2022: 331,360 acres burned according to
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ491 | |
| 2 | Ṁ153 | |
| 3 | Ṁ133 | |
| 4 | Ṁ117 | |
| 5 | Ṁ87 |
My arb with this is working out well
https://manifold.markets/VivaLaPanda/will-california-wildfire-acreage-be
@Panfilo what's your take on this market?
https://manifold.markets/VivaLaPanda/will-california-wildfire-acreage-be?r=Tmljb0RlbG9u
@NicoDelon Market maker is No and all the big Yes takers were before the numbers were updated yesterday. I think that market is weird to call because of its use of YTD numbers and long post-closure resolution time, but this market will resolve No.
@Panfilo yeah, p sure that market and this one will resolve in opposite directions, due to criteria
@Stralor I’m actually not that sure. They’re using the 363k figure as baseline in the description. Maybe 2023 will turn out to be higher after an update, but do we have evidence that that’s likely? I can’t believe it’s that hard to have reliable figures.
@NicoDelon Damn, even though I emailed the webmaster, I guess I can't rule out more shenanigans in either direction. Bailing due to volatility.
INTERVALWILDLAND FIRESACRES
2023 Combined YTD to 20 Nov (CALFIRE & US Forest Service) 6,740 319,887
2022 Combined YTD to 20 Nov (CALFIRE & US Forest Service) 6,761 289,507
When this claim was created 2022 was 331360 and at time of red book (for which I can't find a date) https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/calfire-website/misc-doc/2022redbookfinalada.pdf?rev=19e8d1a007884c34a181e8138fc7017e&hash=7BA59394712297355511D58394E7B8E2 it was 331358. Perhaps the small difference of 2 between red book and number in this market provides some reassurance the changes aren't often large but it could well be collating info for red book that really firms up the numbers.
So between 20 Nov 2022 and red book publication acreage went up from 289507 to 331358.
What makes you think 2023 319887 won't go up similarly/ more than 42k?
@Stralor Why not both resolve yes?
That 289k has got to go up to 331k or 363k at some point and if there is similar firming up of the information to produce that red book data, perhaps 2023 will have a similar 10-15% increase.
What I am not sure about is when that red book info is published. If it is January and that 289k figure has not increased much then creator might decide to wait for that info which will update the resolution criteria page?
If this question is resolved promptly to no then the information changes, is it likely to get re-resolved?
@ChristopherRandles If it takes 10 and a half months to get updated, I doubt it'll get re-resolved! Also the 10-15% change is not something I'm sure about in either direction because the previous couple years before 2022 were at such a larger scale that a lot of the variables don't map directly. Part of my reason for fleeing!
@Panfilo I would assume they would want to get it done in the winter months before the next season starts. Also we had 331k figure 10 Sept which is less than 10.5 months. But yes, January might well be far too optimistic about it being updated in more detail by then.
Limit order at 70% if anyone thinks we're going to get over the line in the next 44 days
What's weird is the discrepancy between the 2022 archive number and the stats on a different page: https://www.fire.ca.gov/our-impact/statistics . And Wikipedia has yet another figure for 2022: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_California_wildfires
@NicoDelon I think we can ignore Wikipedia since we have a specific source in mind, but yeah the inconsistency within the fire department site is just disorienting.
@thesash ”Season” here means the whole year? Or did it end with October like google is telling me?