|
Combed Thunderclap posted:Annnnnnnnnd it's closed. That would have been amazing. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
It's much more likely that some PredictIt users will always be a step ahead of them on every event. One sperglord with too much free time and three grand on the line can mop up a few small markets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
these are the people taking our bets: Does anyone notice that the buy and sell prices for Yes automatically match themselves up to the sell and buy prices of the No shares? Whenever I make a trade or an open offer, the corresponding opposite numbers adjust themselves accordingly, minus 100. Does someone have an automatic trading script running that monitors this page and inputs or removes open offers immediately, with the idea that someone deciding to trade one side is an indicator to follow? As a day-trading strategy for profit?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Obama just signed the budget and debt limit increase into law, you can get Yes shares at 99c and make a few bucks today if you max it. Zero risk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Does anyone notice that the buy and sell prices for Yes automatically match themselves up to the sell and buy prices of the No shares? Whenever I make a trade or an open offer, the corresponding opposite numbers adjust themselves accordingly, minus 100. Yeah we finally have a healthy AM-radio population as well. Check out the comments in the debt ceiling market if you want to know who's money you were taking. Unfortunately I feel like long-term those sorts of people are going to disappear on their own because it's one thing to ignore being wrong about something it's entirely another when being consistently wrong is also costing you money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Yeah we finally have a healthy AM-radio population as well. Check out the comments in the debt ceiling market if you want to know who's money you were taking. Unfortunately I feel like long-term those sorts of people are going to disappear on their own because it's one thing to ignore being wrong about something it's entirely another when being consistently wrong is also costing you money. Vox Nihili got into an argument with one of them because he thought that he owed the governement $828,816. The good news for PredictIt users is the pool of AM talk radio population is huge. The bad news for the country is that the pool of AM talk radio population is huge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
I stupidly bought a bunch of LAGOV Dem NO shares at 54¢, now it's in the 30s and I'm stuck hoping that Vitter's outlook improves. Last poll has him down by 12, but its a Dem-sponsored poll. I don't know Louisiana that well, but how much can an 8-year-old sex scandal matter if it didn't stop him from getting reelected last time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Yeah we finally have a healthy AM-radio population as well. Check out the comments in the debt ceiling market if you want to know who's money you were taking. Unfortunately I feel like long-term those sorts of people are going to disappear on their own because it's one thing to ignore being wrong about something it's entirely another when being consistently wrong is also costing you money. I doubt they'll go away. There's bunch of literature on how consistently conservative media consumers fall for ideological affinity fraud (Tea Party pacs that just keep the donations, fake investments in Israeli oil futures, overpriced gold to hedge against Obama destroying the dollar, etc). This is a demographic with money to burn and an entire industry has been built around getting them to pay for scams that confirm their biases. I'm guessing they'll keep showing up in the markets that conservative media tends to talk most about (presidential race, shutdowns, whether Hillary will be charged with a felony, high profile SCOTUS decisions on "culture war" issues, etc). EDIT: Someone should convince PredictIt to start having markets on how much health care premiums will rise and whether there will be hyperinflation by year's end. You could make a killing whenever Limbaugh or Glenn Beck mentions them. Corrupt Politician has issued a correction as of 19:34 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
I suggested a Nuclear Iran market similar to the current N. Korea one but they haven't opened it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
The November 30th poll markets are out, time to play the early swings, but I've maxed out debt limit YES and I'm waiting for PredictIt to close it dangit. edit: Lessig has just dropped out. This of course matters because he was never taken seriously enough to be in any PredictIt Polls (god he wasn't even an option under 'who will be the democratic nominee' when bill de blasio and al gore are) pathetic little tramp has issued a correction as of 19:54 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Looks like the first linked market is this week's job approval market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I suggested a Nuclear Iran market similar to the current N. Korea one but they haven't opened it Are you this guy? quote:Here's what I requested: I think it would be a fun one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:The November 30th poll markets are out, time to play the early swings, but I've maxed out debt limit YES and I'm waiting for PredictIt to close it dangit. The Hillary 50% one seems like a good short-mid term buy in the post-Biden era.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Tomato Burger posted:Are you this guy? I sent them an email but it was pretty similar to that, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Looks like the first linked market is this week's job approval market. Welcome to the PredictItDome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I suggested a Nuclear Iran market similar to the current N. Korea one but they haven't opened it What's the North Korea market anyway? The only I can think of that makes sense is "North Korea restarts their nuclear reactors for power".
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What's the North Korea market anyway? The only I can think of that makes sense is "North Korea restarts their nuclear reactors for power". https://www.predictit.org/Contract/475/Will-North-Korea-test-a-nuclear-weapon-before-the-end-of-2015#data 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:https://www.predictit.org/Contract/475/Will-North-Korea-test-a-nuclear-weapon-before-the-end-of-2015#data That's an odd market, considering they've already done it multiple times in the past.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
The key is that it has to be declared as a thermo-nuclear detonation which I think is pretty unlikely
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Looks like the first linked market is this week's job approval market. I'm not understanding how it's linked. It looks pretty similar to previous markets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
A Time To Chill posted:I'm not understanding how it's linked. It looks pretty similar to previous markets. If you buy no across multiple markets you should only be charged based on your risk instead of the value of the shares. Being the first linked market people are probably still treating it like the old markets. Or the average predictit user isn't that smart and all linked markets are just going to be extra sweet for us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Yay, linked markets! I bought 25 shares in each of 4 Obama poll categories, and I have a negative amount at risk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Corrupt Politician posted:I stupidly bought a bunch of LAGOV Dem NO shares at 54¢, now it's in the 30s and I'm stuck hoping that Vitter's outlook improves. Last poll has him down by 12, but its a Dem-sponsored poll. A newer poll from this morning shows a 20% margin for Edwards: http://www.brproud.com/news/local-news/democrat-john-bel-edwards-in-the-lead-according-to-new-wvla-poll I was confused by the party affiliation #s from the poll in the footnotes though: 47%/32%/21% Dem/Rep/Ind - seemed way too high for Dems in a deep south state. A bit of googling makes it seem representative, based on past elections (538 linked to this data from the 2012 presidential: http://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Registration_Statistics/Statewide/2012_0701_sta_comb.pdf... I didn't see the real, current data on the official website, but maybe it's out there). I just put most of my Webb winnings in on Dems at 74c  . Looks like voting ends on Nov 21stJohnnyPalace posted:Yay, linked markets! I bought 25 shares in each of 4 Obama poll categories, and I have a negative amount at risk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
The best polls are available now that we're in November - the "by the end of the month X will be at XX" polls. For some reason, people buy a tonne of YES shares at 80 at the beginning of the month. 30 days is a long-rear end time and you are pretty much guaranteed to make a profit riding the dips and valleys. If the investors in these markets were smart, everything would be about 50/50 until the last week. edit: Like seriously, Sanders' mark is 25%. He's 27 right now and trending downward since Hillary performed so well last month, and his NO shares are around 15 cents. pathetic little tramp has issued a correction as of 01:58 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
JohnnyPalace posted:Yay, linked markets! I bought 25 shares in each of 4 Obama poll categories, and I have a negative amount at risk. So let's say you win on all or most of them. Do you actually get paid $1/share despite having not put much (if any) money in, or is there some algorithm that goes "lol nope" and takes the bulk of your profit? I just really fundamentally don't understand how the linking works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
A Time To Chill posted:So let's say you win on all or most of them. Do you actually get paid $1/share despite having not put much (if any) money in, or is there some algorithm that goes "lol nope" and takes the bulk of your profit? I just really fundamentally don't understand how the linking works. Part of the $1 you get on any share is the money you put into it so I imagine you get paid the dollar minus whatever the share's cost was when you 'bought' it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:The best polls are available now that we're in November - the "by the end of the month X will be at XX" polls. For some reason, people buy a tonne of YES shares at 80 at the beginning of the month. 30 days is a long-rear end time and you are pretty much guaranteed to make a profit riding the dips and valleys. The Sanders and Clinton polling at X% Yes markets are both uniquely good buys becuase though the numbers are based on their prior polling averages, essentially all of their opposition recently vanished from the race. Although Chafee, Webb, and Biden may have constituted only ~20% of the total polling, their absence will inevitably push the remaining candodates' numbers upward. Except O'Malley, maybe, since no one cares about him. Only bought into Clinton since the Sanders folks already pushed his super high, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Part of the $1 you get on any share is the money you put into it so I imagine you get paid the dollar minus whatever the share's cost was when you 'bought' it. Yeah, all the linking does is make it so that instead of putting up $6 for 10 shares of .60, you get those shares without having to lock up that $6 because you've got $8 already being held to cover a slightly bigger bet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Yeah, all the linking does is make it so that instead of putting up $6 for 10 shares of .60, you get those shares without having to lock up that $6 because you've got $8 already being held to cover a slightly bigger bet. I'm still a bit confused about what exactly is going to happen. I bought one of each NO market just to test. After all the refunds as I bought them, I ended up being out only $0.05 for the total price of those five shares. So when the market closes end-of-day Friday, do I get $5 - $1 = $4, and thus realize an 8,000% profit... or...?  Edit: Oh, I found it, you have to click "Your risk in this market" on "Your shares" to bring up the payout matrix. Apparently I'm now guaranteed to lose 3-5 cents no matter which way the markets resolve. Fuschia tude has issued a correction as of 03:51 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
No, that 5-cent loss represents the worst case scenario; the sum of winning $1 minus fees and losing out on the shares that resolve to Yes will come out to -$0.05 at worst for you. If they resolve more favourably (say you win on shares you bought for 60 cents instead of the ones you bought for 90) you'll get a little bit more when the market closes. Short story shorter, that $0.05 already has most if not all of your winnings rolled into it already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:I'm still a bit confused about what exactly is going to happen. I bought one of each NO market just to test. After all the refunds as I bought them, I ended up being out only $0.05 for the total price of those five shares. Nah, that means that the most you can possibly lose is $0.05 - your "risk." Since you bought EVERY contract's No shares, you've actually locked in a guaranteed loss of $0.05 if you wait to maturity, since there's only one possible outcome: that four of them resolve to wins and one resolves to a loss. My first sentence sums up what linked pricing does - "No" shares just became cheaper in multi-contract markets if you buy "No"s in multiple contracts at the same time, since they now only cost whatever your maximum potential losses are. Before, you'd have had to pay $4.05 for those shares, and you'd get back a guaranteed amount of $4.00 for them at the conclusion of the market (because, no matter what, there would be four "correct" No shares, and one "incorrect" No share, since one of them HAS to win). Now, you only gave to pay $0.05 for those shares, and you can go spend the extra $4.00 that was meaningless to have locked up in that market (since there was no possible outcome in which you'd lose any more than $0.05) elsewhere. This has no effect on "Yes" share prices, except for the fact that suddenly "No"s are cheaper relative to "Yes"es than they used to be. In multi-contract markets, we might see Yes shares fall in value relative to where they would have been before as a result.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
thethreeman posted:Before, you'd have had to pay $4.05 for those shares, and you'd get back a guaranteed amount of $4.00 for them at the conclusion of the market (because, no matter what, there would be four "correct" No shares, and one "incorrect" No share, since one of them HAS to win). Aha. Got it, thanks. So basically it's pointless to have equal numbers of NO shares of all markets in a linked set unless you are buying and selling throughout the lifetime of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Aha. Got it, thanks. So basically it's pointless to have equal numbers of NO shares of all markets in a linked set unless you are buying and selling throughout the lifetime of it. unless you're this guy JohnnyPalace posted:Yay, linked markets! I bought 25 shares in each of 4 Obama poll categories, and I have a negative amount at risk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Aha. Got it, thanks. So basically it's pointless to have equal numbers of NO shares of all markets in a linked set unless you are buying and selling throughout the lifetime of it. Or if the market is imbalanced and that purchase guarantees you a return no matter what the result is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
I'm very proud of myself!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
JohnnyPalace posted:I'm very proud of myself! I posted about it last week. I did that and ended making 5% after fees. The only caveat is the fees took an especially big bite. One of them you will lose everything (of course). But 4 you will make a profit on, but you will pay the 10% on 4 sets of winnings. I'm probably explaining it bad. Say there were 5 levels each priced at 20 and you bought an equal number of all. At the end, one of them will have lost you 80, but 4 of them will make 20 each, so you will have won 80. But you will need to pay 10% on your winnings. So really you will net 72, but you will be down 8 once you factor the amount you lost. It can work if the price of YES adds up to way over 100, but I can see linked trades making NO easier to buy ruining that strategy
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Is there a way to see all current markets? There's some weird ones like "Repeal Medical Device Tax" and "Gas Tax" that are searchable if you know what to look for, but never show up in any of their main lists. I bet there's some gems hidden out there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Yes, clicking on the "US Elections," "US Politics," and "World" tabs on the lower left-hand side reveal all markets associated with that category, including the weird ones. Still can't see all markets simultaneously, but it's pretty much the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
It's sort of fascinating reading how some of the people on predictit view polls. No understanding of statistics, with a side of cherry picking and unskewing. Margins of error mean anything could happen, and there's definitely a silent majority just lurking around the corner of the voting booth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:The Sanders and Clinton polling at X% Yes markets are both uniquely good buys becuase though the numbers are based on their prior polling averages, essentially all of their opposition recently vanished from the race. Although Chafee, Webb, and Biden may have constituted only ~20% of the total polling, their absence will inevitably push the remaining candodates' numbers upward. And that's very true if you bought in with the plan of making money on being right on November 30. If you're just trying to turn a profit in a week or so, that 15 cents will get to 20 eventually if some poll causes a panic. And don't be too shocked when o mallet stays to poll a little more favourably. Nothing over 5, of course, but I dont think he's as much a non entity as webb or Chafee was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 15:18
|
|