Will Manifold add a penalty/fee for resolving a market N/A by 2023-07-01?
33
327
Ṁ400
resolved Jul 3
Resolved
NO

I will resolve YES if N/A resolution is worse than never having made the market and NO if N/A resolution is the same or better. Ignoring opportunity cost and inflation.

Aug 25, 8:58pm: the initial description of this market may be incorrect, I recently learned that initial liquidity worked differently to my model of it. Resolution criteria remain the same.

Sep 26, 11:41pm: Attempted to restore resolution criteria after corruption.

Get Ṁ600 play money

Related questions

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ68
2Ṁ33
3Ṁ29
4Ṁ21
5Ṁ18
25 Comments
24 Holders
244 Trades
Sort by:

Any yes traders wish to contest a no?

bought Ṁ1,000 of NO

I made a market that's sort of an opposite of this one. Losing UTBs is really the only penalty that currently exists for resolving a market N/A, so if Manifold wants to make N/A resolutions less discouraged instead of more discouraged, this is probably the most likely way they would do it.

This market reminds me that I've been waiting for fixed payout multi-response markets for ten months now.

The market description got corrupted. Reported in #bugs channel. Not sure if it's user error and not sure if I can recover it.

bought Ṁ20 of YES

Once again I have to sell my shares because I forgot I said I wouldn't trade.

bought Ṁ20 of YES

I think this market was created in the window of time where, unknown to me, the initial liquidity is burned on market resolution. This has been changed but not retroactively. I'm not betting much on this because I'm not that confident and the UI doesn't tell me.

sold Ṁ9 of YES
Some chance that resolving N/A will be better because I will get the unique bettor bonus that I would not have got, counterfactually, had I not created this market and just sat on the mana.
predicted NO
@MartinRandall is that implemented yet?
@MattP according to my notifications, yes.
predicted NO
Can you clarify the resolution criteria on this point? "I will resolve YES if N/A resolution is worse than never having made the market and NO if N/A resolution is the same or better." Do you consider the opportunity cost of not having access to the liquidity ante during the course of the market to make N/A resolution worse than never having made the market? Because if so, the status quo would point towards a YES resolution already. I'm assuming by the fact you made the question though that you aren't factoring in that opportunity cost and would require some actual nominal reduction in creator mana?
predicted YES
@MattP Ignoring opportunity cost, inflation, etc.
predicted YES
@MattP also ignoring my own bets on this market
Actually, my own bets on this market should be irrelevant, because if I resolved N/A they would all be reversed, so no change relative to the counterfactual.
predicted YES
Conditional markets don't work well on Manifold, and I would not support N/A for them. Here's a concrete example of P(A given B) where B = NATO declares a no-fly zone, A = nuclear weapon launched in combat. - https://manifold.markets/LucaPetrolati/conditional-on-nato-declaring-a-nof - P(A given B) = 19% - https://manifold.markets/MetaculusBot/will-nato-declare-a-nofly-zone-anyw - P(B) = 5% (prior to my arbitrage) - https://manifold.markets/EricJang/will-a-nuclear-weapon-be-launched-i - P(A) = 2% The projected results imply that P(A and B) = 4%, which is double the projected P(B). An over-simple interpretation is that P(A given B) should be at most 10%. But correcting that means investing m100 now for an estimated 5% chance of making m13 by Dec 31st, which is a 1.3% rate of return. More generally, if P(B) is low then the conditional market becomes dysfunctional. This is worse because P(B) is often unknown and varies over time. So a conditional market can appear worthwhile only to those with distorted estimates of P(B). This is a bad setup for any wisdom of the crowd. There will be better alternatives. A market could instead have three buckets for P(A and B), P(not A and B), and P(not B), which allows an estimate of the same conditional probability but avoids the problems of N/A. CFMM multi-response markets are probably coming this year, which gives plenty of time for them to supplant conditional markets by the time this market ends.

@MartinRandall
I disagree, if we have :

P(A | B) = 0.2

P(B) = 0.05

P(A) = 0.1

P(A and B) = P(A | B) P(B) = 0.20.05 = 0.01

P(not A and B) = P(not A | B) P(B) = 0.80.05 = 0.04

P(not B) = 0.95

It means we have more market at extreme values, and it is bad because it means you should take more risk in them : People should bet more to hope the same expected return, with a risk of losing everything.

So the probability of the market risk to be screwed toward average value.

The risk of N/A for P(A | B) decrease you expected return, but at least it doesn’t increase your risk.

Given that

1) Increasing variance of return seem bad.

2) You get 2% of loan each day, which greatly decrease the cost of blocking mana for long bet or bet with a great chance to end-up being N/A

3) Anyway, a lot of people have a lot of mana in reserve.

I think conditional bet is better.

@MartinRandall
Also I think :
- Conditional probability is often easier, more natural, to think about.
- In the long run, arbitrage could be made easier, or even fixed by bot.

Also a few mana on an incorrect probability, will ask for a lot of mana on the correct probability , if the probability is at the extreme.
You don’t have this problem with a conditional probability. (if you do it correctly, and choose a conditional which make this probability less extreme)

Also, sometime you just care about the conditional probability.
For example, I created this market today : https://manifold.markets/DenisBaudouin/will-i-like-guix
This is conditional on me actually testing Guix. But I don’t care if people think I will effectively test Guix or not, and I think it would be weird to bet on that (the probability of an average Archlinux liking Guix seem to be somewhat useful information, me personally doing what I intend to do in this case, not so much).

@DenisBaudouin A lot to cover in this discussion.

It means we have more market at extreme values, and it is bad because it means you should take more risk in them : People should bet more to hope the same expected return, with a risk of losing everything.

So the probability of the market risk to be screwed toward average value.

Well I previously made this market, so I understand the perspective:

/MartinRandall/will-manifold-limit-markets-to-199

But I think people should spread their NO 1% bets out over many markets to reduce that variance, and having more P(A and B) and fewer P(A given B) markets can help that.

Also, I think it's pretty clear that, all else equal, low-probability conditional markets skew more towards 50%, or towards whatever market participants want to signal, detached from base reality. Whereas the "interest rate" skew of markets with low probability is smaller and relatively well understood.

Conditional probability is often easier, more natural, to think about.

I don't think it is. Or rather, it feels easier and more natural, but that's often a trap.

https://dynomight.net/prediction-market-causation/

For example, I created this market today : https://manifold.markets/DenisBaudouin/will-i-like-guix

I'm going to assume that you think you have a ~95% chance of trying Guix. To do the same thing, I might create two markets:

  1. Will I try Guix?

  2. Will I try and like Guix?

On the first market I would buy up to ~95% and place a limit order YES at ~95%. Now someone who wants to make a pure bet that P(like given try) is high can bet YES on market 2 with a small NO bet on market 1 as a hedge.

bought Ṁ20 of NO

@MartinRandall While I strongly agree with https://dynomight.net/prediction-market-causation/, that doesn't mean that the conditional probability isn't easier to think about. I think about P(X|Y) as: in worlds where Y is satisfied, what is the probability of X - this reflects correlation regardless of whether it's causal, and imo this is often a lot easier to reason about and trade on than P(X&Y) and P(Y) separately.

In the example you gave, I see having to think about the two markets and hedging between them as a major source of friction compared to a single conditional market.

@jack If I know that Guix will suck out Denis's eyeballs, then it's easy to bet NO on P(X&Y), and reveal that information for profit, but hard to bet on P(X given Y).

If I'm bothering to get on P(X given Y) then I must have an opinion on P(Y) anyway, which makes betting on P(X&Y) easy. I can hedge if I want to, but I don't have to.

predicted NO

@MartinRandall Yeah, I definitely agree that is an issue. If P(Y) exists you can still bet on that and reveal your info, but it's true that betting no on P(X&Y) is likely better. However, I still think reasoning about conditionals has a ton of advantages, and so I think it might be good if the underlying markets are P(X), P(Y), P(X&Y), etc but Manifold automatically displays the implied conditionals and also lets you make trades based on inputting your beliefs on the relationships between the variables (I think this shares some similarities with latent variables https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HygyWpDcwsekqmfnS/will-manifold-markets-metaculus-have-built-in-support-for)

This seems like a silly ask to me. This potential abuse falls squarely under the umbrella of "creator maliciously resolving markets for their own gain", and is handled implicitly by creator reputation. If Manifold ever adds some sort of policing to keep people from falsely resolving YES/NO questions (for example) then your hypo would fall into their wheelhouse, but barring that this doesn't seem like something they would be or should be remotely interested in doing.
bought Ṁ30 of NO
Agree with wasabipesto - a lot of important use cases for N/A, and I doubt it will be punished. A year is awhile, though.
predicted NO
@Conflux I think it's more likely the question will become irrelevant over the course of a year than resolve unambiguously yes

Related questions