Loading Profile...
EMPLOYEE
Proposed product fix: Claw-back of winnings on void
As most you have noticed on of the biggest opportunities for gaming the system is created by the fact that if a question is voided then any winnings on a cashed out prediction are retained. I'll not explain how this allows for gaming as I am sure you are already aware. The reason we did this is we didn't want to push users accounts in negative territory.
However, it is increasingly clear that resolving this would be a very quick way to reduce gaming and would also mean we could relax restrictions like the 12 hour rule. So the proposal is that on a void all parties have their stakes returned and any winnings are clawed back. If the user has re-invested their winnings then their cash balance goes negative. As they cash out/win on other predictions the cash balance will return to positive. However they will not be able to make any predictions while cash is in negative territory.
Thoughts?
However, it is increasingly clear that resolving this would be a very quick way to reduce gaming and would also mean we could relax restrictions like the 12 hour rule. So the proposal is that on a void all parties have their stakes returned and any winnings are clawed back. If the user has re-invested their winnings then their cash balance goes negative. As they cash out/win on other predictions the cash balance will return to positive. However they will not be able to make any predictions while cash is in negative territory.
Thoughts?
6
people like this idea
I like this idea!
Tell me when this idea gets some attention.
The more people who like this idea, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who like this idea, the more it gets noticed.
Create a customer community for your own organization
Plans starting at $19/month
-
Inappropriate?Great Idea!
You might want to display some kind of alert on the question page that explains to players whose earnings are in the red why it has occurred. Or a link to an explanation page. This should reducing complaint emails.
-
Inappropriate?One scenario is going all out on a question, losing, then having funds reclaimed from void of a previous win, sending the balance way negative. There would be no cash for predictions, and no predictions to cash in. That would mean logging in every day for a while to get the H$20 before more predictions were possible, something many people wouldn't bother doing if they were significantly in the red.
Please give us your own thoughts on the original idea first, then a response to this scenario if you have one.
Thanks,
Tom
I’m concerned
-
Inappropriate?Oh, come on. Do you seriously expect some on to catapult to the top of the leaderboard by winnings on voided questions? I don't think so.
Anyway, the power user system coming into effect will stop bad questions from being bet on, so the winnings on voided questions will be minimal. In my opinion - taking away gains on voided questions is a bad idea.
Tom- Your thoughts are absolutely right. Carrying out this scheme would alienate a lot of people from the site.
I’m amazed
1 person thinks
this is one of the best points
-
Inappropriate?I cannot think of an easy solution. Again I would suggest not having questions go live immediately, they need to be vetted first. I do realize how problematic vetting will become when there are tens of thousands of players.
How would you and the lawyers handle the scenario if this were a real gambling site, with real risk? The player would presumably owe Hubdub the negative amount. This would have to be clearly covered in your TOS.
Although I think players would be inclined to litigate if they lost a huge amount of money in this manner. Especially if you void the question after it has closed out.
Realistically you are treading on dangerous ground voiding a question after it goes live. If I put $20,000 in question and cash out with a $40,000 dollar profit before the question closes and then you void it I think It is safe to think that I would expect to keep my winnings. Not a problem if its play money, but it would be a serious one if it was cash coming out of the house.
I think if you void a question after it closes the house would have to "eat it" on a real gambling site. The same goes for people who cash out before the question closes, the house loses. Quite possibly the person in charge of 'vetting" questions in that category would be fired and or have their legs broken by the mob bosses.
Do the booking houses in Vegas ever Void a "question"? Their clients would quickly find a new bookie if the bets were constantly being voided.
I can think of more scenarios where voiding a question will bite you in the ass.
Voiding questions after predictions have been made should be avoided at all costs. But of course theres the rub!
Hey but this is just for fun right.
I’m glad I am not in charge!
-
Inappropriate?i for one have more cashed out questions than settled ones because i find ones that have a low percentage chance IMO, then wait for the percentage to increase and cash out...i think the best way to handle it would be the power user system i read about in the blog. this would get rid of almost all the vague questions or unfair starting percentages...on questions that are settled one way, then reversed later, i think those winnings should be taken away tho. -
Inappropriate?As this was my proposal ( or at least I was one of severals ) I'm all for the elemination of this backdoor money-spinner.
Surely not all on the leaderbord abuse the game this way, but it is possible and happens all the time, You just need to take closer look on the raising and droping activity on several gamey questions.
There are several ways how to prevent negative results right away. Pick up the idea with the necessary PowerUser's OK before releasing new questions.
Or put a little info bar to each question which signs the level of set flags. When many claim a question and its odds as doubtful, it would be a clear warning to everyone that the question is about to be being voided. Options might be to automatically prevent cash ins on very high alert levels, or to offer the gamers the option that they just receive their bet money back.
2 people think
this is one of the best points
-
Inappropriate?"Or put a little info bar to each question which signs the level of set flags. When many claim a question and its odds as doubtful, it would be a clear warning to everyone that the question is about to be being voided. Options might be to automatically prevent cash ins on very high alert levels, or to offer the gamers the option that they just receive their bet money back."
Excellent! Power to the people for coming up with good ideas.
I’m happy
1 person thinks
this is one of the best points
-
Inappropriate?Couldn't you at your end somehow limit the damage when it goes negative? Like maybe -100$, so that it's not impossible to get back in if you log in each day for a week (that or even just give them equivalent to their negative balance so they end up at zero). If that seems unfair, why not have an insurance scheme. Everyone over say $2000 pays $20 or even $40 a day into a fund, which then covers such losses. You could even have the insurance cost go up with the number of times you claim from the fund.
-
Inappropriate?I don't entirely agree with this scheme. Which is to say that there are circumstances in which it's not really fair. Now, if we're assuming that the power user idea is in operation first, then hopefully the situations I'm envisioning will be rare. There's 4 situations where voiding happens (or more).
1. Silly, offensive, "illegal" (against HD rules), totally ambiguous questions. In this case, the predictor should know in advance that the question may be voided, and the scheme Nigel suggests is fair.
2. Obviously bad initial likelihoods. At first glance, this might fit in with category 1, but there is a serious argument to be made that a prediction market quickly corrects this situation, Should people who find these questions not bet on them? Elsewhere someone suggested that we should flag them but still be allowed to bet on them, which I too believe.
3. Questions that, in the course of events, become ambiguous to settle, but which started off as good questions. (see below)
4. Questions which are voided for technical reasons.
In cases 3 and 4, I don't know if clawing back cash-ins is fair at all. The cash-in was executed with the same intention as a question that won't end up being voided.
Also I would argue that the result of voiding (in cases 3 & 4) should not be a roll-back to the wagered amount, but rather a payout at the current price. People had no expectation that the question would be voided, wagered in good faith, and if the market is at 95% - 5%, and the question is being halted on a technicality, could argue a patent unfairness in reversing the wisdom of the market in determining the void pay-out.
So I think there are two types of void, and they should be handled differently. Perhaps even be named differently. (Voided and cancelled, something like that.)
I’m anxious
1 person thinks
this is one of the best points
-
Inappropriate?That's a great idea. It both signals to the editor that this question requires their attention, and warns users encountering the question. Perfect.
I’m impressed
-
Inappropriate?The scheme I "don't entirely agree with" is the original concept brought up by Nigel, not the scheme for flagging questions and displaying the flagging level by Golwar and electroaffinity, which I like very much. Just wanted to make that clear.
1 person thinks
this is one of the best points
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
