Will Trump beat Biden in national polling at the beginning of June? (538)
364
1.1k
51k
Jun 8
87%
chance

This market resolves based on the 538 polling average at the beginning of June. This market resolves one week into June to allow time for the average to have been updated.

If the 538 average as of June 8th shows Trump as having been in the lead on June 1st, this market resolves YES. In all other scenarios, this market resolves NO.

As of market creation, Trump is ahead by 1 point:

See also:

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

Can anyone tell me why there is only one prize market?

@vitamind There are at least 3 other prize markets that I have seen. For example this one.

@vitamind We have a dashboard actually! And they're all now subsidized with FIFTY THOUSAND MANA each!

https://manifold.markets/news/prize-markets

I would check out this one too:

sorry, what does the title mean exactly? Does Trump have to beat Biden by one percent?

@DavidFWatson The title just shows the current gap between them.

bought Ṁ100 NO

@DavidFWatson I read the title as meaning beat by 1% or more

@TimothyJohnson5c16 No other markets put a starting value in brackets like that in the title, I read it as clearly them defining "beat" unambiguously.

@Joshua often puts that in the title and updates it as it changes.

@TimothyJohnson5c16 I just scrolled through dozens of his markets and every use of brackets was regarding resolution or an ACX label.

@TimothyJohnson5c16 If you mean the Politics account, it appears to have started doing that yesterday afternoon, and the updates seem to not be automated (otherwise this one would say .9%) so doing that manually is insane, especially if this was a general policy going forward.

@TimothyJohnson5c16 If this is the intent, given there are markets that do have "beat by X amount" thresholds for all sorts of things, this is an atrocious practice.

@Panfilo Put "diff at start" or something?

How's this

I could just take it out if it's that unclear, but people seemed to understand with the RCP one

@Joshua Exact 1% probably made it easier to misread. I also saw it in isolation, without other examples. I think trying to save space made it look like an explanation rather than an update.

More related questions