Will the main COVID origin market move by +/- 10 pp following the verdict of the Rootclaim Challenge debate?
resolved Feb 25
Verdict announced
Feb 17


The main market:

The Rootclaim challenge is the object of two markets:


This market resolves YES if, within a week following the publication of the verdict of the debate (tbd but expected early December), the probability of the main market changes by 10 or more percentage points either up or down and, for at least one continuous 24-hour period, it stays at, above, or below the new probability.


  • I will ignore transient spikes.

  • I will only use displayed percentages and integers.

  • The baseline to assess the change will be the most recent probability before the verdict of the debate is published.

  • I will not trade in this market.

  • I will provide clarifications as needed and update the description accordingly.


If, before publication, the probability is 73%, this market resolves YES if, within a week (= 7 x 24 hours) after publication, there is a continuous 24-hour period when the probability is at least 83% or at most 63% (not counting transient spikes).

Get Ṁ200 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
Sort by:

@traders heads up that this market might be mispriced. Since the resolution could be controversial I will not bet. But here are the facts:

  • The verdict was announced on February 17.

  • I can't find the exact time of the announcement, but anyway, the reference market probability was hovering around 70% that day.

  • Since the verdict, the probability has moved up and down, but we seem to have settled down close to though not quite at or below the cutoff (which would be 60% for our purposes).

  • The window will close on February 24 (end of day, EST), one week after the announcement.

  • Reminder that the probability of the reference market should be <= 60% for at least 24 hours for this market to resolve YES. It went below 60% several times but for less than 24 hours each time.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

predicted NO

All information from the debate is already public, and that's what would have influenced the market. The personal opinions of two arbitrary judges don't seem relevant.

@IsaacKing In theory it should have already been priced in, given that the "will Peter win the debate" market was at 95%. But the main market was clearly irrational and/or non-epistemic.

I do want to point out that this is a serious flaw with any "will X move after Y" question. Other example is stuff like "Will the market for Trump move after indictment?" The indictments were already priced in before they actually happened, and for at least some of them, by the time they happened they were at like 90%+ in the week prior.

Perhaps a better question would ask for the ratio of <market 1 movement> / <market 2 movement> when market 2 moved the most.

@jack Small markets with play money don’t have "serious flaws".

@jack We initially expected the verdict to be made public a lot sooner, which would have largely prevented the pricing in.

@NicoDelon As I stated above, the comment about flaws was about this type of question in general. People make derivative bets on real-money markets too. I'm just trying to discuss how to write this type of question in a more robust way.

@jack I understand and think you're absolutely right. I’m just disputing the serious flaw claim. Applying it to a market with 21 bettors and little liquidity (in fake money!) is a category mistake. But I’m being cheeky. Your point in general holds.

More related questions