@traders I've heard that some people wish that this market had more open limit orders to help liquidity. I have an idea but I want to feel out the crowd here before I make changes.

Would you like it if I closed this before expected resolution? My plan would be: close Aug 6th, then if no announcement comes on the 7th reopen on the 8th, closing again before the DNC, with an option to reopen even if there's an announcement if another presidential contender against Harris enters the race. This would add some more protection from news trading, allowing increased liquidity from other traders. OTOH, it means you won't be able to trade right up until the announcement.

Vote on the comments in this thread by liking them. If there's a strong positive response, I'll make this change:

YES - I'd prefer if the market closed shortly before expected announcements to protect limit orders

NO - I'd prefer to be able to trade up to, and through, any announcements

WEAK YES - I'm not bothered by either outcome, but would prefer an early close

WEAK NO - I'm not bothered by either outcome, but would prefer the market to remain open as long as possible

It's your own fault if something gets leaked.

Just set your limits to expire

@nikki 100%. there's always a risk even if I make changes!

anyways, you're incentivized to take the liquidity and close early

while true, most of the subsidy isn't mine! and most of the answers were added by other people so everyone else would get those payouts. I'd prefer to run a fair market people are happy with, especially when possibly making criteria changes

When polls have become too pricey, and the @people learn new ways ofnpolling.

i think it's fairly likely we learn the name prior to aug 6

People can set the time expiration of their limit order themselves. I do not understand what is closure for.

Just placed a big limit order (for me) and I put a date limit.

Anonymize limit orders.

I had already proposed it, but I doubt it will ever be implemented, they should allow retroactive closing of a market. Once it is anticipated in the description of a market, it should be possible to close the market one minute before a news story comes out, and cancel all later trades, even if the market creator read the news an hour later.

This also avoids burning liquidity subsidies, because the liquidity giver loses it if the market closes at 99 percent.

but every market has news though

And the market creator should be able to decide to exclude them, obviously making it explicit beforehand. Being able to put in limit orders without being afraid of losing everything simply because I was 30 seconds late, or being able to add liquidity knowing that I can make it up in part because the market doesn't close 99 percent, to me is a huge advantage.

It might be Beshear!

I set a 2000 mana limit order for YES Mark Kelly at 30%. Go for it

OK!

🤣 Michelle

It will clearly be Mark Kelly. How do I know this? My argument is simple: He was an astronaut.

It could actually be that simple. If they pick someone else and lose people might say "you could have picked an astronaut!" and I think they know that.

New Hill polls today: four-way likely voters is tied in Michigan, tied in Wisconsin, and Trump + 2 in Pennsylvania. Arizona is out of reach, but she doesn't need it.

Basically, Harris just needs to get two points in Pennsylvania to take the lead. This market seems to get more and more obvious every day.

Shapiro is the best pick, but idk if he wants to be tied to someone so liberal

@riverwalk3 You think if they gave him dibs, he would turn it down?

Why do you think Harris doesn't need AZ? If the elector votes are tied, House representatives decide but each state is counted as 1 vote, which seems to favor Trump a lot

@NBAP more or less. People turned down VP for George McGovern back then.

I don't know what the sentiment going into the '72 election was like. Did people think that McGovern had a realistic chance of winning when he was making his VP pick? That seems relevant. Seems very reasonable to compromise on your principles to some extent in exchange for a 50% shot at being VP; much less so for a 5% chance (especially when you factor in how it might affect your future chances).

@NBAP McGovern lost in part because he was perceived as too far left.

Sure, but were people predicting (before his VP pick) that he was going to get blown out? If so, there's not much of an opportunity cost to turning down the offer to be his VP. Whereas with Kamala, there's a very decent chance at the moment that she will win, so turning down an offer to be her VP would be much more costly.