🏅 Top traders

5-4 meant to resolve NO, my finger slipped. I’m getting a mod to fix.

we can't, it's unlinked MC

@MarkHamill well i guess this was the one way I could lose money on my arb, lol

@MarkHamill is there actually no way to undo an accidental misresolve? That's mad!

@MarkHamill technically they make three separate rulings 9-0, 5-4, and 9-0. First one overturned Colorado, split was on whether Congress had the responsibility, and the other 9-0 was that the President is an officer of the Constitution and can be invalidated.

So technically, this actually resolved perfectly.

@ZacharyParker except creator promised exactly 1 YES resolution. the decision was 9-0 since all concurred in the judgement, with the 5-4 (or 5-3-1 since ACB didn't sign on with the other 3) being a matter of disagreeing only on the breadth of the ruling.

@ZacharyParker yeah, you already got your answer 24 days ago. Should have been 9-0.

Just fixed this, 5-4 has now resolved to NO

How will concurring opinions which agree with the ruling but not the reasoning of the majority opinion be considered for this market?

@ZacharyParker They’ll be counted towards the winning side. Only dissents will be counted towards the losing side. If there’s ambiguity, I’ll rely on NYT or CNN reporting on the vote split.

7-2 and 8-1 are looking good after today’s oral arguments

@MarkHamill Twitter seems to disagree and think 9-0 is in the cards, hmm…

@MarkHamill I'll take that bet

@MarkHamill I mean the whole point of 14th amendment is to keep states from going rogue like CO is. 9-0 would not be a surprise.

So "6-3" could mean "6 for, 3 against" or "6 against, 3 for"?

@Snarflak Correct

Who will win the SC GOP primary? https://manifold.markets/FakeMoney/who-will-win-the-gop-south-carolina?r=RmFrZU1vbmV5

Why is this independent multiple choice? Is there some situation where more than one of these can be YES?

@Multicore yeah, ridiculous. And the market prices were implicitly expecting there to be 1.6 rulings on this case (sum of probs was 160%). I randomly bet no across them to get it closer to 100%.

@Multicore Because I set the market up incorrectly by mistake. Apologies, will accept abuse and 1-star ratings. That said, I think this can still resolve normally without having to N/A.

@MarkHamill it just gave me an easy arb, unless It's possible for more than one to resolve YES

@AlQuinn Nope, only 1 will resolve yes.

@MarkHamill No need to N/A, the market is coherent.

Added this question to my 'Trump on the ballot' dashboard