|
Zeta Taskforce posted:Kaesong seems really random. Is there some news story that I somehow missed where this is a theme or controversy in any way? I heard about it before I saw the contract, and it's an important story, because it represents escalating tensions between North and South....the problem is that it is only using that word. So a more broad question about tensions doesn't expire it as "yes." Just like "coin flips" and "Steinem", two questions relating to both controversies were asked but the specific words were not mentioned. It's just a really dumb and arbitrary thing to predict, and I think it undermines the purpose of the site. (I'll probably still bet on these markets lol)
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Zeta Taskforce posted:Kaesong seems really random. Is there some news story that I somehow missed where this is a theme or controversy in any way? efb
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
the more markets the better, I say
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Will Rubio repeat himself during the debate? .99 YES
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
How is current gain/loss calculated, is it based on what I would get if I liquidated every share for the current ask price or is it based on the average value of each share?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Flavahbeast posted:How is current gain/loss calculated, is it based on what I would get if I liquidated every share for the current ask price or is it based on the average value of each share? It's not even liquidation, it's based on the most recent trade price, buying or selling. Basically, just ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Flavahbeast posted:How is current gain/loss calculated, is it based on what I would get if I liquidated every share for the current ask price or is it based on the average value of each share? If you sold all of your shares for the price they most recently traded at compared to what you purchased them for you'd end up with is your gain/loss. This assumes that there are enough outstanding buy orders to accept your liquidation which may not be the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
I really hope they release the Ben Carson Dropout shares before the 17th. It hardly seems fair to adhere to that date considering that was only chosen due to the 5 day suspension rule, and he didn't suspend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Hold onto .83 cent Trump in SC shares or dump them and wait for post-debate events to see if I can snag it a few cents lower?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:What would be a bad way to get the backing of the establishment? Have you been living under a rock this cycle?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
UnoriginalMind posted:I really hope they release the Ben Carson Dropout shares before the 17th. It hardly seems fair to adhere to that date considering that was only chosen due to the 5 day suspension rule, and he didn't suspend. I know. I need that money to play in the debates tonight. Granted I could sell them at 99 cents, but that will just undo my buying at 99 cents yesterday thinking it was a great one day return
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
For the last few weeks I've been testing a theory of always taking the NO side of the "Will they ask/mention X at the debate" and it's worked out well for that meaningless sample size. My naive reasoning is that you hear things on the news and then see the new market on predictIt it's a pretty natural thought to think "They HAVE to mention that, everyone's talking about it!" which might be true, but causes disproportionate money to flow into the YES side, and in reality it might just not be that good of a good debate question (like the Dem coin flip thing after iowa) , or they might bring up the topic but not mention the specific word (Gloria Steinem at the last dem debate). I think the last one I lost was the Cruz Iowa tactics question, which I still stand by paying 17c for. This is probably dumb and overly simplistic of a strategy but I'm going to continue to test it! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
jjttjj posted:For the last few weeks I've been testing a theory of always taking the NO side of the "Will they ask/mention X at the debate" and it's worked out well for that meaningless sample size. My naive reasoning is that you hear things on the news and then see the new market on predictIt it's a pretty natural thought to think "They HAVE to mention that, everyone's talking about it!" which might be true, but causes disproportionate money to flow into the YES side, and in reality it might just not be that good of a good debate question (like the Dem coin flip thing after iowa) , or they might bring up the topic but not mention the specific word (Gloria Steinem at the last dem debate). I agree. People become fixated on the ways that the subject could be brought up, and they lose perspective on how many possible debates exclude it. I’ve been meaning to make a spreadsheet of how past debate subject y/n markets resolve to see how this hypothesis fares historically, but finding closed markets is such a pain. Platystemon has issued a correction as of 19:22 on Feb 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
I wish I would've done that. I put $40 into pushpoll.no and $25 into samesexmarriage.yes. Easily the dumbest gambles I've made since I started trying to play it safe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
jjttjj posted:For the last few weeks I've been testing a theory of always taking the NO side of the "Will they ask/mention X at the debate" and it's worked out well for that meaningless sample size. My naive reasoning is that you hear things on the news and then see the new market on predictIt it's a pretty natural thought to think "They HAVE to mention that, everyone's talking about it!" which might be true, but causes disproportionate money to flow into the YES side, and in reality it might just not be that good of a good debate question (like the Dem coin flip thing after iowa) , or they might bring up the topic but not mention the specific word (Gloria Steinem at the last dem debate). I think the last one I lost was the Cruz Iowa tactics question, which I still stand by paying 17c for. In this case Kaesong just seems so random, with so many other ways North Korea tensions could be mentioned it seems pretty safe to resolve as NO. Safer than 80%. On the marriage question, the terms "same-sex marriage", "gay marriage", or "traditional marriage" are much more general. Its not like they have to say "Kim Davis" or "States Rights" or something random like that. And it is such a hot button issue for Republicans. This has a good shot of being YES.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
I’m torn on the Kaesong question. On the one hand, North Korea was discussed at some length in the last debate, so that argues that it’s less likely it’ll be brought up this debate. On the other hand, they used the missile pretext last time, so if North Korea does come up, there’s a decent chance Kaesong is used to open the question this time. The Senate had a North Korea vote on Wednesday. Rubio and Cruz took time out of their campaigns to participate. Sanders didn’t, and Clinton has already criticised him for it—not that that directly relates to the Republican field, but it suggests that NK may be important enough to bring up again. The moderators could just skip straight to mentioning the vote and skip Kaesong, though. I think I’ll put in some lowball offers and see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dhuntabc7/status/698624227562270720 Market already swept up fwiw
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
jjttjj posted:For the last few weeks I've been testing a theory of always taking the NO side of the "Will they ask/mention X at the debate" and it's worked out well for that meaningless sample size. My naive reasoning is that you hear things on the news and then see the new market on predictIt it's a pretty natural thought to think "They HAVE to mention that, everyone's talking about it!" which might be true, but causes disproportionate money to flow into the YES side, and in reality it might just not be that good of a good debate question (like the Dem coin flip thing after iowa) , or they might bring up the topic but not mention the specific word (Gloria Steinem at the last dem debate). I think the last one I lost was the Cruz Iowa tactics question, which I still stand by paying 17c for. I was thinking about this also, I'm wondering if there's some data to suggest which bet is better than coin flip odds. With some markets like this, you can do repetitive gambles, it's just about getting a good price so your wins will cover your losses
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Over/under on whether the Supreme Court confirmation goes through before mid-January 2017 would be a nice market.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Scalia dying provides a nice opening for them to mention same sex marriage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Will the senate confirm a new justice in 2016? I'll say.....no. Big surprise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Hmm, 1c lottery ticket for Scalia to come back as a zombie and rule on the court until the end of time,...tempting..
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
making this my background
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
already closed and paid out
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Cruz YES is spiking in SC/NV/RNOM markets as a result of the Scalia news being front and center (probably for the foreseeable future too).
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
PAY OUT ON CARSON YOU SON OF A BITCh SITE
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
As much as I hate Ted Cruz this SCOTUS issue is his bread and butter and Trump can't hold a candle to him when it comes to this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Peachstapler posted:As much as I hate Ted Cruz this SCOTUS issue is his bread and butter and Trump can't hold a candle to him when it comes to this stuff. Trump could pivot the issue to be about Ted not being able to get anything done while he'd be a great negotiator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
a cop posted:Trump could pivot the issue to be about Ted not being able to get anything done while he'd be a great negotiator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
UnoriginalMind posted:I really hope they release the Ben Carson Dropout shares before the 17th. It hardly seems fair to adhere to that date considering that was only chosen due to the 5 day suspension rule, and he didn't suspend. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Peachstapler posted:I got tired of waiting. I wasn't wild about letting it sit there for another five days while it could've been making money elsewhere. Me too. gently caress it. I only lost like a dollar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Ok, I want the "will a new Supreme Court justice be appointed before Obama leaves" and related markets now
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
New ARG poll is really messing with the 2nd/3rd place markets: http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2016/primary/rep/screp.html I picked up about 700 sub-5c Kasich.2nd.YES shares 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
After getting burned for over two weeks last summer, I don't like participating in locked markets. Anything that closes out soon I always have a .99 sell order on. In other news, my Romney RNOM plan is finally working. I have a huge buy order at .01 and a huge sell order at .02 and they're both spitting me out free cash, maybe ten bucks so far
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:After getting burned for over two weeks last summer, I don't like participating in locked markets. Anything that closes out soon I always have a .99 sell order on. I have some of those Romney ones, but I'm holding on to them as a lottery ticket on the off chance armageddon happens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
drat. No "same sex marriage" during the Scalia stuff. Now I just hope they don't say "push polls" so I come out on top.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Does Trump always fluctuate like this during debates?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
UnoriginalMind posted:Does Trump always fluctuate like this during debates? He allllmost went Truther, I sold my shares at-cost as soon as "9/11" exited his mouth. Got a buy order in at .70 though just in case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Really glad I didn't bet on this, but the "no" statistical analysis sounds very promising. Are there records available for every such market?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 03:53
|
|