Will resolve to the consensus of credible media reporting, on the last confirmed and most precise location of SBF in 2022.
Answers shouldn't be more precise than the state of imprisonment and the state of the USA.
If outside of the USA, the name of the country is enough.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,251 | |
| 2 | Ṁ602 | |
| 3 | Ṁ372 | |
| 4 | Ṁ138 | |
| 5 | Ṁ64 |
People are also trading
In the court document https://bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com/post-files/92511531/fed30a78-b85e-447e-ab29-0fb3fd43b37e.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAVVKH7VVUEG6D4OWY&Expires=1671861153&Signature=45JpnqjWFgj3Qdp8Sv2I5WCjCa0%3D&response-content-disposition=attachment%3B%20filename%3D%22fed30a78-b85e-447e-ab29-0fb3fd43b37e.pdf.pdf%22 page 4 spells out “home detention”.
Highly related market: https://manifold.markets/JoshuaB/where-will-sam-bankmanfried-be-at-t-f249f789ef89
@MarcusAbramovitch I'd like to, unsurprisingly argue for in that case for it to be resolved to "Arrest/Detention, New York."
"Answers shouldn't be more precise than the state of imprisonment and the state of the USA,” implies that answers are allowed to have both the state of imprisonment and which state SBF is in.
If an answer like "Arrest/Detention, New York” is indeed a valid answer then it is obviously more precise than "Arrest/Detention, USA,” so in that it should be resolved to that.
(also I realized a thing while I was mid-way through entering in all the states: some of y’all might be getting notifications for every answer I put. Sorry ‘bout that if it happened to any of y'all!)
@JoshuaB my problem with this is that the market was played for a very long time with Arrest/Detention, USA as the main option, put there by the market creator, with him voting on it setting the precedent for a viable means for the market to resolve.
I consider the viable options of a market to be "answers that could be correct". For example, in the world cup, the question of "who will win the world cup" and one of the answers was "Argenitna" and it was used for a while, the market creator put it there, bought it, etc., it counts as a viable answer and you don't get to say "Argentina" is correct because that is the proper spelling.
It sets a horrible precedent for these markets to resolve it to New York because now market creators will put answers that are invalid on a technicality and then have people bet on them. Later on, they can put the technically correct answer and then bet on it, giving themselves free money.
Furthermore, to any non-US person "state" means the country.
I suppose the market could resolve N/A but I strongly think it should resolve to "Arrest/Detention, USA".
I guess a more fair example is a market "Who will win the FIFA 2022 World Cup?" and suppose Spain won for me to make my point easily. In the details of the question, it says "as the country is spelled in that country"
Now, the market is live and the answers are Argentina, Spain, France, Brazil, etc., and the market is trading and reacting to wins of various teams and knockouts etc.
Then, at the final match, the market creator or someone puts "España" as an answer and votes on it, then Spain/España wins and the market closes. How should the market resolve? I think it should be resolved to Spain, not even to BOTH Spain/España because then it makes an incentive to do all kinds of these every time to make free $M.
Furthermore, to any non-US person "state" means the country.
I disagree with this, especially considering the context:
If outside of the USA, the name of the country is enough.
I do agree that there's an expectation that the creator's initial answers should be viable answers, and that resolving to "Arrest/detention, New York" would be bad. "Answers shouldn't be more precise than the state of imprisonment and the state of the USA" could be read as either "some answers should be a state of imprisonment and some answers should be a state of the USA" or as "answers should be a pair of a state of imprisonment and a state of the USA", but neither of those interpretations really fit with resolving to "Arrest/detention, USA", so I think resolving to that would be bad as well. (I considered adding an "Arrest/detention, New York" answer but decided to stay out of the market instead because of this kind of mess.) I don't know what the answer is for this market, but for future markets, the answer is simply to insist on clear criteria from the start.
@StevenK It’s pretty clear that many of us bet on USA before more precise answers became available. Making the resolution finer grained now is unfair however fine grained we think it should have been earlier.
To respond to your first comment. I think that if say, yesterday—before I had added all 50 states to this market—the market closed, and SBF was in New York and Arrested/Detained, then this market should have been resolved to “Arrest/Detention, USA.” This is because that was the most precise answer available at the time.
However, that is no longer the case. The most precise answer in that hypothetical is now "Arrest/Detention, New York,” so in that case it should be resolved to that.
Furthermore, an (admittedly weak) precedent was set by Tomek including in the original answer choices “Florida, USA,” meaning that in fact states were valid things to include in answers. This is a weak precedent since it doesn’t actually include what state of imprisonment SBF was in.
For your second World Cup example, the market description clearly implies that it should resolve to “España” it’s the trader’s fault that they didn’t read the market description close enough.
I would much rather the incentives be to follow the market description to its letter rather than having ignoring the market description if enough people bet a certain way being the norm.
@JoshuaB I really hope it doesn’t resolve that way. Now that you’ve created those options we can’t sell USA without losing money.
@JoshuaB This sets a really bad precedent where a second sort of meta-game occurs in every multiple choice market where there is ambiguity and degrees of precision where the strategy is to (at least sometimes to more often catch people by surprise), add answers that the market creator will deem incorrect on precision/technicalities and then just before resolution add the more precise/technically correct answer that they intend to allow to be the correct answer, bet a lot on that answer and then close the market. This is not a good idea.
