Counts as YES:
Acquittal within 2023
Conviction & Sentencing within 2023
Plea Deal within 2023
Counts as NO:
Mistrial
Postponement of trial
Dropping of charges
SBF's death or incapacity
Trial ongoing or awaiting sentencing at end of 2023
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ14,498 | |
| 2 | Ṁ2,975 | |
| 3 | Ṁ2,933 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1,069 | |
| 5 | Ṁ639 |
@SamE Yes, I don't see how this can resolve YES now. He can't be acquitted or plea deal, and sentencing can't occur until March.
The comment section here is starting to get out of control:
Stop harassing the market creator. @RobinBruce has made clear criteria that have held up very strongly from the start. Remarkable, really.
It looks like the market has priced itself to match the criteria, which have not changed, and the evidence presented in the comment section.
@RobinBruce should not need to respond to every single person who has a complaint, and should feel empowered to resolve the market when the criteria are met.
I personally think it would be a really good thing if the title changed to add "and sentencing" at this time, because as it stands, the title itself is bait to new users or users who have not seen the market for some amount of time. They're going to lose 100 mana in the blink of an eye and be upset.
@Eliza For the record, I did not know I was a No holder until I posted that. I promise it had nothing to do with what I wrote. (I immediately sold my 13 shares.)
@Eliza trying to profit off 13 no shares going from $0.98M each to $0.99M each. Unbelievable - The integrity of people on this platform isn't what it used to be!
If he dies in prison before the end of the year (not wishing that on him), this resolves YES, correct?
@MarkHamill I got confused about this myself on a comment on here recently, but death means NO - it’s been in the description since day 1 in August.
My reasoning was that if he dies before his sentencing then the trial process has been left permanently without conclusion (I would have seen it differently if the wording had been ‘end’, which would permit any kind of stop to the process)
@RobinBruce The title of this market is inconsistent with your resolution definitions, . It conflicts with the typical eight stages of criminal procedure. Sentencing is a post-trial procedure. The trial is over.. (I don’t have a dog in this race) .https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/stages-criminal-case/#:~:text=Arrest%20%C2%B7%20Bail%20%C2%B7%20Arraignment%20%C2%B7%20Indictment,Motions%20%C2%B7%20Trial%20%C2%B7%20Sentencing%20%C2%B7%20Appeal.
@PGeyer Do you “suspect” like sam (perhaps, he hasn’t explained himself) that this was done intentionally to confuse people into betting the wrong way?
@RobinBruce Not at all, neither stated nor implied. However, I do think that the way you have this market constructed, specifically the Sloppy wording in the no category, allows you to close this market with a yes immediately. The more carefully a market is constructed, the less messy or contestable the answers can be.
I have shied away from markets that ask, “what color shirt am I going to wear” only because they make me nervous (lol). They are entertaining, however. If you are going to nitpick on words, you can only concede that the trial is closed and not awaiting anything. The trial is over. Sentencing is awaited. Sentencing is a post-trial event. 100 out of 100 lawyers and judges would say that. I’ve studied enough law to know that, and even in common language most people, “ the man on the street,” would say that the trial is over.
@RobinBruce @PGeyer Well, I’m not an an expert of course, but I did attempt to research the question and the definition of its conditions, below is the first result for the search “stages of a trial” I got - I can accept yours is more proper, but the market had its resolution conditions in place on day one in august and the market found the proper probabilities almost instantly - it would be quite improper for me to rule in the face of the resolution conditions and the market’s proper understanding of them.
Can you explain how “Sloppy wording in the no category, allows you to close this market with a yes immediately.”?
@RobinBruce Agree with PG it’s just that how you define trial conclusion is vague and should been worded differently
@RobinBruce If you read your source, that explains the stages of a case. The trial is one stage. Sentencing is the next.
The trial is not ongoing, nor awaiting anything. That phrase is the part that appears Sloppy.
@PGeyer I defined my terms, rightly or wrongly. Maybe we’re just from different worlds, I’m from the derivatives trading world and find it improper for people to bet based on a prior “conventional understanding” of terms rather than the written resolution conditions. with all due respect to your legal experience but that is not proper behaviour in my professional experience
@RobinBruce Suspect as in the specific phrasing allows for either answer to be true. Predictions need specific wording to allow them conclusive results not up for debate. Did X provably happen or not should be at the center of the question not one where we have to self define
@PGeyer I made a mistake in my trial length markets. I had assumed sentencing followed closely after the jury trial so included both (after discussion and with reference to the main sbf trial length q at the time). It seems clear that it would have been much more meaningful and fun to bet on the length of just the formal trial section, which concludes upon verdict.
@RobinBruce What a coincidence! I’m from Derivatives Trading as well. I understand what you meant. Just as numbers matter in Trading, words should matter here. You can take it as a learning experience or fight it. It matters not to me.
@PGeyer There’s no skin off my nose, like you say you don’t have a dog in the fight, but people can’t come into a market that is sitting at 20%, bet it up to 100% without reading the resolution conditions and then ask for all the people who did their homework to be punished by me ruling YES in the face of the written conditions.
this isn’t real money, i’m going to continue to make a quick but sincere effort to research my titles and resolution conditions. i’ll also happily make markets in fields i’m not a subject matter expert in, which means I might still have misleading titles, but I’ll always endeavour to have clear and logically consistent resolution conditions, if unconventional
@SamE I don’t think I would have objected to you calling it ambiguous but I take offence at ‘suspect’ - the ambiguity was resolved in the resolution conditions.
I would say you should have read those before betting on a market that to your eyes was apparently far from
the correct probability
@RobinBruce Take no offense. The suspect was in word choice for me and yes for others may have been clear. It bears no reflection on you nor did I think it was an intentional deception, simply a matter of interpretation for a market where many don’t go beyond the headline
@RobinBruce It’s been suggested several times that you update your title. I think everyone should always read descriptions or else not complain, but it’s not the first time the issue has come up and you could preempt it with a simple title change.
@RobinBruce You seem to gloss over my central point concerning the sloppiness of the line: “Trial ongoing or awaiting sentencing at end of 2023.” This rule can easily be read as two options for No: trial ongoing at end of 2023 - or - trial awaiting sentencing at end of 2023. Well, trial is not ongoing, and trial is not awaiting sentencing at end of 2023 (since most people who read the news would consider that the trial is over, and they’d be right!). Since neither of these conjoined conditions holds, no condition satisfies No. Since no other scenario in resolution rules is relevant, we are left in a quandary. However, one can then use common sense and can Default to the only other source relevant, the title. Will the trial conclude before the end of 2023? That is Satisfied, thus Yes.
@RobinBruce Not exactly addressing my logic. Well, you do have a conflict of interest. And a sloppily constructed market.
@PGeyer Yes you’re right it was all a grand conspiracy. I find an argument that people don’t know how to resolve an OR logical statement bizarre. Maybe read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_disjunction
@RobinBruce Very pretty. I have a couple math degrees so don’t worry about it edification. You read my analysis. I believe you’re focusing on the no rule that has the word or in it. The second phrase, the one after the or, Is nonsensical, since trials don’t have sentencing. Trials precede sentencing. I know you’re going to just stick with your error.
What blows me away is that you have also asserted that you will be slapdash in the future. You could do better.
@PGeyer I asserted that I could make mistakes in spite of attempting not to, as has happened here - are you claiming to never make a mistake well into the future?
If it helps you it is not the trial awaiting sentencing it’s SBF:
Trial ongoing or [SBF] awaiting sentencing at end of 2023
is what I meant
I have five math degrees, and you're both horrifically wrong in a way I will not explain further.
i mean, I see conflicting accounts of whether the trial includes the sentencing online, idk which is correct.
@jacksonpolack Love the humor, .A case includes a trial and sentencing, if needed. A trial uses a jury. The jury is done here.. why? Because of the trial is done.
@RobinBruce Sorry, I’m still not telepathic. What you meant and what was presented are two different things. I’m new to this.. Other way of just ripping up trades? On the basis of mistake in making of contract?
@RobinBruce I think it’s the right thing to do. Popularity has no bearing on it. It’s a deep market on each side. It is what I would do.
@jacksonpolack Incorrect again (The first time you didn’t know the difference between a case, and a trial). I have reached out to the Manifold people behind the curtain and they support a market maker dissolving the market if that market maker sees fit. That is precisely what they told me. how do I know? Because I asked them and they answered me by email..
@PGeyer Over 1,800 trades. Forget what I think. I’ll leave you with this. You seem extremely thoughtful. Let this pass but don’t just copy other markets. Make them to your own standards. It’s good for the market. You were successful here, just a bit ragged. You clearly know how to make a great market, however!! Good luck to you and Jackson P!
@PGeyer Thank You. So often, the titles on here are inconsistent with the definitions below. It's like if I wrote a title of 'Will Joe Biden be president at the end of 2023?' and then wrote a bunch of junk below including 'this resolves no if Joe Biden is president at the end of 2023'.
Oh well, it's play money and a good forum for us to learn to be precise for if/when real money is used.