🏅 Top traders

WOOOHOOO YEAAAAA

Oh no. It finally happened

@JosephNoonan Unless he actually meant exactly 13%, based on the API and not just the rounded display value.

Marcus Abramovitch bought Ṁ18 NO at 8% 5m

nearly put me off, but mana all tied up at end of month

@JosephNoonan but but but, I told it to buy up to 13%

@ChristopherRandles You probably had some help from the fact that these types of markets get less attention now than they used to. No one pounced on it last minute. If I had seen it, I would have tried selling some of my NO last minute, just enough to bring it to 14%.

@JosephNoonan yes I figured end of month, lots of claims ending might help keep it quieter Thought it might be worth the risk.

First one :)

It won't happen. It never does.

/JosephNoonan/has-any-will-this-market-close-at-x

@JosephNoonan Then why not buy it down to 1%?

@JosephNoonan Joseph "nothing ever happens" Noonan - as he shall be henceforth known

@HartTraveller I didn't say nothing ever happens, just that this never happens. This is the first time it ever happened.

@JosephNoonan I know just teasing 😉

@HartTraveller I see you have been buying YES at prices above 13%. Just want to make sure you know that there is a limit order option (the percent button) where you can specify a price and an amount so that if the market price ever drops below your specified price, you buy automatically.

@BoltonBailey good to know, thanks!! How difficult do you think it is to close it 'Yes'?

It's an interesting question. The limit order strat suggests the price should never be above 14. But if we made markets like this for different target probabilities every month to infinity and made a bunch of bots to bet according to different probabilities, then presumably these bots would eventually price the market correctly. Does this mean that the difficulty of getting it to resolve yes depends on the target probability? I'm not sure.

@BoltonBailey This is a bit more concrete for markets with resolution criteria like "Will this question close below x%?" - in that case you can make the limit orders both above and below, and the probability really does get forced toward x.

@BoltonBailey This has been tried a lot and it almost never works. Because the theory doesn’t matter, ot just comes down to a bunch of people placing bets in the last couple seconds.

@alexbusuioc Extremely difficult. This is a very common type of market, and not a single one has ever resolved YES. As for whether the target probability affects the chances of a YES resolution, I think it certainly does. If the target probability is very high, there's a much smaller chance of it resolving YES because no one will want to bet it up to that value and try holding it there.

@BoltonBailey Thanks! I know, I'm just messing around and having fun

@HartTraveller @BoltonBailey I think 13 is a sweet spot to give Yes a chance to win maybe? As you (imo) correctly intuited, if the question was 85% what incentive does a trader have to even go for Yes? But, if it were say 1% I think that would take a large amount of capital to defend? So, perhaps 13 is the sweet spot. Having said that, I think it's too fine a point to win. There's just too much cardinality to effectively defend a single percent. In September, I might try this with a range of 10-15.

@JosephNoonan I take it limit orders aren't a viable strategy to stabilize it to a certain % because they have a delay associated with them?

Gosh, it would be nice if they were instant. It would make the game theory more interesting, I think.

This market should be marked "non-predictive"

@BoltonBailey how can I mark it "non-predictive"?

@alexbusuioc You know what, I don't actually know. If you click on the menu for the market, you can see there's a switch, but I can't click it, and I also can't click it for my own markets. Someone should ask on the discord.

@BoltonBailey It’s done manually by admins.