Will Biden be the 2024 Democratic Nominee?
4.7k
43k
12k
Aug 1
95%
chance

The resolution is to the first nominee formally selected by the Democratic Party (which happens at the Democratic National Convention). If the nominee is later replaced (for example, due to dropping out of the election, death, etc) that does not change the resolution.

If a candidate becomes presumptive nominee after securing a majority of pledged delegates, that is not sufficient for resolution, until formally selected as nominee.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

pp market?

boughtṀ5,000NO

@FlipPidot hey do that again

soldṀ9,530YES

@Conflux I have large limit orders up for anyone who wants to sell more yes

bought Ṁ15 NO

4% chance something happens before November? I'll take that bet.

@TimothyBandors Not November, it’s at the DNC, which is much sooner

@dominic I'm ngmi

"Mr. President! Why did your likelihood of being the nominee drop by 2 percentage points?"
"Listen here, Jack, there's a bank run! The pivot is malarkey!"

I made a bit of mana predicting this correctly!

@jack wouldn't the fees eat up any margin you can make that's less than 7%?

@Odoacre

(Edit to fix my fee calculations... again)

I think the fees come out to about 0.7% here if using market orders, so it's actually a perfectly profitable trade. 7% is the maximum fee expressed as fee / mana bet. Which is completely different from the fee expressed as fee / share, which is what matters for the calculation of the minimum profitable margin. And it's a max, it varies by price.

Also, I used a lot of limit orders which don't require fees.

This is a tangent, but I will reiterate that traders should not even have to understand how to calculate fees whatsoever, because Manifold should display the marginal price you pay per shares after fees. Basically, it should be shown as a bid-ask spread, because it's mathematically equivalent to that, and that's a much better way to think about them.

@Odoacre If you think that this market resolves 100% YES, then it's still profitable to buy it up arbitrarily close to 100%. However, if another market is only 50% likely, you should only bit it up to roughly 46.5% and down to 53.5% IIUC.

@jack if you buy at 95 and sell at 97 the amount of shares you buy and sell are only 2% different and the fee for selling at 97% is close to the maximum.

But sure… limit orders work

@Odoacre Yeah I had looked at the numbers wrong and thought the fee was 1% when it's actually 3.5% (per side). I edited my above comment.

@FlorisvanDoorn Correct, but the trade we're talking about here is predicting that the market will fall from 97% to 94% - buying NO and then selling.

@Odoacre Buying and selling 1000 YES shares at the current price (~95%) both have a fee of ~3.5M. So if you buy YES shares at 95% and sell at 97% you make roughly 20M and lose 7M to fees. So it's 1/3 less profitable, but still profitable.

@FlorisvanDoorn Oh! So I did misunderstand how the fees worked, I thought it was dependant on the bet direction.

@Odoacre It depends on the bet direction if you calculate the fee as a percentage of your bet amount, because then you have to pay 3.5M fee over a bet of 50M, which is a much higher percentage. If you calculate it as percentage of the shares you get, then buying YES and NO is the same (as long as you don't move the market much).

Thanks, turns out I misread the 0.35% fees (thought they were 3.5%) when doing my second calculation, I was actually about right the first time.

This again goes to show that traders should not have to calculate fees themselves - they should simply be shown as bid-ask spread. Specifically, when buying shares, what's currently shown as "new probability" should IMO be changed to display the marginal price per share, after fees.

@jack 0.35% sounds wrong to me, but at this point I give up

@Odoacre Lol yeah I feel the same.

The calculation is as follows, I'll use some rounded numbers to make it easier.

Buy 5 mana of NO at 95% for 100 shares of NO, pay a fee of 0.3 mana (rounding to 1 decimal point). Note that is 0.3% of the 100 shares while it's 6% of the 5 mana.

Buy 95 mana of YES at 95% for 100 shares of YES, pay a fee of 0.3 mana. Note that is 0.3% of the 100 shares and also 0.3% of the 96 mana.

Total fee for this trade: 0.6 mana = 0.6% of the 100 mana trade.

@jack I noticed it takes the fee out of your purchase amount rather than adding it on top. So if you buy 5 mana of NO at 95%, you'll get slightly less than 100 shares.

If you have a target probability in mind, you can calculate the upper and lower bounds for profitable trading:

upper = 1 - (1.07 - (1.1449 - 0.28*(1-p))^0.5) / 0.14

lower = (1.07 - (1.1449 - 0.28*p)^0.5) / 0.14

There's a simpler way to calculate it that gives a slightly wrong answer. Someone should check that I did this correctly.

sold Ṁ2,222 YES

I am selling my investment before the value of Mana is decreased to a tenth of its current value on May 1 2024.

I am selling my investment before the value of Mana is decreased to a tenth of its current value on May 1 2024.

@ForrestTaylor Is it because you are donating the mana?

@jack Yes. I am obligated to donate a certain amount to charity each year so it benefits me to sell almost all my bets now, even at a loss.