🏅 Top traders

I'm confused about why this is so high: the first part is (NOT call control) = (NOT false) = (TRUE). Does anyone really think there's an 80% chance of Democrats keeping the house? If so, there's probably better markets to make lots of money on (Bolton Bailey's market is at 19% for me)

@AndrewG I'm understanding it as since we already have NO on the first market then it this market will resolve TRUE if the second market resolves FALSE, that is, if the democrats lose the house.
But I'm interpreting the description "If both of the rules below resolve to the same value". It seems like the negative in the question answer "ABC does NOT call" doesn't agree with the market below. @LivInTheLookingGlass could you please clarify?

@egroj I mean it basically says "If both of the rules below resolve to the same value: [NOT(Will ABC News call control of the House by midnight PT on election night?), Will Democrats maintain control of the House in the 2022 midterms?].

"Will ABC News call control of the House by midnight PT on election night?" is FALSE, so "----- If the rule below resolves False" is TRUE, so the resolution outcome is equivalent to "is TRUE the same as Will Democrats maintain control of the House in the 2022 midterms?", which is equivalently "Will Democrats maintain control of the House in the 2022 midterms?"

I hope I'm not making a parsing mistake here...

@AndrewG yeah, I just saw the "resolves to False" that indicates the NOT. I lost -M$166 because of not reading carefully 😭

@egroj haha, seems fair to tip you back since I'll likely be making a profit anyways.

@AndrewG thank you!

Component Markets:

@LivInTheLookingGlass now that the first one resolve to NO, this market will resolve to YES if the second market (democrats maintain control) resolves to YES, right?

@egroj I mean, if the second market resolves to NO

I'm not super happy with the generated contract explanation. Suggestions for improvement would be appreciated.

Also, @FutureOwl, this would probably be a market that interests you

@LivInTheLookingGlass I think the generated explanation, while a bit computery, is basically parseable.

@BoltonBailey I've used the term "XOR" before in markets to describe this logical primitive, but I don't know if people responded well (though they may just have been uninterested in the subject of the market).

@BoltonBailey Yeah, I'm trying not to use the terms for the more exotic boolean ops. I feel like people get AND, OR, NOT at an intuitive level. If I were to do XNOR (this market) or XOR (the other one), I worry that it would get misunderstood or have lower engagement

@LivInTheLookingGlass I think XOR is definitely better to this sort of Boolean

@LivInTheLookingGlass I think a less confusing description would be "This market resolves TRUE if the following two markets resolve to the same value (embed markets), it resolves NA if either of the two markets resolves NA (I'm assuming that is the case). This market will close when both markets close."
That said, I think that the question is wrongly stated with respect to the first market. It says "ABC does NOT call control of the House" but the first market is "Will ABC News call control of the House"