|
Yeah I just re-read the rules:quote:Joseph R. Biden, Jr. shall become a candidate for president of the United States in the 2016 general election, by filing a Statement of Candidacy and/or a Statement of Organization of an exploratory committee for the office of president with the Federal Election Commission. It looks like he could officially declare his intent to not run and it'd close the market at 'No' edit: Ehhh maybe not. It only looks like him saying he intends to run won't close the market to 'Yes' but that doesn't necessarily mean the opposite scenario would happen.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
is now the time to buy NO on biden? will the price likely drop in the next day or two?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:is now the time to buy NO on biden? will the price likely drop in the next day or two? Now is a good time, but it may or may not be the time. The price of No looks to still be slowly sliding, but the slide has slowed considerably. You should be able to scoop some up in the low 40s if you buy now. Or, if you wait a few days it may be down in the 30s. It really all depends on if a new story full of anonymous sources comes out. If you don't think he'll run you're looking at more than doubling your money right now. Waiting just increases how much. It doesn't seem likely that No is going to drop down as low as it got after the story about the guy on the train yelling that Biden was running. However we just got a story yesterday from totally anonymous sources that have put out yet another announcement deadline for Diamond Joe. It remains to be seen if this deadline is different than the ones that passed in September with no announcement. Worth noting is that the currently reported deadline puts the decision around the first Democratic debate, which Joe declined to go to. Kind of a weird move to not show up to a debate just so you can announce your candidacy. Especially since Biden is usually pretty good at debates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Just joined PredictIt today based on this thread! I was quite surprised to find a North Korea nuclear test market. Is the "by the end of the year" end-date for many of these a common end date, or is it just because we are near the end of the year (e.g. when the North Korea nuke thing expires on Dec. 31 and they decide to make a new one, is it more likely that the new end date will be 12-31-2016 or some earlier date 3-6 months out)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
A lot are pretty arbitrary, like Grexit or Biden 2015.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Tomato Burger posted:Just joined PredictIt today based on this thread! I was quite surprised to find a North Korea nuclear test market. The site's not really been around long enough to say. It'll be interesting to see if a bunch of new markets open in January with deadlines in December. For the time being, it's definitely at least partially convenience, and there are at least some markets (especially related to elections) that are going to have different deadlines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Don't forget that you have to pay taxes on your net winnings as of the end of the year, even if you don't withdraw them! I haven't found specific guidance related to predictive markets, but online poker or daily fantasy sport taxation is probably a good starting pointDraft Kings posted:You do have to pay taxes on your Cumulative Net Profit from fantasy sports. DraftKings is required to issue 1099 tax form(s) to any player who has a cumulative net profit in excess of $600 for the calendar year. This is calculated by the approximate value as ((prizes won - entry fees)+bonuses). I'm not sure how the 5% withdrawal fee comes into play, though. Apparently there is a scholarly article on it as well, but the abstract isn't very revealing: words on words on words.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
You have to hit a minimum threshold for taxes, don't you? Like $2k net winnings or something. edit: probably should have actually read your post 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
Biden NO is getting cheap, can't say I'm not nervous though
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
what happened to the house majority leader market? price was at 85 a few days ago and scalise was at 15. does scalise really have a chance? didn't he...you know, speak at KKK events?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:what happened to the house majority leader market? price was at 85 a few days ago and scalise was at 15. does scalise really have a chance? didn't he...you know, speak at KKK events? do you think that really matters to republican politicians or voters?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Biden NO is getting cheap, can't say I'm not nervous though The Yes people on there are insane. No for 39 cents or whatever is a ridiculous deal at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
I still have no idea if the YES Biden crew are nuts or if they're trying to game the market. I've never seen straw-grabbing to that extreme in any of the other markets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I still have no idea if the YES Biden crew are nuts or if they're trying to game the market. I've never seen straw-grabbing to that extreme in any of the other markets. If they were trying to game the market they should have sold their shares.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I still have no idea if the YES Biden crew are nuts or if they're trying to game the market. I've never seen straw-grabbing to that extreme in any of the other markets. The Yes seem to honestly be 110% convinced he's running. It's weird as hell because there is very little other than your reading of the tea leaves concretely supporting either side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The Yes seem to honestly be 110% convinced he's running. It's weird as hell because there is very little other than your reading of the tea leaves concretely supporting either side. Isn't this exactly what people were pining for a month or two ago, tons of irrational people to trade against?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Isn't this exactly what people were pining for a month or two ago, tons of irrational people to trade against? Indeed. Just wish it was in more markets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Crop of new rumors about Biden announcing today, so yes is up and no is down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Isn't this exactly what people were pining for a month or two ago, tons of irrational people to trade against? Oh yeah, definitely. I'm just not sure if they've finally arrived or if they want it to seem that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Ugh why won't they let me profit on Jeb nomination NO? I'm just trying to sell at 72, but that fucker can't move the needle past 69.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Ugh why won't they let me profit on Jeb nomination NO? I'm just trying to sell at 72, but that fucker can't move the needle past 69. Yeah I sold and got out, Jeb's market is too slow. I apparently got drunk last night and bought into Rubio NO, I think this was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
I have standing orders on a bunch of Jeb NOs but they all have stupidly low volume. I also own "North Korea will detonate a nuke YES" so now I have this perverse desire for them to do that in 5 days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:I have standing orders on a bunch of Jeb NOs but they all have stupidly low volume. A close reading on the NK nuke market indicates that they would have to detonate a "thermonuclear" weapon, ie, a fusion device. That is not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:A close reading on the NK nuke market indicates that they would have to detonate a "thermonuclear" weapon, ie, a fusion device. That is not going to happen. Yeah I saw that. I take it that if they have a fission nuclear test before January 1st Predictit will resolve to YES anyway though and they are just horrible at correctly specifying rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Oh yeah, definitely. I'm just not sure if they've finally arrived or if they want it to seem that way. I'm mostly confused as to why Biden seems to be the only irrational market. I mean, other markets are wrong or have high/low splits, but Biden is the only one where facts are for suckers and every bit of news is totally good for the Yes block. There's some wishful thinking in the poll markets, but it's mostly limited to whether or not a poll will come out and how high/low the number has to be for which ever side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
I think the irrationality makes some sort of sense since it's a highly personal decision being made by a guy whose son just died. I'm not touching that market – a little too crazy for me, heh. I did just put half my roll into NO on Bush getting the nomination, and I think I'm long-term on this one.
Prime Sinister has issued a correction as of 21:46 on Oct 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Yay someone bought my Bush, thank you kind angels, may you get more profit than the measeley ten cents a share I sucked out of it
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:You have to hit a minimum threshold for taxes, don't you? Like $2k net winnings or something. I belive that technically any net winnings are reportable as miscellaneous income, per IRS mumbo jumbo. Draftkings just files a 1099 from their end if your winnings exceed $600, but that's not a minimum threshold for reporting income. You would certainly use the net $ amount if you cashed out before the year end and took the 5% withdrawal hit, but I'm not sure how that 5% factors in for net winnings still on deposit at PredictIt. Disclaimer: This is definitely not tax advice; do your own research or consult tea leaves before progressing further.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Looking at the comments for Christie out next, did he seriously only just get his website up today?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Looking at the comments for Christie out next, did he seriously only just get his website up today? He also just got caught having a private e-mail server which he's been bitching at Hillary for (and he's refusing to hand it over in the bridgegate investigation). He's also from Jersey. He's definitely not winning poo poo, but I don't know about next out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Looks like the details on the linked contract pricing have been posted https://www.predictit.org/About/LinkedContractPricing
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
"That said, it is reasonable to expect that aggregate prices that are far above $1 are going to fall. By aligning the price of shares to the risk involved, it is likely that demand for “No” shares will rise, leading to an increase in price for those shares and therefore, a fall in the price of “Yes” shares. The degree of this change will vary from market to market, contract to contract, and will ultimately be determined by you." fun
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
As someone who's been arbitrating the gently caress out of the Republican primary:  I have one question though: Where is all this money coming from? Are they just paying it out themselves? edit: I'm just relieved that this will be based on a hard formula and not some wishy-washy vague 'because we felt like it' crap. Necc0 has issued a correction as of 01:22 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
So when looking at a question with a binary outcome, it won't matter whether I buy A YES or B NO?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I have one question though: Where is all this money coming from? Are they just paying it out themselves? Technically, I guess, because you've already given them your money. You know how when you buy a $.60 share, there's another buyer on the other end who's also out $.40? Then when it resolves in your favor, PredictIt is giving you your $.60 back plus the other guy's $.40? But during the length of that trade, the money was really held in escrow by PredictIt on your behalf. This adjustment process is just paying out some of that cash a bit early when you intentionally limit your own risk. Aliquid posted:So when looking at a question with a binary outcome, it won't matter whether I buy A YES or B NO? That's the ideal, though liquidity may limit that a bit. (PredictIt generally only launches single markets for binary questions, though.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Correct, because the inherent risk is whatever either price is. That risk gets murkier when you have multiple markets resolving on a single event.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Can someone explain this better than them? I don't understand this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:Looks like the details on the linked contract pricing have been posted I found this out a few days ago because the Republican market was crazy inefficient and predicted a 170% total chance one candidate would win the nomination - had they been margining like this before you could have made a risk-free 70% return before fees. But with the margin requirements it knocked the profits down to what would be wiped out by withdrawal fees and that's why the prices are so off in those markets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Can someone explain this better than them? I don't understand this. If I bet every single candidate (19 I think) for the Republican nomination will not win it, I am guaranteed to lose one, and only one, of those bets (and when I looked at the market, it would pay me $1.70 to make that bet, letting you pocket $0.70). PredictIt needs to hold $1 from me to be sure that I will pay up. However, they're holding $1 for each candidate, requiring a total of $19 locked up for a bet that can only lose $1. This matters because you have to put the extra $18 in, and then lose 5% taking it out ($0.90). That wipes out your profits. Once they fix that, the market will correct by people mass betting "no" until the prices equalize at about $1 total. edit: while the margin issues mean you can't risk-free arbitrage the market like I wanted to do easily, it does mean that in each market you should bet against candidates, not for them. Betting on candidates has a negative expected ROI while betting against them has a positive expected ROI. evilweasel has issued a correction as of 13:33 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:I found this out a few days ago because the Republican market was crazy inefficient and predicted a 170% total chance one candidate would win the nomination - had they been margining like this before you could have made a risk-free 70% return before fees. But with the margin requirements it knocked the profits down to what would be wiped out by withdrawal fees and that's why the prices are so off in those markets. Not totally wiped out. I've dumped ~$1k into that market with a guaranteed minimum return of ~5% after all fees which for a risk-free investment is really drat good. The margins dried out a few weeks ago but with this change not only will I be able to start arbitrating again, my previous purchases will be making a way higher return than I expected. Which owns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 14:07
|
|