Loading Profile...
Should there be a mechanism for joining duplicat markets?
I think there should be a mechanism implemented for joining duplicat markets without voiding them. Particularly if in both markets already significant bets have been placed.
A pretty good example (which made me personally feel rather unhappy) is the recent voiding of several "Who will be the next President of the United States?"-markets. What I found especially annoying was the fact that older markets were voided in favor of a newer one (correct me if I am wrong).
So my suggestion for similar situations in the futur is to join the markets, i.e. people who already staked in one market keep their share and the new market values are calculated as the weighted avarages of the individual markets. Shouldn't be challenging in terms of the maths involved.
Ferdi
A pretty good example (which made me personally feel rather unhappy) is the recent voiding of several "Who will be the next President of the United States?"-markets. What I found especially annoying was the fact that older markets were voided in favor of a newer one (correct me if I am wrong).
So my suggestion for similar situations in the futur is to join the markets, i.e. people who already staked in one market keep their share and the new market values are calculated as the weighted avarages of the individual markets. Shouldn't be challenging in terms of the maths involved.
Ferdi
2
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?Hi Ferdi, thanks for this suggestion. Duplicate questions are certainly a problem, and we apologize to any user who has lost predictions due to a question being voided because it's a duplicate. The onus is currently on the question creator to first search for duplicates before creating a question, but we recognize this could be easier to do. We are currently planning to put in a middle step to question creation that will highlight duplicates that we hope will reduce this problem significantly.
I’m confident
-
Inappropriate?Hi Tom,
you are of course right that the creator of a question should check before and avoid the creation of a duplicat in the first place. However, this obliously doesn't always happen, so it might be useful to establish a mechanism to resolve the cases where duplicate markets are created and live long enough (say more than a few hours) to create significant "investment".
I am aware that joining markets might not be trivial, since prices in different markets might differ. One out of several options would be to virtually cash in everyone in the market to be dissolved and then buy them in in the new market at the same time. -
Inappropriate?Yes.. Because the user has no way of telling which of the duplicated markets is the "real" one. They are playing in good faith. I still think there should be a distinction drawn between markets voided for being rubbishy and ones voided for a technicality as Ferdinand describes. In the latter case, it seems unfair to penalize the bettors on the popular choice.
-
Inappropriate?Hey both, cheers for these thoughts, just a couple of points:
(1) you're right, it would be too difficult to join questions, and we wouldn't want to buy in on people's behalf because they might not be happy with the price at which it happens.
(2) what we're striving for is just one main question and no duplicates in the first place. There will be a number of developments appearing shortly to address this, including: a) duplicate highlighting on question creation, and b) links to related questions on the question page (so if a predictor sees the same question with much more activity elsewhere they can go and predict there in good faith instead).
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
