Subjective, resolves based on my personal opinion. I will bet no to incentivize people to do this, but will avoid betting too much so as not to bias myself. I think my standards for this are high, but not unattainable.
In an ideal world, we would have markets that asked if a good thing was more likely to happen under Candidate A or Candidate B, and candidate A's supporters would bet on A and candidate B's supporters would bet on B.
And yet, it is incredibly difficult to create a functional market in this obvious format.
You have to account for the opportunity cost of betting on something condition on outcomes which might not happen, and even if they do happen it will be in a long time. Most proposed correlations are either so obvious that no one will bet against them, so nebulous that they are treated as an independent event, or so boring that no one cares.
The problem has been discussed to death in the Manifold Politics Discord channel, and all the various proposed solutions still have many flaws. Several markets have been made by myself and others to try to find notable correlations, and none have succeeded so far in my opinion.
If I am impressed by a market in this format before a date listed as an answer in this market, that answer resolves Yes. Otherwise, that date resolves No and I will add a new date until I am impressed.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ43 | |
| 2 | Ṁ35 | |
| 3 | Ṁ27 | |
| 4 | Ṁ23 | |
| 5 | Ṁ4 |
Hmmmm okay I think I'm resolving yes on @Gabrielle's trump campaign promises market, I really like that one. Wish we had them for more candidates!
Conditional on Trump winning, attempt to, “purchase,” Greenland or similar international entity not for sale? Attempt to declare Antarctica, Moon, a particular Sea or other mutually agreed international region domain of United States? Conditional on Biden winning, attempt to pack Supreme Court or push forward law which in some way un-does previous Shelby County v Holder ruling, reinstating Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act in spirit legislatively?
Your weekly conditional politics report: Manifold definitely thinks that Trump is much more likely to serve time l if he loses the election:
These questions have both been steady for months though, one at 67% and one at 80%. Still trying to find a market where people will actually go back and forth pushing the price because they strongly disagree about whether or not an event is more likely under Trump or Biden.
Maybe a large subsidy would help?
@Joshua Ooo some interesting disagreement from @Shump and @MarkHamill just after I posted this though:
(I'm not resolving this meta-market Yes on my own market though lol)
@Joshua Could that market have the causality backwards? Maybe worlds where Trump seems more and more likely to serve time are worlds where he loses
Best I've seen this week is from @Gabrielle :
This actually does get quite close to the spirit of the question, in that I think theoretically you should be able to get Trump voters to bet yes on many of these and Biden voters to bet no on many of them. The fact that Trump is specifically promising to do these things makes it extra interesting.
I'm going to keep an eye on this market, and might end up resolving yes here based on it if it's able to take off. I'm still concerned that questions that N/A have too much opportunity cost to attract enough traders to make them accurate, but this may become a counterexample!
It's at a decent 30 traders right now, but notably no one question has more than 10 people with positions. But It's a really eye-catching premise, so I have hope it will keep growing! Definitely the kind of thing maifold politics should consider featuring, and I hope Gabrielle does a Biden one!
@Joshua Thanks! I'll do a market for Biden's promises as soon as he announces them. So far his campaign website is basically just a donation page.
Have you found something to your satisfaction or a % of it? @Joshua
10%?
20%?
30%?
40%?
50%?
60%?
70%?
80%?
90%?
100%?
@Seeker My standards remain high, and so far unmet. But there are some encouraging candidates so far! I think one objective metric for success here is if a joint market can actually manage to get a lot of traders and have people pushing the probability back and forth. I don't see that happening so far, most markets of this type tend to reach an equilibrium and then people lose interest.
Misread prompt
Trying another one myself, inspired by @calderknight's submission. I think China policy might be somewhere that people are willing to bet on differences between Biden and Trump!
@JuJumper These are a good way of crowdsourcing good conditionals. I made some markets like this, and so did Ammon. They're fun but they have a high chance to N/A and often the base rate is so unknown that it's tough to say how much people think the presidency will impact something vs just thinking that thing will/won't happen. As a trader, i think my mana is always better spent elsewhere than in markets like this.
IMO the bets way to use these are to find identical options that are high in the biden market and low in the trump market, and then make a base rate market and a 2x2 dependent multichoice market. But probably there are even better formats that have not yet been invented.
I also think that in general, if you can put the end date in 2025 or 2026 that's always better. Accurately forecasting anything as far out as 2028 is really tough.
@Noit LOL I suppose I didn't say the US election, but in any case I think this is a long term market with an uncertain base rate which might N/A so I wouldn't trade in it personally.
I think this will be the market pair that will fulfill this condition
"In an ideal world, we would have markets that asked if a good thing was more likely to happen under Candidate A or Candidate B, and candidate A's supporters would bet on A and candidate B's supporters would bet on B."
while having enough traders for there to be liquidity
@AmmonLam I appreciate the submission, but oddly right now your base rate, unconditional market is showing only a 39% chance of this so apparently either candidate winning would somehow improve this? 😅
In any case, I should note that for anyone trying to make this resolve yes that right now I'm pretty convinced that the 2x2 format or something like it is better than having separate markets where one has to N/A. The risk of having your bets clawed back even after you've exited your position is a really strong disincentive to trade, IMO.
Keep the submissions coming! But my standards are high.
@AmmonLam I also like your Democracy conditionals, by the way!
The relativeshort-termness is great, I think a question like this would be well suited for the Manifold Politics project.
I imagine it's easy to accuse EIU of bias against trump, but this is still definitely something worth predicting. Wish it didn't have the N/A format though, and maybe it would be better if it just asked whether the score would go up or down than if it would be above the 8.0 threshold for a full democracy? I'm nitpicking though, good markets.