Poll: is betting on a yes/no market after the outcome is known bad?
10
100Ṁ465resolved Jun 27
Resolved
NO1D
1W
1M
ALL
Do you think it's bad to bet (or allow betting) on a market after the outcome is known? For this question, please consider only binary (yes/no) markets.
Vote by commenting with YES, NO, or a percentage at the start of your comment. (YES = 100%, NO = 0%, you can also choose any percentage in between if you think it's e.g. 30% bad.)
The market resolves to the average of valid votes in the poll as of 1 day after market close.
There are multiple perspectives you could consider, including the traders, author, liquidity providers, and readers. Different people may prioritize different things, so I'm asking whether you think it's bad overall.
A little context for those not familiar with the market math: for binary (yes/no) markets, buying when the outcome is known lets you take some additional profits, which comes from the liquidity providers. But it does not affect any previous traders already holding shares, since if you make a trade and hold until resolution, any later trades do not affect your profits/losses.
See related market with some discussion by Austin: https://manifold.markets/Austin/will-manifolds-fixedpayout-markets
You can update your vote by commenting again; only your last response will be counted.
This question is managed and resolved by Manifold.
Get
1,000 to start trading!
🏅 Top traders
# | Name | Total profit |
---|---|---|
1 | Ṁ26 | |
2 | Ṁ14 | |
3 | Ṁ7 | |
4 | Ṁ5 | |
5 | Ṁ2 |
Sort by:
predictedNO 2y
predictedNO 2y
FYI Isaac and Yev made questions on that here, general consensus is also yes but not as strong:
predictedNO 2y
On those yes means that they are ok, not that they are bad (the question direction is reversed)
predictedNO 2y
NO. A big part of the benefit of prediction markets is incentivizing research and keeping up with news. If you make a market about whether the Queen of England was going to die this year, and the market swings to 99% all of a sudden because of a breaking news story, that’s useful information for anyone watching that market. What’s the alternative, humbly pass on the profits and wait for the market creator to discover the news?
predictedNO 2y
predictedNO 2y
predictedNO 2y
@jack Is that so? Isn't the optimal strategy to bet it down to the correct probability, keeping your reasons hidden so you can keep buying it back down, and then once you run out of liquidity, revealing your knowledge so you can cash out? The key point being that it's staying at the correct probability at all times because you're either buying it back down there or revealing the truth?
predictedNO 2y
NO! It's great! When creating markets, I usually try to set the close date somewhat after the result is known, to incentivize other people to help me find evidence about how it should resolve. Previous participants aren't harmed, I benefit, the people who make later bets benefit. The only drawback I'm aware of is that people who are just good at finding/acting on information quickly, rather than good at predicting, become M$-rich. I don't know quite what I think about that, but I'm rather against weighting "society"-wide considerations like that more strongly than "it benefits everyone involved".
NO.
Liquidity providers could set an arbitrarily early close time to avoid this, in many cases.
Otherwise, the onus is on them to close the market when the outcome becomes known
predictedNO 2y