Will Donald Trump be US President on September 12, 2022?
4%
chance
Sep 13
M$69,338 bet
DrP
Dr P bought M$950 of YES
0
SAM123
Sam bought M$100 of NO
0
athenaciara
Athena C. bought M$100 of NO
0
Sinclair
Sinclair Chen bought M$1,000 of NO
0
DrP
Dr P bought M$595 of YES
0
DrP
Dr P bought M$999 of YES
0
LeatherComputer
Leather Computer bought M$100 of NO
0
JorgeAzpurua
Jorge Azpurua bought M$10 of NO
0
DrP
Dr P bought M$300 of YES
0
DrP
Dr P is betting YES at 31%
0
DrP
Dr P bought M$20 of YES
0
ussgordoncaptain
ussgordoncaptain bought M$500 of NO
0
ussgordoncaptain
ussgordoncaptain is betting NO at 3%
0
MattP
Matt P is betting NO at 6%
Technically speaking he is *a* US president. The secret service detail doesn't stop calling him "Mr President" when he leaves office. And you didn't say *the* US president. Just US president. Food for thought....
0
MattP
Matt P bought M$10 of YES
I'm just saiyan
0
DrP
Dr P is betting YES at 11%
@MattP scam!!!
0
MartinRandall
Martin Randall is betting NO at 11%
@MattP He still has the title President, but he is not still the President,
0
DrP
Dr P is betting YES at 11%
@MartinRandall how can you be so sure?
0
MartinRandall
Martin Randall is betting NO at 11%
@DrP Just like your title is "Doctor" but you're not a doctor.
0
DrP
Dr P is betting YES at 11%
@MartinRandall I identify as a doctor... you will use my pronouns! Ya racist or sometin?
0
MattP
Matt P is betting YES at 18%
@MartinRandall agreed, but the question didn't ask if he would be *the* president, only if he would be "president". And he is certainly *a* president. Whether the implied article should be "the" or "a" is perhaps a matter for the Supreme Court.
0
MichaelWheatley
What about "for" America?
0
DrP
Dr P is betting YES at 3%
@MichaelWheatley yeah what about “for”? This market smells like a scam, he’s gonna get us on a technicality.
0
DrP
Dr P bought M$10 of YES
Pampu.
0
DrP
Dr P bought M$100 of YES
Pampu.
0
wasabipesto
I was intrigued by this similar market: https://manifold.markets/MathiasFoster/is-oneclickbetting-good I think it ended up basically extracting mana from quick bettors and moving it to people who read the description. I don't like the fact that it is basically lying, but it was interesting to see.
0
jack
Jack is betting NO at 2%
@wasabipesto Oh yeah, that's an interesting one. It wouldn't surprise me if people who read the details still bet in the wrong direction because the contradiction between title and description is so confusing.
0
jack
Jack is betting NO at 2%
Also it's hard to tell who read it correctly or not, because it's a question that could have gone either way.
0
MattP
Matt P bought M$11 of NO
Resolving N/A I'd consider a dishonorable resolution. This is based on the norm that the resolution criteria for a market should be the plain reading of the title first and foremost, with clarification on edge cases in the description as necessary. "Trick" markets that have a completely different resolution criteria than the title are, to put it plainly, deceptive. While I am no fan of the quick bet arrows (I didn't like them when they were implemented and I don't like them now), I don't think it should be a norm that questions are resolved based on something other than the plain reading of the title.
0
jack
Jack is betting NO at 8%
@MattP Of course I agree that the title should accurately summarize the market (that's pretty much what this market is about). And I agree that N/A resolving this market is somewhat undesirable because of that - but only slightly bad imo, because of it being explicitly stated in the resolution criteria (as opposed to some arbitrary thing like the creator made bad trades and wanted to cancel them, which is clearly much worse). I think N/A resolution is substantially different than a incorrect yes/no resolution, because nobody loses money in some sense. It's certainly bad to resolve N/A for no reason, but there are tons of times edge cases in resolution criteria should reasonably call for N/A resolution, so I don't think it's particularly out of the ordinary for a market to resolve N/A even though the title doesn't indicate it. That said, again, I strongly agree with the general principle that titles should be as accurate a summary as reasonably possible. IMO there have been a number of pretty misleading market titles, although it's definitely been better now that authors can edit the titles to fix them.
0
jack
Jack is betting NO at 8%
Ok, to keep things simple I think I'll just resolve according to the title and not N/A - easier for me anyway if I don't have to think about it. (As usual, N/A is still possible if something weird happens that makes it fairer than a non-N/A resolution, but I don't anticipate that happening.)
0
MattP
Matt P is betting NO at 15%
@jack I disagree that no one loses money on an N/A resolution - opportunity cost of having mana locked up in a market that resolves differently than described in the title (including N/A for markets whose premise was not invalidated) is not insignificant.
0
jack
Jack bought M$30 of NO
@MattP Yeah, I'm aware of that which is why I said in some sense. It's relevant but I think resolving yes instead of no is orders of magnitude worse.
0
JoyVoid
joy_void_joy bought M$10 of YES
Hedging for more visibility. It might be a reason to disable quickbetting actually, I often notice people bet on question title alone
0
JoyVoid
joy_void_joy is betting YES at 10%
(Also came from my follow notification, and not from the frontpage)
0
jack
Jack is betting NO at 8%
@JoyVoid I think it's important for titles to be accurate, and so there should be a mechanism to help make them more accurate, and then quick betting is ok. Today authors are usually responsive to suggestions to edit the titles to make them more accurate, so that's been helpful.
0
JoyVoid
@jack Alternatively, there could be a "resolution criteria", and manifold would show it on the frontpage, truncating it if it is too long
0
JoyVoid
Or another possibility I was thinking about is that there are frontpage market and personal markets, like in lesswrong. This could work, since a lot of the market I discover these days come from people I follow anyway
0
MartinRandall
Martin Randall bought M$100 of NO
You could just ask people to bet numbers other than m10 if they read the description.
0
jack
Jack is betting NO at 6%
@MartinRandall good point, I'll edit that
0
Charlie
I tried to quickbet NO but I didn't have enough money (:
0
Charlie
But I often read the description AFTER a quickbet because it's normally legit and quickbetting is significantly easier than all the clicking required to submit a non-quick bet.
0
jack
Jack sold M$94 of NO
@Charlie Makes sense!
0
Charlie
@jack Actually if a question seems normal enough, I probably don't always dive into the description, but this question is not so normal so I wanted to see what it was all about...
0
ian
Hallo! I read this but only bc I follow you so maybe my bet shouldn't count either way?
0
jack
Jack bought M$400 of NO
@ian Good thought, I wasn't sure whether I would try to count how many comments there are, I was mostly just going to count how many bets I got without a comment.
0

Play-money betting

Mana (M$) is the play-money used by our platform to keep track of your bets. It's completely free for you and your friends to get started!