🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ129 | |
| 2 | Ṁ123 | |
| 3 | Ṁ81 | |
| 4 | Ṁ80 | |
| 5 | Ṁ76 |
From [Zvi's newsletter](https://thezvi.substack.com/p/covid-92222-the-joe-biden-sings):
> ## I Lose a Bet
> A while back as Omicron was ramping up, I bet $60 against Holden’s $40 that the bulk of cases this year would be in the first few months, with the bet resolving ambiguously if there were new cases later but they were not Omicron. This was a tricky bet to nail down. The central thesis that there would be a giant Omicron wave and then things would get better was something we mostly agreed about, so the bet was about confidence and magnitude and there wasn’t that much disagreement - I was at 70% I would win conditional on non-ambiguous, Holden was at 50%. We made it happen because we both believe in the Virtue of Betting, and I am not trying to pull a Bryan Caplan style ‘only bet against people when you have huge edge’ strategy.
> There can be no question that I lost the bet, and the Metaculus market on this agrees. The ‘will this be judged ambiguous?’ question on Metaculus disagrees. This is presumably on the question of ‘are new subvariants of Omicron still considered Omicron?’ If the new sub-variants did not count for the wager, it would resolve as a push. Unfortunately for me, I think the answer is obviously yes, they are subvariants of Omicron. That means they count - to not count they would have to be called Pi, or at least I would have to think they deserved to be called Pi, which these don’t.
> I have paid.
Seems pretty unambiguous to me