays you in advance, but that you are publicly honor-bound to pay if you're wrong.

For example, at 100-1 you get 1000 mana today and promise to pay 100,000 mana if you are proven wrong by mid-2028.

Your counterparty has to put up at least 1000 mana, and you can't bet more than your net worth.

This poll is based on Eliezer Yudkowsky's 150-1 bet, as covered in this market:

Get Ṁ1,000 play money

11 Comments

Sort by:

Note that this poll is presumably assuming that the bet magically happens with zero hassle, unlike the hassles of arranging a real bet along these lines which means that in practice they would probably never happen. (Therefore it's trying to get at your real beliefs, rather than your willingness to put up with counterparties and paperwork.)

I mean, if someone sent me my payout up front like they did with Eliezer, it's not that much hassle! He got a great deal.

The "legally required" part is a hassle. How are you going to write up that contract? Are you required to put up collateral?

And the finding a willing counterparty part is another hassle. On the LW post it was easy because the counterparty offered a large amount to bet and didn't require any contracts or collateral.

Also, why is this market only asking about betting in one direction? It is asymmetric because traders require a spread around their central prediction to be willing to bet, and I at least require a big one for this bet. Might be better to ask at what odds you'd be neutral between betting YES vs NO.

Fair point, and I guess Eliezer isn't legally required to pay, just very publicly honor-bound. I'll edit that to match.

Based on confidence alone I'd bet on "1000 to 1 or greater", however in practice it's too slow, I could have used the mana I tie up in this bet much more profitably on shorter term markets. So betting on a four year market even at 10-1 is meh.

The description:

Assume you wouldn't have to lock the capital up and that your counterparty pays you in advance, but that you are legally required to pay if you're wrong.

Yes, I chose the first option on the poll.

I am constrained among poll answers by my mana net worth 🙄 Without being limited to the given options, I think I'd bet to somewhere around 50-1.

Well markets were also constrained by that even when we had loans so it seemed like a good clause to me. This way the market serves to advertise people with the current mana net worth and willingness to make these bets in case anyone wants to be their counterparty.

Of course, if you really made this bet your counterparty could accept a promise to buy mana.

Hmmm most people saying 1000-1 don't have a million mana though so maybe I should just delete that sentence.

Related questions

Related questions