How little running do you define as ‘no training’?

I think @ThomasKwa thinks it's good to note that I'm letting this market affects my odds of trying to run a marathon--concretely if the market was really low (eg 5%) I would be less likely to try because it would seem less fun and more dangerous. and if the market was really high (90%) I might be less likely to try also because it would be less fun.

Mostly I don't expect the market to significantly affect my odds of running, but I'm not trying to act as if it didn't exist.

@NoaNabeshima Well, this information affects the market! To take an extreme example, if you were guaranteed to N/A the market if it went below 5%, that would create a disincentive to bet NO...

@Boklam I guess I assume that the default norm is that there are no rules other than those explicitly specified in the market? This makes market probabilities harder to interpret and less interesting, I'm not sure what's good here.

@NoaNabeshima this information only esp. affects the market if there's an implicit norm that I won't do this sort of thing

@NoaNabeshima I'm confused... I don't think I'm talking about something that can be affected by rules.

If you don't run, this market resolves N/A. (Right?) If the market goes low, that makes it less likely for you to run, which means it's more likely that the market will resolve N/A, which means people betting the market down might not get their payout. So I was thinking that might affect bettors' incentives...

ah right, yes that seems right

@NoaNabeshima Nah there's no such implicit norm (at least there wasn't on the old Manifold!)

@NoaNabeshima Also I think maybe I was wrong about the information affecting the market? Like sure, if it goes down you're likely to N/A, but the probability that you finish conditional on attempting shouldn't be affected by that...

This may be dangerous (substantial amount of micromorts)

@JonasVollmer I think that marathons w/ training are very safe. After thinking about it a little bit I don't think it would be very dangerous (if I include knowledge that I won't push myself or will stop if it seems good to do). The main risk is a heart attack, I think.

@NoaNabeshima Based on hearsay from people with medical backgrounds, I think there are various other risks, and not all of them are reduced by proper training. But I would update my opinion (and might run a marathon myself sometime!) if some competent person looked into this properly and came up with compelling reasons to think that running a full marathon is not a significant health risk.

(or if you said something like "I think that marathons w/ training are very safe because of XYZ" for a convincing XYZ, that could also update me substantially)

@JonasVollmer https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0363546512444555?sid=35278b9d-c1b4-4ed6-b916-c22d5d9b776e

This suggests 10 micromorts for randomly sampled runner. But I think the death rate is higher for older runners, so let's say 5 micromorts. I would not push myself extremely hard, which also reduces the risk. Say that going without significant training 6xs the number of micromorts. Then that's 30 micromorts, ie 3 skydiving jumps, which doesn't seem so bad.

@NoaNabeshima Oh great! Glad to hear it's not actually risky

This predictor says with a time of 17:33 for 3 miles (season best of 5:51 per mile), a similar effort in a marathon might give a time around three hours four minutes (7:02 per mile). That gives a lot of room to run slower and still make your four hour goal.

I initially missed that you still run somewhat regularly, but don’t consider this to be training.

I don't think Noa can run a 17:33 three miles, but I'm out of my NO position regardless

@ThomasKwa The linked article is specifically giving one of Noa’s times, albeit from 8 years ago

I did do a lot of running in high school (currently 24)

and run every so often these days (once a week or less?)