Loading Profile...
EMPLOYEE
Consistency in settlement
Markets need to be settled consistently. Today a market was settled that referred to whether the debate in Ohio would be the last debate between Clinton and Obama. It was settled as a NO because a debate was announced. While this seems on the surface as possibly the right thing to do, the category editor has previously refused to settle questions until the event took place, in case something came up and they didn't debate. I am referring to the question Ryan settled last month the dealt with the MSNBC debate in Cleveland. He refused to settle the question until the debate began, even posting this comment: I'm going to let this run until the debate. As the market asks if she will attend the debate, if she was to dropout or something else caused her to not participate, I would have settled this incorrectly.
Ryan - Hubdub U.S. Politics Content Editor
Why are we not using the same rules and thinking for settling this question. We can not be expected to guess which way Ryan is going to think before he settles a question, especially when we have what should be a pattern he has set in settling questions.
Ryan - Hubdub U.S. Politics Content Editor
Why are we not using the same rules and thinking for settling this question. We can not be expected to guess which way Ryan is going to think before he settles a question, especially when we have what should be a pattern he has set in settling questions.
I’m confused
1
person has this problem
I have this problem, too!
Tell me when someone solves it.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
Create a customer community for your own organization
Plans starting at $19/month
-
Inappropriate?Destry,
I think this relates to my suggestion in the Spitzer thread about creating guidelines for the HD admins to follow regarding how to settle markets, when to suspend markets, etc.
When you are running an exchange, the most important thing is to establish the rules that the exchange itself will follow. Hubdub has the added burden of establishing the rules which the exchange's participants must follow. The rules for the exchange are by far the most important; I believe the future success of Hubdub hinges on this.
None of the major financial exchanges would exist if investors did not believe in the impartiality of the exchange itself. Would you invest in a future position on pork bellies in an exchange where the price of your investment at that future date was arbitrarily set by the exchange?
IIRC, rules (for investors) were reluctantly introduced by Hubdub after a couple of early Spitzers (Ebays 8^). IMNSHO, rules for the exchange are _far_ more important to the fairness, and success, of Hubdub.
I’m trying to help Hubdub succeed ... but I have doubts
-
Inappropriate?Hi Destry,
As we saw in the Spitzer market, taking the stricter and longer settlement process for markets 7 times out of 10 leads to more confusion, anger and disruption. I could wait to settle the market in question until the actual debate begins, but I can also settle the market now. Doing this I give users their HB$ money quicker and allow them to have more fun. In the end the debate could not happen but if it doesn't, all I have to do is resettle.
Truth be told I have settled earlier markets on debates differently, but since I pulled a "Spitzer" the more common sense approach makes more sense. We have to remember that a resettle is always possible and will cause less of an argument in the long run.
Settling markets in the politics category is very different than say, settling markets in the Sport category. Politics is based on spoken word and intentions, and political double speak can wreck havoc on any politics market! This is more of a learning process in that we have to try one thing, see what response we get, and then move on from there.
Regards and hope this helps clear things up,
Ryan
Hubdub US Politics Content Editor
I’m confident
-
Inappropriate?So if you resettle a market what happens. Do those people who gained from the original settlement get money taken away from them, and then what about the profits they were able to produce with thier ill gotten (or premature) winnings. I am just asking for consistency, I made the argument with the Cleveland debate that it should be settled quickly so I could have my money to wager, and you stated clearly what I printed up above. Does this new "Spitzer" rule mean that none of the old rules are going to apply and that we are settling things in a whole new light? This philly debate is still 4 weeks away, and in politics that is an eternity.
So if Hillary drops out before election, you will resettle at that time, and I will then be returned my original investment plus my winnings, but in meantime I don't have opporturnity to do anything with those funds, not even cash out a position. If we are certain she is going to be in the debate, then why not settle the questions about her dropping out of the race, then resettle is she does. We could settle all the pledged delegate wagers, the news sources say regardless of the outcomes of the races Obama will go into convention with more pledged delegates. But no one is asking for that or expecting it, I just think we should wait for an event to occur before settling. Resettlement should be a LAST resort and not a catch all for pulling the trigger to early. When one wagers on a question that isn't expected to happen for more than a month, they are committing that money, so they weren't planning on using to have more "fun".
I’m frustrated and confused still
-
Inappropriate?Yep, you are right on this one. It was a mistake to settle this one now. We do have a 99.9% rule that we would settle a question if it was 99.9% certain. However as they say "a week in politics is a long time", this would be far off that. I'll speak to Ryan to see what we can do to re-open this question. Sorry about that.
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
