@KevinBurke that market has resolved, so probably this one should somehow resolve too

@KevinBurke how is this market gonna resolve? N/A it (so it was a vote) or resolving how the market is handled? (currently: "Resolve it N/A if Kamala Harris or other candidate wins the election")

How does THIS market resolve?

yeah whoops I should have made this a “Vote” maybe

"Resolve it N/A if Kamala Harris or other candidate wins the election" is a terrible idea. There's no downside to betting Trump to 90% or something

Ideally, transfer the shares to another market

In that case, the market would just be "conditional on it being one of this list, who will win?" which is an ok question, though obviously it's not what the question says.

But a lot of people probably implicitly or explicitly assumed this is how the question would resolve. See e.g. https://manifold.markets/getby/2024-us-presidential-election-winne#bgydianf8tm

if we don't N/A it I think modifying the question to make this obvious would be good. My concern is with people reading off the probabilities on that market and thinking it corresponds to the probabilities of each option winning, or trying to arb with other markets and losing lots of mana, etc

Yes. If the question stays open, then it MUST be edited. We said that like 4 months ago and yet nobody did it.

Ok now that we have the ability to do this ourselves, I edited the title with a warning for now while this discussion is ongoing.

thanks jack!

Why not wait with declaring it N/A til/ifl Biden drops out? Did I miss some breaking news?

because as it is the probabilities are wrong and it makes the market a lot more confusing. for example, if trump is at 60% in that market, since the kamala and other options are implicitly at 0%, his true probability according to the market might be like 55% or something

Clearly marking the market as broken, unlisting it, and/or closing it are other possibilities that fix that and cause less damage than N/A.

Note, the previous comments were before Biden dropped out. Now that Biden has dropped out there's another big issue:

Making the market conditional on one of the listed people winning is pretty unfair to (for example) people who bet Trump NO months ago - they will not get a payout if Harris wins, but will still lose their bets if Trump wins.

N/A avoids that problem and treats all traders equally - it's sucky for everyone, but at least it's equally sucky for them all.

I see the vibe point that someone betting NO on trump doesnt want to have to consider the context of that NO bet, but a NO bet is just like a YES bet on the other options, and none of the other options panned out so to me it makes sense that they’d lose

But like i think both decisions are fine, this is me voicing a slight preference

That market was always a conditional market, it just wasn't explicitly labelled that way.

Did you know that for a very long time, there was literally nothing in the UI that indicated whether a multi choice market was independent or dependent, other than you summing up the probabilities and seeing if they added to 1? (Now it exists but it's hidden in the three dots menu.) And of course, how many users don't even know what independent and dependent multi choice mean?

So rather than say it "wasn't explicitly labelled that way" it would be more accurate to say that people who paid close attention, or who read the comments raising the alarm (which were unfortunately buried under many other comments) might guess that it would effectively be conditional (but that was never at all certain!)

And re "NO bet is equal to a YES bet on the other options", while that is technically true on a dependent multi choice market, it's extremely nonobvious whether a market is dependent or independent, and if that makes a difference and the market doesn't address it, then the market is wrong, not the trader.

Yes, I was one of the oblivious people assuming it was independent til I saw this meta-market.

Like, the conditional probabilities people are interested in are sometimes different than the conditional probabilities the market structure is actually eliciting. That happens all the time on Manifold. It doesn't help that most creators don't actually want an answer in the first place, so they have no incentive to carefully ensure the market is eliciting an answer to the right question. (In fact there is a reverse incentive).