![](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstorage.googleapis.com%2Fmantic-markets.appspot.com%2Fcontract-images%2FKevinBurke%2Fgjvgf8io2f.jpg&w=3840&q=75)
This one: https://manifold.markets/getby/2024-us-presidential-election-winne
Personally, I would like to resolve it N/A.
Related questions
@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")
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
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.
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.
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).