1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ204 | |
| 2 | Ṁ177 | |
| 3 | Ṁ150 | |
| 4 | Ṁ56 | |
| 5 | Ṁ54 |
@voodoo I truly hate the FIA. Sorry I’m unaware of how to unresolve a question, can you inform me?
@kinabets It'd be a credit to Manifold if the main F1 market creators would agree to a consistent set of resolution criteria for the sport wrt post-race adjustments, e.g. @KevinBurke's https://gist.github.com/kevinburke/190b4c7fedfae12bc8e115519f4a9541
In this particular case it seems fair(er) to reward users who correctly predicted the on-track outcome rather than those that got lucky via a disqualification that was impossible to predict. (I have an obvious interest in not overturning the result here so downweight as you see fit)
@lcar Despite not being able to unresolve this question (it is past its closing time), you make an interesting argument and I’d love to hear other perspectives. Would this be the case for all questions such as the other market I made “Will Alex Albon finish in the points at the US GP 2023?”, where initially he did not but due to the disqualification he did.
@lcar Neither way is inherently more “fair” than the other.
The main reasonable lesson here is to state how the evaluation will happen, whether it’s position on track, standings after race penalties applied (all those +5 sec) or whatever the final standings are 24 hours after the race with all known FIA penalties applied.
@kinabets There is a way to change resolution and that is to tag DavidChee and ask him to do it for you. I'm invested quite a lot here and the reason I bet these up to 99.8-99.9% is because I don't expect any such disqualifications to be relevant and the markets to be resolved based on the results of the race as they happen (taking into account the conclusion of some ongoing investigations is fine).
It's an obvious assumption on my part that I haven't asked you to clarify, though, so if you as the market creator feel like the disqualifications are important for what you're asking about in these markets, then it's fine by me to reresolve them :)
@NamesAreHard I agree with you that the disqualifications are not relevant to the market. He did finish on the podium as the question indicates and there was never a suspicion or even a pending penalty (unlike the cases of previous races where the FIA was yet to decide). This was a surprise disqualification upon further inspection and for that reason, I agree that the markets should not be resolved. For future markets I have set the closing date to 2 days after the race so that it can be unresolved if any issues do come up.
@kinabets So just to confirm, such disqualifications will be taken into account for the resolution of your F1 markets going forward? It would be great to add that into the description of them if so because I feel like the closing date being delayed is not sufficient to make that clear to traders.
@NamesAreHard Yes. They will be resolved as soon as the race is completed but due to the delayed closing date, I will be able to unresolved if necessary. I will add this to the descriptions of my questions for the next race, thank you for the advice@
@kinabets I'll repost my comment from the Discord:
I bet a decent bit on the F1 markets. I agree with Kevin Burke's proposed resolution criteria. The thing I want to predict, what's fun about it, is predicting the podium placement during the race. I am totally fine if you have to take into account that X got a 5 second penalty, or that Y is still under investigation for this illegal move they did during the race that's all good. This is captured under the second bullet point in the gist. I agree I don't want to predict the possibility of a driver being DQ'd after the race on some investigation you couldn't see coming during the race, you just don't want to factor that in to your predictive accuracy. It's no value, it's no fun and is good to rule out.
Minor point: For the 'A market participant leaves a comment within 5 minutes of race end asking me to wait for ...', I'd put in a 'don't abuse this' clause.
@Fedor I completely agree! It would be totally different if it was an open investigation we were aware of DURING the race.
@kinabets Post race inspections are part of the rules.
I feel that a post race inspection failure and specifically in this case isn't as disconnected from the on-track results as seems to be the consensus here.
These teams ran their cars too low to get extra performance, whereas Redbull clearly didn't. They were much closer than normal to Redbull as a result. The track is known to get bumpier every year with the ground shifting. They took a gamble, probably figured that between the chances the floor is compliant and the chances they wouldn't be chosen for inspection they would get away with it.
Basically, Hamilton may well have not been on the podium if they didn't run an ultra low ride height to begin with and that low ride height is what caused the disqualifying.
In the 2023 Driver Standings, Lewis Hamilton currently holds the 3rd position, a mere 27 points behind Checo Perez, indicating his strong and consistent performance throughout the year. Hamilton boasts an impressive track record, with six previous victories at the US Grand Prix. His P3 start at the upcoming US Grand Prix, along with his recent P2 finish in the sprint race from the same position, augur well for a podium spot.
However, Max Verstappen's remarkable track record, where he's secured wins from various starting positions, gives him an 88.88% chance of winning the 2023 US Grand Prix, even tho he will be starting from P6. Additionally, the positioning of Lando Norris, with the same number of podiums as Hamilton but with a better increase in performance than Hamilton, including three podiums in the last three races, suggests a strong contender in a competitive car. Considering these factors, it's plausible that the performance of other drivers may overshadow Hamilton's, possibly leading to a non-podium finish at the US Grand Prix.