🏅 Top traders

The linked market was not correctly priced, it closed at 1.1%, not 0.001%. Resolves No.

/Eliza/will-randomorg-pick-100000

@traders this linked market will be open for 1 week, after it closes I will do the thing it says, then resolve this market on behalf of the inactive creator.

@mods inactive creator. The question should be resolved NO.

@jgyou I think we owe it to the creator to actually attempt it and see what happens. There's a nonzero chance that the required market generates enough buzz to fix the low probabilities problem.

Maybe people will be creative.

I'll make it right now.

@ScroogeMcDuck you can create this

Market as described but it is clearly Impossible as manifold doesn’t even allow <1% prices so this resolves NO

@Ziddletwix It does, but you have to sell a YES position to drop below 1

@JimHays unidirectional betting seems to Imply that it is particularly implausible for the market price to be accurate! (This market was created when you could push the probability below 1 directly and even then manifold couldn’t meet the threshold for accuracy)

@Ziddletwix Yes, I remember that. Things would have to be pretty different to have an accurate probability that low

Expected value isn’t the only aspect of pricing. Would you say that real world lottery tickets are priced incorrectly even though they differ wildly from EV?

I think the easiest path to this might be amplified odds markets that have built-in Manifold support to display how the base probability and derived probability map to each other.

@jack market networks would be super cool. what if you could bet on whether relationships between markets will hold?

Doesn't the UI only show only decimal place?

@NeonNuke *1 decimal place

@NeonNuke Right, that's another thing that would need to be changed for this to resolve YES, and correspondingly, for the 2026 market to correctly show 0.001%.

Will you reveal the number? Or do we get only a binary YES/NO resolution?

@Mira I will reveal the number, and then resolve the market.

@Jotto999 I can't think of a good way to do this in the current system, even if Jeff Bezos pledged his entire net worth on subsidies or protective limit orders, and especially without derivative contracts.

There'd be too much money in shorting this contract and screwing with the probability. And it's just so cheap to screw with the probability close to 0% or 100%.

@Mira In theory, I guess sufficiently-big limit orders could do it. But you're right that the current system would require far too much mana.

Limit orders can't do it because they can only go down to 1%. But even if limit orders allowed going to 0.001% the market math is too lopsided to work in practice - every $1 invested on YES requires 100k on NO.

Inspired by an exchange with @jack.