Will a horse die at the Grand National in 2024?
resolved Apr 14


(If multiple horses die that counts, it just has to be one or more.)

Edit: If you like this market, you may be interested in my other market, asking if perhaps more than one horse will die at the Grand National in 2024.


Edit: I didn't realize that there are two ways to interpret the market title! Two horses died at the Grand National event weekend, but none in the Grand National race itself. It's (kind of) like whether non-combat deaths should be counted as casualties in war. I am sorry for this ambiguity in the question. I feel that the most fair way to resolve this is to resolve this N/A. I apologize for the lack of foresight; I didn't foresee the possibility of ambiguity. I also apologize to those who feel that this is the wrong way to handle the ambiguity, sincerely.

Edit: "Negative payouts too large for resolution. Contact admin." Ouch! I'm going to resolve 50%.

Get Ṁ200 play money
Sort by:

my (substantial vested interest admitted) perspective is:

- the most conventional, common sense understanding of "at the grand national" refers to the event/meet overall, not just to the main race; e.g. the official grand national website describes it as a 3 day affair (inclusive of ladies day): https://www.thejockeyclub.co.uk/the-grand-national/about-the-event/
- the horses that died therefore very literally did die "at the grand national in 2024" per question title

- I see where y'all are coming from though re: interpreting the wiki link as resolution criteria. I read it as context/motivation for the question though given an """obvious enough""" question in subject line

@draaglom you got lucky this time, next time you might not, predicting the past comes with risks, be careful lol

@CodeandSolder 🙏 Appreciate it.

A controversy has arose! I will let mods resolve on the 19th.

Edit: Actually unless the Mods feel strongly (or moderately strongly, but not lightly) otherwise, I'm inclined to resolve this N/A.

@asmith Just to confirm, this resolves to yes if at least one horse is listed as dead in the wikipedia list?

@Qoiuoiuoiu No! It will resolve yes if the mods resolve it yes, and it will resolve no if the mods resolve it no.

I didn't understand that "at the Grand National" could have two different meanings when I made this market. It seems like one of those meanings would be Yes and one would be No. It's useless to ask me which meaning I intended when I was creating this market since I didn't understand the distinction.

If my intention matters, I would say that I don't think Wikipedia is particularly trustworthy and I would encourage the mods to think independently about which interpretation of the question is more sensible. Bad things happen when people just mindlessly copy "authoritative" sources like Wikipedia without applying critical thinking skills. Which is not to say that Wikipedia is wrong to limit the list as it does. It's not right, either. The question should perhaps be resolved as if there was no such website as Wikipedia. Or maybe it shouldn't be, it's up to the mods.

In other words, if the question is "Is Wikipedia right to limit what counts for inclusion in the list?", it would be better to phrase the question such that Wikipedia isn't mentioned. For example: "When describing a list of "Equine Fatalities at the Grand National", what is and is not "at the Grand National?", keeping in mind that "at the Grand National has two separate definitions."

Actually, if it's just a matter of two equally valid definitions of "at the Grand National", I'm inclined to resolve it N/A. But I'll ask the mods what they think.

@asmith You chose to include the Wikipedia list in your description, an objective reading is that you intended the approach implicit in that list to apply to determining the answer to your question.

@NiallWeaver Well, I didn't even realize there was more than one possible approach. So it's not reasonable to say that that was literally my intention. If someone had said "there is actually more than one way to list the number of equine fatalities at the grand national, without knowing what they are, do you have confidence that Wikipedia chose the 'most reasonable' one of those ways" I would have said that I don't particularly have confidence that Wikipedia came to the 'most reasonable' conclusion.


I did happen to write "At the Grand National" (as in the event) instead of "In the Grand National" (as in the race). So there's reasons to think this should be resolved Yes. Not that I would do that. I'm just saying that even though there's reasons to think that No would make more sense, there's other reasons why Yes would make more sense. But I'm still going to resolve N/A unless the Mods feel that that's unfair.

@asmith But it’s not about what you thought but what you said, and by referring to the Wikipedia article you are imply you are taking the same approach. What your internal mental workings might have been is irrelevant to what a readier would understand from what you said.

@NiallWeaver There are different (wholly accidental) implications to what I wrote which pull in different directions. And even if there weren't, accidentally implying is not the same as saying or intending.

bought Ṁ30 NO

I think this resolves no.


"Fortunately, while there were some stumbles and minor incidents, no horses have died as a result of this year's race."

"The race came after the deaths of two horses took place during this year's festival."

Like @NiallWeaver said, the wikipedia article only lists deaths during the actual steeplchase event, not the whole meeting. The two deaths that occured were during the meeting but not the steeplechase.

The "grand national" refers to the whole weekend:


>Grand National 2024: Thu 11th to Sat 13th April 2024

Two horses have died:


bought Ṁ250 NO

@draaglom The wikipedia list in the description makes clear the Grand National race, not the meeting, is what is being referred to.