AMPLIFIED ODDS 100x: Will a nuclear weapon be launched in combat by the end of 2023?
289
1.5K
1.9K
resolved Jan 3
Resolved
N/A

This rule resolves YES if the referenced market resolves YES.

If the referenced market resolves NO, I will get a random number using a predetermined seed. If it is less than `1 / a`, I will resolve NO. Otherwise, I will resolve N/A. This means that, for this rule, you should treat NO as if it is `a` times less likely to happen than it actually is.
For example, if `a = 100`, and your actual expected outcome is 0.01% YES, 99.99% NO, you should expect this to resolve with probabilities 0.01% YES, 0.9999% NO, 98.9901% N/A, which means that your price of a YES share should be ~1% (actually 0.99%).
Some other values, for calibration (using the formula YES' = YES/(YES + (1-YES)/100), where YES' is the price for this question, and YES is your actual probability):

0.02% YES => ~2% YES' (actually 1.96%)

0.05% YES => ~5% YES' (actually 4.76%)

0.1% YES => 9% YES'

0.2% YES => 17% YES'

0.5% YES => 33% YES'

1% YES => 50% YES'

2% YES => 67% YES'

5% YES => 84% YES'

10% YES => 92% YES'

20% YES => 96% YES'

50% YES => 99% YES'

100% YES => 100% YES'

This market will resolve if any of the following are true:

- If this market reaches its close date

- If `CBCpG7AUU4pnsbyBn0bg` closes (Will a nuclear weapon be launched in combat by the end of 2023?).

It will resolve based on the following decision tree:

- If the human operator agrees:

--- Amplified odds:

----- If the referenced market resolves YES, resolve YES

------- Resolved (or current, if not resolved) value of `CBCpG7AUU4pnsbyBn0bg` (Will a nuclear weapon be launched in combat by the end of 2023?).

----- If it resolved NO, generate a random number using a predetermined seed

------- If the number is less than `1 / a` (100 -> ~0.01), resolve NO

------- Otherwise, resolve N/A

----- Otherwise, resolve to the equivalent price of the reference market

- Otherwise, a manually provided value

Note that the bot operator reserves the right to resolve contrary to the purely automated rules to preserve the spirit of the market. All resolutions are first verified by the human operator.

The operator also reserves the right to trade on this market unless otherwise specified. Even if otherwise specified, the operator reserves the right to buy shares for subsidy or to trade for the purposes of cashing out liquidity.

Get Ṁ200 play money
Sort by:
🤖

### @BoltonBailey your random number is: 40

Salt: bJUOURQuAyhsKrX37YTp, round: 3626995 (signature 8773900bea4dd8cd0969f7067e3f18e7a0f1cfa28d3ca6c90229a9fa8a6dc4a3fd77ac7fd31b2f6e69bb644a3460794507f9be2b0fa6ee9f2dd706a7a09062a12a621a927991660492584e3d7592c993259db6bd6eb939ca9e5799ac622745a6)

@FairlyRandom Same result, what are the odds?

(1 in 100 of course lol)

🤖

### @BoltonBailey you asked for a random integer between 1 and 100, inclusive. Coming up shortly!

Source: GitHub, previous round: 3626993 (latest), offset: 2, selected round: 3626995, salt: bJUOURQuAyhsKrX37YTp.

predicted YES
predicted YES

@BoltonBailey Should we n/a this then?

Ok, after reading the criteria I am interpreting it as a=100

My next comment will call the randomness bot for a number between 1 and 100. If it's 1, I'll resolve NO and otherwise I'll N/A.

Ok as an impartial observer I am declaring that none of the Fairly Random responses count until I figure out what is going on.

🤖

### @BoltonBailey your random number is: 40

Salt: 6ZsZqnjP6pfe8tbbiRsR, round: 3626653 (signature 82f77d64ee181856c16a7b94ea7dbd585ccc8d2cf0407a349e90508e17895e47026a7f68ff414418205802b8e823810e04ab86437f620f4851266119dd3c32c78b612152c4adae5bb6a297f5b99aee28af01c478c8c9f019ea0be14475aa9c78)

🤖

### @BoltonBailey you asked for a random integer between 1 and 100, inclusive. Coming up shortly!

Source: GitHub, previous round: 3626651 (latest), offset: 2, selected round: 3626653, salt: 6ZsZqnjP6pfe8tbbiRsR.

@FairlyRandom Why is this giving me randomness before I asked? Did it literally see 100 in the comment and go with that?

@BoltonBailey Yeah if you post a comment that contains the bot's name (with an @) and exactly one integer anywhere in the same comment then it will use that as the randomness range and generate a number. That way you can write stuff like "@ FairlyRandom please generate me a number up to 100" and it will still work instead of forcing people to use an exact syntax.

Creator seems to be inactive, so perhaps the mods should try to resolve this ourselves using @FairlyRandom . Is "a" in the criteria the closing probability, or is it supposed to be 100 to reflect the title?

predicted YES

@LivInTheLookingGlass Can you please resolve this one?

bought Ṁ16 of YES

Is the linked market I assume.

"If the referenced market resolves NO, I will get a random number using a predetermined seed."

"a" is a number between 0-100?

predicted NO

@d Sorry, this is from when my market generator was making significantly worse descriptions. What it is trying to say is:

• Take a random value 0-1

• Multiply it by a (100)

• If result is less than 1, resolve NO

bought Ṁ100 of NO

Every month I buy more NO.

predicted YES

@AndrewHartman Probably more profitable to buy NO at the original question..

bought Ṁ100 of YES

this is way too low according to arbitrage. 100x is a lot!

bought Ṁ10 of YES

I model this market out in my head like a speaker and microphone. Yes, typically when you put a microphone right up to it's speaker and whisper something into the mic it goes weeeooooo with an annoying noise. Not too much more complicated than that.

predicted NO

I am super curious whether people genuinely feel that the underlying odds of an event that has happened literally only once (or twice, depending on how you want to count it) has a >8% chance of reoccurring in a short time frame. I'll grant there's a not-obviously-flawed line of reasoning that makes it seem more likely now than previous points in history, but the outside view still seems like it's a vanishingly low probability, and the current market odds are not, to put it succinctly.

predicted YES

@AndrewHartman I definitely want to be counting both.

In the past, nuclear weapon use was certain to lead to everyone dying, do there's a heavy anthropic update where we don't see the world where we all die.

In this crisis it's plausible that Putin uses a nuke and it doesn't escalate to WW3, partly because of variable yield weapons, partly because he still loses the wear in Ukraine. The base rate could be "dictators killing civilians with whatever WMDs they have to hand". That base rate is higher.

I'm betting NO down to 5-10% on the underlying market, but I don't think YES bettors are being irrational.

predicted NO

@MartinRandall While I agree that there's something of an argument about nuked worldlines not being visible, I think that this conception of history ascribes too much to random chance and too little to big boring structural factors. If we survived the cold war era, it seems to me that you'd have to make a compelling argument that the present world is somehow more fragile with respect to not engaging in nuclear warfare than it was in the past, and that feels . . . not impossible, but certainly difficult, especially to do in a way that doesn't feel overly focused on minute personal details to the exclusion of a reasonable outside view.

Again, I don't think it's impossible, and I certainly think it's much higher at the moment than any time recently, but I do not think it's reasonable to assess it over a single percent. I'd dump more on this market, but I'm too much of an ape to do the math and work out whether me being correct about the true percentage is likely to actually translate to meaningful gains.

predicted YES

@AndrewHartman The best possible scenario for buying NO on this market is that there is a 0% chance of nuclear launch, in which case buying NO at 79% has a 0.79% return by end of 2023, which is not objectively worth betting.

On the underlying market the same outcome gives you a 10% return which is excellent.

@AndrewHartman You could have argued the same thing about the Ukraine invasion, the pandemic, about Trump being elected president, about Sept 11th, etc. We are in an era of extraordinary events

predicted NO

@AnselFreniere The lesson of history is that we always are. Things that have never happened before happen all the time, but contemporary commentators inevitably overestimate their ability to identify the truly impactful ones.