Check the game here: https://lichess.org/GF9YULQP.
The game so far: 1.e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6
The other candidate move is 4. Nf3.
The conditional market for the other move is here:
If the value (averaged over the last 4 hours before close) of this market is higher than in the other market, then this market resolves PROB to the score after move 5. Otherwise, it resolves N/A. The score after move 5 is the value (averaged over the last 4 hours) of the conditional market of the winning move in move 5.
Note that when the game ends, the score will be 1.0 - #moves x 0.0004 if white wins, 0.5 - #moves x 0.0002 if its a draw, or 0.0 if we lose.
More details for the overall game here:
https://manifold.markets/harfe/will-white-win-in-manifold-plays-ch
1,000
3.00My current plan: I want to play Nf3, not resign. And I also want the price on the Nf3 market to be high. I can achieve that in two ways, by bidding up Nf3, or by bidding up resign and forcing other people to bid up Nf3 to keep it above resign (or a combination of both). Interesting thing about the latter is that all the mana I spend bidding up resign is returned on N/A.
So heads up that I may choose to set a high price floor on resign, in order to force a higher price floor on Nf3.
@jack something doesn’t add up about the latter. I don’t see how others would benefit from bidding up Nf3 just to bail you out of a big NO position here that would resolve NO if it gets chosen.
At some relatively low price here, say 20% it makes more sense to buy NO and allow it to get chosen, resolves NO for 25% return (or risk free if N/A), than supporting Nf3 above some high price (but not as high symmetrically), say 64%, which in order to match resign’s risk-free 25% return would imply an 80% resolution, which in turn requires having to support the next move conditional at or above that level for the last 4h to set that score at 0.8. And then to get a positive return on that next move investment requires supporting higher and higher prices for every move thereafter, a Sisyphean uphill battle if there ever was one.
Unless the others can guarantee that they’ll win the game, of course. Maybe if there’s a mate in a few moves. That would require making sure the right move gets past the free response random gate (never a guarantee as seen for this move) and then dominating the conditionals, and all this repeated for every move in the mate combination. I doubt the honest players can bankroll that plan not even for a mate in 2, when faced against a whale of your size.
@jack I guess this is mind games?
Every NO here held into the close either pays off fully or your money back, zero risk.
Every YES here held into the close either loses all your money or returns it, zero reward.
@deagol Some people would do it because they don't want to resign.
I decided it wasn't worth the complexity and it was easier just to trade on the Nf3 market.
@deagol To amuse myself mainly, they will of course resolve as N/A. Unless...everyone pulls their limit orders for some reason and allows me to manipulate.
I do stand to win over 500M if this wins because of my 1M bid on Resign2. That makes me honor/duty bound to make some meager attempt to throw right???
@Jason you’d need to spend way more than 500 to make it happen. And why would NO holders remove their limits to let all that mana get flushed down the toilet?
@Jason the strategy of buying the resigns in free response, which I first applied in the previous game, is mainly to take away some of the profit incentive from it for anyone wishing to throw, and thus makes it less likely someone would try. If by some miracle you get all the candidate moves as resign, then great you get a windfall, no need to invest a single extra mana on the conditionals. But trying to prop it up against any other move is futile, as explained in other comments here.
@deagol Hence the really meager attempt.
One thing it does, right, is tie up much more of the defenders' capital than mine? They are buying NO at 76 to 96 cents vs. me buying YES at 4 to 24 cents. So if defenders were more liquidity constrained, their committing a bunch of their manna here might make it easier for me to manipulate the other market?
Totally not realistic given my bankroll and the amount at stake . . . but on the long-run game, might having to repeatedly commit capital to prevent the worse conditional move reduce defenders' resolve? Thats capital defenders could be deploying elsewhere. It doesn't cost me much, my cost basis is only 130 right now
@Jason almost there! ;) kidding aside, when the powers that be want it thrown, they’ll get it done. Nothing anyone can do about it. For now they want to make moves.
If somebody wants to throw the game, they're unlikely to invest too much mana bidding this market up (because then it'll resolve NO and they'll lose that mana). They're going to spend most of their effort bidding the other market down (which will then resolve NA and they get their money back).
So for anybody who wants to win the chess game, protecting the other market is more important than this one. But for anybody who wants to profit off somebody else's throwing of the game, betting NO in this market is the way to go.
I think that's right, anyway. Am I missing something?
@deagol I think it's a good move if you want to set a limit no order to make this not happen but don't have the free cash to do so.
@deagol If I understand the rules right, if this move is chosen, it will resolve to score 0. So there's no chance of profit from buying YES (other than if you can sell to someone else).
@deagol I don't need more because I have my own! But technically there could be a giant conspiracy to cancel all of them just before the window so anyone who won't be awake during the window might want to place their own.
@MartinRandall ah ok I think I understand what you mean now. If I buy a lot of cheap Y, I can hold them for the 4h window and dump them in case someone tries to run it up? I think I’d need more than 90 shares.