|
Waiting for Shutdown YES to get down to a nickel and see if I can make 95x my investment when an obstacle no one thought of crops up.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Why did Rubio nom shares rocket between the 15th and 20th?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Why did Rubio nom shares rocket between the 15th and 20th? My guess is the debate, though I'm not sure why since he wasn't particularly amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Rubio's got a small surge going on; people are betting he'll overtake Bush soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Waiting for Shutdown YES to get down to a nickel and see if I can make 95x my investment when an obstacle no one thought of crops up. 19x  e: 17.1x
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Why did Rubio nom shares rocket between the 15th and 20th? The Accepted Wisdom™ going into the primary was that the serious contenders consisted of Bush, Walker, and Rubio and that whoever the establishment ended up lining up behind next year would be the chosen one. Walkers gone and Bush has been making Romney look energetic by comparison so that leaves Rubio simply because he hasn't gotten that much attention until now. Expect to see him surge in the polls up to the next debate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:19x Yeah yeah yeah, math and logic, this is politics dammit, numbers don't have to make sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
WELCOME TO WHOSE BET WAS THAT ANYWAY WHERE THE POLLS ARE MADE UP AND THE COMMENTS DON'T MATTER
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Man, now I wish I'd bought more Price for Majority Leader shares. 70 at 5 wasn't too bad though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
the comments constantly mention a 'gallup dude/dudette'. apparently they act around 1230pm ET on any markets involving gallup, 30m before the official release of gallup's numbers. somehow you can follow this person and ride the swings. has anyone witnessed this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
I have not seen that, but it sounds pretty legit. There's no real way to prevent insider trading. Just bought 100 shares of Shutdown YES for 6 bucks. Come onnnnnn, last minute insanity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Rand Paul dropping out next seems way overvalued, especially when there are still so many pointless candidate remaining. He knows he isnt going to win but I see him going all the way to the convention to try to influence the debate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Yeah I've got my money on Jindal at the moment, but I'm sure I'm going to get burned by Pataki or Graham or Santorum getting bored. The reason people are big into Paul right now is someone wrote a "death watch" article about him, but anyone in the lower 90% has a potential to get that article written at any point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
AARP LARPer has issued a correction as of 01:46 on Jan 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
There aren't many ways where Rand gets forced out before loving Jindal, Pataki, or even Christie. The Pauls are all about quixotic Presidential campaigns with no real hope of winning. If Gilmore finally admits that he's not really running does that count as a drop out, or does no one even notice until after the next guy drops out?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
New market: Will Mitch McConnell resign as Senate majority leader by the end of the year?
platzapS has issued a correction as of 23:12 on Sep 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
No way we get rid of boner and franklin the turtle the same year, the world just isn't that generous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
quote:Dear Trader, God damnit. There goes my arbitration 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:God damnit. There goes my arbitration I am extremely dumb and still don't understand what that email meant. Can anyone explain it to me?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
A Time To Chill posted:I am extremely dumb and still don't understand what that email meant. Can anyone explain it to me? I have no idea. I know as a goal they're going to link all the multi-option markets so that there's an automated pressure pushing the market to 'rationality' ie: all the 'yes' shares in the republican primary market will add up to $1.00 How it's actually going to be implemented is a total mystery and people are justifiably panic selling. This exact reason is why the Fed takes over a year to make even tiny moves. You can't just drop this load of uncertainty on people out of nowhere with no warning. If I had a significant amount of money in any 'yes' shares I'd be supremely pissed off. Now there's going to be an entire night or even days of people not knowing what the actual rules of the markets will be. Lots of people panicking and basically there's going to be zero trust in the site now. You absolutely can't change the rules of the game like this. This is a supremely dumb move. Necc0 has issued a correction as of 00:55 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
God drat I'm blown away at how bone-headed that email was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Prices are already deflating too so there's no 'take-backs' at this point. That was so loving dumb jesus christ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
I think what it's saying is that if you're doing an arbitrage run you'll get the money back immediately if you're making a sure bet so that making one won't basically be "get $.05, sure, but in like a year".
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I have no idea. I know as a goal they're going to link all the multi-option markets so that there's an automated pressure pushing the market to 'rationality' ie: all the 'yes' shares in the republican primary market will add up to $1.00 Thank you. This post was infinitely more informative than that horrible email.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
point of return posted:I think what it's saying is that if you're doing an arbitrage run you'll get the money back immediately if you're making a sure bet so that making one won't basically be "get $.05, sure, but in like a year". They don't say this anywhere. The problem is their coy 'btw u may want to re-evaluate the value of your shares  ' is what's pissing me off immensely
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
It's rare to see any individual candidate move more than just a few points and Kasich has crashed almost .10 already. This is so retarded
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
So because my portfolio is pretty much a bunch of NOs on random GOP candidates, I'll benefit from this stupid bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:So because my portfolio is pretty much a bunch of NOs on random GOP candidates, I'll benefit from this stupid bullshit? More quickly than you would have normally, yeah. Everyone with 'Yes' shares are probably boned
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:So because my portfolio is pretty much a bunch of NOs on random GOP candidates, I'll benefit from this stupid bullshit? My reading of it is that you're about as boned as someone who buys all yes. The goal seems to be that the entire market comes in line as a single, overall, bet. From what they said, it seems more like your overall risk is what is going to get you the pay off. So lets say the bet is between who is going to drop out next Trump, Bush, Rand, and Gilmore. Your bet in the future is based on the overall risk in the market, rather than individual tranches. How they're going to both calculate this risk number and make it clear enough to make a manageable market isn't clear. However, assuming you put all your money on No for all 4 choices, your risk should depend on your spread instead of your actual allocation. Instead your return based on 99 for Trump, 74 for Bush, 49 for Rand and 24 for Gilmore, it would be based on your overall money in No minus whoever actually dropped out. Using the above example, we say you had 100 shares No on each guy and Gilmore drops out first. In the current system you would lose the $24 you put on Gilmore, make $154 from the rest of your bets giving you $130 in winnings. In the new system when Gilmore drops out your risk was only 9.25% so your return is based on that. Of course the return is based on the change in risk instead of just the risk, so I don't know exactly what that works out to. I think. And I'm not great at math so I might have figured things wrong. But it changes the strategy entirely. Instead of betting on each guy individually, allowing you to set up bets where you can't lose by betting on everyone, you're betting on your overall exposure in the market. Yes and No shares should both have their prices lowered significantly but the total shares should increase as people spread their shares around so that they own more cheap shares. I'm not even sure this all makes sense now, having been interrupted in the middle of typing it out. Hopefully someone can decipher if I'm a total moron or just confused.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Just from the tone of it, it sounds like they're trying to get people to bet on the outcome that they actually think will happen instead of throwing all money down on everything and still managing to come out ahead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
I think this whole thing is just to cover up all the Yes inflation and make it more difficult for people to discredit the accuracy of their markets. I don't quite understand what they intend but it sounds "artificial" at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
God drat I always forget how dumb people are in forums outside of SA
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
AARP LARPer has issued a correction as of 01:46 on Jan 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
I have no idea what this change means. This poo poo was already complicated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
I don't even know: in horse-racing, do the odds on all the horses add up to 1?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
AARP LARPer has issued a correction as of 01:46 on Jan 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
TWIST: Obama buys up $850 worth of YES and vetoes bill at 11:59 PM
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:TWIST: Obama buys up $850 worth of YES and vetoes bill at 11:59 PM wworth it
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Do Not Resuscitate posted:I've got some bad news for you... Eh, I just unloaded them on the poor sucker who for some reason had like 14,000 buy offers for 1 cent. I lost 4 bucks, and it's a market I made about 200 off of earlier, so I'm happy with losing a longshot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
How much of a window is even left for Biden to declare at this point?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:26
|
|