Close date updated to 2022-12-09 12:50 pm
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,115 | |
| 2 | Ṁ1,007 | |
| 3 | Ṁ618 | |
| 4 | Ṁ437 | |
| 5 | Ṁ356 |
The resolution of this market led to a large drop in winning bettors' profit graphs; the payout profits don't seem to have been attributed (even though the expected profits were, prior to resolution).
Also, since I had a lot of shares in Argentina when this market closed early, I hedged by betting on other teams on different markets; this ended up increasing the size of the observed loss.
Closing this market because the new multiple choice type that this market was created with does not support adding additional liquidity which is causing this market to not be very functional.
It will still resolve correctly at the end of the WorldCup and profit made here will still count towards to tournament leaderboard. I will be selecting new markets to replace this one so users can still trade on the winner as part of the Manifold tournament.
@jacob You can sell them by doing the same amount you bought, but on NO, should work
@egroj More liquidity + warnings when moving the probabilities a large amount (which Manifold do elsewhere) should do the trick.
Would also be cool if users got a visualisation of the change in percentage return they get as they bet larger amounts. People just go and type in the amount they want to bet without thinking about value, but you could highlight the fact they're getting a crappy deal by showing how the returns change with varying bet sizes. e.g. I get the following returns for betting these amounts on Argentina (currently at 11%):
Ṁ1: +628.6%
Ṁ10: +177.4%
Ṁ100: +19%
You can see the returns change as you move the slider, but it would be nice if you could see the decrease in value statically. A graph of return percantage vs bet size (perhaps turning red when the returns are really bad) would make it immediately apparent that you're about to place a bet with average returns far lower than the current market price would suggest.
@finnhambly and the Catch-22 is that liquidity won't increase until the market stops moving so much (unless @ManifoldMarkets injects liquidity). Check these movements:
@egroj Also, I have no idea what my holdings are of each team after correcting the market — absolutely do not have the energy to tot up my share balances after 117 transactions... Not even sure which team I should be rooting for (for my Manifold profits)
I love the both-way markets, but I would love to see my net position for each option. Maybe one simple solution would be that each option is actually an independent binary YES/NO market. Then all this question really is, is a wrapper for multiple markets (which 1. displays the individual markets in one place and 2. gives you cumulated stats on your bets).
@howtodowtle Agreed, though you wouldn't have the totals adding up to 100% in that case (traders should ensure it's close enough however).
Yeah Manifold is talking about switching these markets over to basically what you said - they would function as a collection of independent yes/no markets but with the nice interface we have here. And optionally you could add logic to keep the totals adding to 100% - basically when you buy YES in one option you also buy a little bit of NO in all the other options.
@KevinBurke Yeah, this type of multiple choice market was experimental and the reason it doesn't work well is because it doesn't support adding liquidity. They are aware of it and working on a better solution.
@KevinBurke I like this new format. With only "Buy" options when you feel an option (e.g., Argentina) is too high, your only way of betting on that is buying all other options. And that means you need a lot of Ṁ liquidity to simply short one of 10+ options instead of just directly selling that option. What often happens then is I don't bet and markets stay less efficient than if you could easily buy and sell.
@howtodowtle Yes, being able to buy both up and down is very important. Actually the way buying NO works in this market is actually that under the hood it buys a bit of YES shares in everything else - which is mathematically equivalent.
@jack what I don't get out of these markets is how to cash on your profits, there is no sell button, so you have to necessarily buy the opposite position, which is not the same as cashing out
@Daconomist and I don't know if it is lack of liquidity, but for example check this market below. I want to leave it at 50% Brazil, 50% Portugal (because it will likely be resolved 50/50), but if I bid even $1 YES on either it goes to 100% for them and 0% for the other. Does that mean that when I'm buying YES on one, I'm also selling automatically my YES positions on all other options?
Actually buying the opposite position is the same as cashing out. It will automatically redeem pairs of opposite shares: 1 YES + 1 NO becomes M$1 cash.
You just have to choose your buy amount based on the displayed maximum payout - that's the number of shares you're buying, and you want that to match the number of shares you're selling.
@jack Sure the issue is small amount of YES bets move the odds by large amounts. I think people are expecting the liquidity pool to be bigger