|
Jim Webb NO seems like a good bet, but it bothers me that all he needs to do for it to resolve as YES is register as a candidate. I could easily see him registering, then being too lazy to actually campaign again.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
Stereotype posted:Yeah I just did that too because I want to see what happens when they introduce contract pricing (I assume I get 90% of my money back and get to keep all my bets, and then they are also all worth more) We'll all be dead when our great grandkids finally get linked contracts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
I'm a bit wary of how low a volume there is on Webb. poo poo can swing hard from someone with a hundred bucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Anorexic Sea Turtle posted:I'm a bit wary of how low a volume there is on Webb. poo poo can swing hard from someone with a hundred bucks. I've put over $100 into it and it hasn't swung too hard. It pretty much bounces back to 66/33 after every buy right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
I just realized there's gonna be crazy volatility on New Years Day 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I just realized there's gonna be crazy volatility on New Years Day A boy can dream... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Uh, no, there is not a single linked market on the site today. Oops... not that they are currently Linked by PredictIt lingo, but that the most "interesting" ones (presidential, nominations, etc.) are all ones where there are multiple possible outcomes "linked" to each other. These are prime candidates for Linking when it is rolled out if they can find a good way to do it without upsetting existing markets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I just realized there's gonna be crazy volatility on New Years Day There will also be a lot of people with a lot of money locked out for a week or two. I expect a lot of dumping on December 31.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Standard *POLLS* caveat, but why is Fiorina No on winning the debate so low? She's on the way down and will soon be back at the kiddie table. Even if she somehow manages to "win" the debate, almost no polling is likely to be done post debate and released by Saturday. So she's going to be trucking along on her winning personality and dazzling positions. Is it really just people seeing that it's a business debate and her being a business woman? Because if so things should go very well in the market once anyone of the 9 other candidates or the moderators point out she's market valued at negative 2 billion or so. Necc0 posted:I just realized there's gonna be crazy volatility on New Years Day What's happening at the end of the year to cause the freak out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Gyges posted:
A bunch of markets close 12/31.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Gyges posted:What's happening at the end of the year to cause the freak out? A whole lot of markets time out, so there's going to be a lot of traders with cash burning a hole in their pockets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Standard *POLLS* caveat, but why is Fiorina No on winning the debate so low? She's on the way down and will soon be back at the kiddie table. Even if she somehow manages to "win" the debate, almost no polling is likely to be done post debate and released by Saturday. So she's going to be trucking along on her winning personality and dazzling positions. Didn't she "win" the last two by shouting insane fascist poo poo that people ate up for a week then forgot about? Yeah, checking RCP she gained about 3 points after "winning" the kiddie debate in August, and she went from 8th to 3rd for a while after the last debate in September. She says things that are loving nuts, Fox/CNN are like WHOA WATCH OUT HILLARY and she takes a few tenths of a percent from everybody. tinstaach has issued a correction as of 03:12 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Who ended up the biggest losers and winners in the last two debates?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Reminder: Fiorina's value is at least -6 Billion, if not negative 7. Negative 2 billion is a gross understatement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Debt limit is about to be raised and you can get in at around 91-92c. Whether that's a good deal is a matter of perspective, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Debt limit is about to be raised and you can get in at around 91-92c. Whether that's a good deal is a matter of perspective, I suppose. I made a few dollars on the one earlier today. The market is still a little bouncy even though it's a done deal. I felt the Jim Webb market was more fun and the margins were better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Debt limit is about to be raised and you can get in at around 91-92c. Whether that's a good deal is a matter of perspective, I suppose. It's a good deal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
tinstaach posted:Didn't she "win" the last two by shouting insane fascist poo poo that people ate up for a week then forgot about? I feel like the thing is set up to prevent anyone other than Trump really having time to lay down some heat. With the rules Trump and Carson got, there's not going to be very much time for anything to really happen, and a "business" debate is just going to be begging Trump to fill time bragging about his wealth and deal making while occasionally dropping low energy burns and likely crushing Fiorina with facts should she open her mouth in his direction. We'll see, but the narrative set up Fiorina to be proclaimed victor the last two times. Right now the narrative is set up for Trump v Carson and Trump v Bush. I mean there's always the chance her music suddenly starts playing and she charges in with a steel chair, but the story line seems to have passed her by. Also the debate itself is very minor in the criteria for the market, and Fiorina is on the decline.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
I'd still buy Yes on Fiorina if I were to but it on anyone, but with so many chaotic storylines flying around I'm not putting a cent into this fuckin circus
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
tinstaach posted:I'd still buy Yes on Fiorina if I were to but it on anyone, but with so many chaotic storylines flying around I'm not putting a cent into this fuckin circus Oh I always buy into the circus and make sure I'm out before the elephant shits on the clowns and it all gets shut down, so I don't have that much risk. Buy shares in the 70s/80s and sell in the 90s. By two days after the debate all but a couple markets will be at mid to high 90s, and those will usually be at least a couple cents higher than when I bought in. Even if I lose a little on a couple markets I come out ahead in total.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Debt limit is about to be raised and you can get in at around 91-92c. Whether that's a good deal is a matter of perspective, I suppose. I just got some for 93 right now. For something that has basically been announced to happen in a couple days
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Yeah, I wish I had more cash on the site, I would have just dumped it all into debt limit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
nachos posted:I think Carson NO is a good buy at 83 cents. He is a sleepy boring gently caress and his economic ideas are utter nonsense. This debate will be "won" by Trump/Rubio/Bush in my opinion. I'm undecided on Fiorina, I could see it going either way for her. She dipped in the polls quite a bit so her brash manner and former CEO title which might give her statements a bit more authority in an economic debate and lead to another quick bump. That said, I don't think the media really cares about her anymore. Agreed. But I also think you're too high on Jeb. High = anything above considering him a wet fart brought to life like a fart Frankenstein monster
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
I cashed out all the money I had put in so now I'm playing with pure profit (and the cheque does come pretty drat quick, that's nice, I thought it'd be some kind of like 6-8 weeks from New Zealand BS), but man not having that purchasing power hurts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
I'm getting a little uneasy on my RUBIO.RNOM yes shares because of all the new developments about how he has basically quit the senate in all but name only. I'll see if this stuff sticks but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody uses it against him once his numbers goes up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:I'm getting a little uneasy on my RUBIO.RNOM yes shares because of all the new developments about how he has basically quit the senate in all but name only. I'll see if this stuff sticks but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody uses it against him once his numbers goes up. The same things were brought up against Obama. That happens anytime a senator runs for president. He pretty much did quit the senate and he's not going to show up for a vote that passes 73-20, but he will still be there for a close vote when he is needed. That said, until thy link the contracts, EVERY yes share is overvalued. He has a good shot if Jeb! gets out of the way and the establishment rallies around him, but 43% seems really rich at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Zeta Taskforce posted:The same things were brought up against Obama. That happens anytime a senator runs for president. He pretty much did quit the senate and he's not going to show up for a vote that passes 73-20, but he will still be there for a close vote when he is needed. Uh according to this stellar graph, he has missed close votes as well. Why it's not represented as a bar graph I will never fuckin know, but here it is anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Zeta Taskforce posted:The same things were brought up against Obama. That happens anytime a senator runs for president. He pretty much did quit the senate and he's not going to show up for a vote that passes 73-20, but he will still be there for a close vote when he is needed. Rubio's problem is that his candidacy at this point is largely based on not being Jeb! or Walker. Obama already had a narrative separate from being a Senator, and it's not like Hillary had any room to complain about him not making votes that she was also missing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Right, but if you think Trump/Carson won't get the nomination and that it'll go to someone establishment, Rubio is basically the last man standing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Right, but if you think Trump/Carson won't get the nomination and that it'll go to someone establishment, Rubio is basically the last man standing. Kasich, Bush, and even Christie are still around and kicking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Kasich, Bush, and even Christie are still around and kicking. They're all dead and buried.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:They're all dead and buried. They aren't, though, unless you asign way too much weight to polling. We're still a few months from the main event.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
(Don't take the above as a bold prediction that Christie or Kasich will win, though, the context is that Rubio speculation is currently overweight due to his short-term, backward-looking polling averages.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Sorry if the answer is obvious, will one of you guys explain the "linking of markets" idea to me?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Why is Ted Cruz at 20/80? whyDJ BK posted:Sorry if the answer is obvious, will one of you guys explain the "linking of markets" idea to me? Everything'll add up to a dollar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
DJ BK posted:Sorry if the answer is obvious, will one of you guys explain the "linking of markets" idea to me? This is too basic, but the general idea is that if you buy shares in a multi-option market in such a way that you can't lose on all of them (buying No shares for multiple people in the RNOM market for example), they'll credit you so that the cost of those shares is the maximum amount of money you stand to lose instead of the full price.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
tinstaach posted:This is too basic, but the general idea is that if you buy shares in a multi-option market in such a way that you can't lose on all of them (buying No shares for multiple people in the RNOM market for example), they'll credit you so that the cost of those shares is the maximum amount of money you stand to lose instead of the full price. That is a good explanation. Would it be fair to say that there won't be anything forcing all the outcomes to add up to 100%, but rather by making it easier to buy NO, the prices of YES will tend to fall into an equilibrium closer to 1?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Everything'll add up to a dollar. Not necessarily; I assume there will still be some inefficiency due to transaction costs. But the currently exorbitant cost of holding multiple "no" contracts in a single market will become an order of magnitude cheaper, which should help clamp down on the currently inflated "yes" values across the board. Zeta Taskforce posted:That is a good explanation. Would it be fair to say that there won't be anything forcing all the outcomes to add up to 100%, but rather by making it easier to buy NO, the prices of YES will tend to fall into an equilibrium closer to 1? Yes, exactly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
After linking, it's going to be interesting being able to cap out on multiple individual markets in a linked market without actually having to have thousands of dollars invested. One day. After the swearing in of President West by Supreme Court Chief Justice Vincent Gambini.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
For anybody looking for some quick and (relatively) safe returns, the price of Trump finishing the month at 25% is down to 83 cents each. He's sitting at 26.8% right now, and I'm pretty sure the drop is from people expecting him to do poorly in the debate tonight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 00:06
|
|