anaverageamerican's dashboard

anaverageamerican started a conversation in Hubdub on March 21, 2008 02:13:

Hubdub Quarterly Reset Issues

I'm displeased with the lack of a definitive outcome on the official Hubdub quarterly reset topic. So I am opening this thread as an unofficial means for the community to try and reach a consensus about how quarterly reset should work.

anaverageamerican replied on March 21, 2008 01:42 to the discussion "Leaderboard end-of-quarter changes" in Hubdub:

4d,

After reading this entire thread twice I'm convinced that the Hubdub refactoring plan will completely distort all of the markets, or at least all of them that have any sizeable activity. I thought my proposal was a good alternative, but Destry raised some concerns that seem legitimate.

I urge all Hubdubbers to voice their opinions in this forum, I'm confident that collectively the community can arrive at the optimal process for quarterly resettling.

Am I reaching you guys (gender neutral)? Maybe I should start a new thread for user discussion of the quarterly resettlement.

anaverageamerican replied on March 21, 2008 01:31 to the discussion "Leaderboard end-of-quarter changes" in Hubdub:

InfernalMachine,

You've stated my reservations about the re-factoring of the markets very concisely. That is exactly the issue that led me to propose a different (but also flawed, see Destry's concerns above) quarterly restart.

I'm certain that the Hubdub refactoring scheme is rife with problems, there are legitimate concerns about my proposal (hey, I predicted that, I should get some H$ for that prediction 8^) as well.

Come on community, we're a smart bunch of Hubdub addicts, we should be able to figure this out (as long as we don't over interpet the problem). If I knew what the possible answers were I'd create a question on Hubdub about it.

anaverageamerican replied on March 21, 2008 01:16 to the discussion "Leaderboard end-of-quarter changes" in Hubdub:

I've had a new thought on this topic, but I'm not totally satisfied withit. Hubdub has had a policy of rewarding, and not penalizing, users when settlements have been incorrect, etc. Perhaps the initial quarterly cash-in of all open questions could provide profits to those ahead on investments, and restitution of original investments to those in the red.

I don't think this is a great solution to Destry's legitimate concerns, but it might mitigate the negative effects of my original proposal.

anaverageamerican replied on March 21, 2008 00:57 to the discussion "Leaderboard end-of-quarter changes" in Hubdub:

Destry,

I appreciate your point of view, and part of the reason I made my proposal was your concern about punishing the successful to the benefit of the less-successful. I'm thinking maybe my proposal has it's own set of problems and I'm totally open to alternatives, so here's a well structured Hubdub question for you. "Assuming Hubdub insists on some form of quarterly redistribution of wealth, what is your ideal form?"

I intend no disrespect, I took a shot at what _I_ thought might work, but as you point out, it has it's own flaws (I didn't don the flame-retardant suit for nothing 8^)

anaverageamerican replied on March 21, 2008 00:38 to the discussion "Leaderboard end-of-quarter changes" in Hubdub:

I couldn't agree with you more. If Hubdub is _really_ about predicting the news, long-term positions are very important. The quarterly re-factoring would make these investments moot ... at least until the quarter in which they settle.

anaverageamerican replied on March 21, 2008 00:35 to the discussion "Leaderboard end-of-quarter changes" in Hubdub:

4d,

I'm interested in the future of Hubdub, as I know you are, since despite your "temper tantrum", you came back. I don't have the time (or maybe the brains) to invest in Hubdub to reach the top of the leader board, but I'm enjoying playing the role of "make-believe" venture capitalist here on the GetSatisfaction forums.

In my opinion there is a balance to be attained between attracting new users and maintaining community involvement. Since many at the very top of the leader board are finding their wealth to be a hindrance, and those at the bottom find their relative lack of wealth to be a hindrance, I'm going against my political principles in advocating a redistribution of wealth, or at least a leveling of the playing field.

The main difference between Hubdub's proposal and mine are that Hubdub wants to refactor markets based on participating users' net worth (or quarterly gain, that has never been clear to me) and I'd prefer that all the markets settle open positions at their current value. If all the markets are completely settled the odds revert to their initial position, all users have some amount of H$ available, either tiered based on their performance the previous quarter, or not.

Lastly, each user's quarterly gain should be added to their previous total should be added to their all-time leader board net worth based on their worth after allthe markets are settled and before the addition of the next quarters' cash position.

anaverageamerican replied on March 20, 2008 23:21 to the discussion "Leaderboard end-of-quarter changes" in Hubdub:

I have one other important concern about this whole quarterly reset, particularly this time, since it is the first. The Hubdub admins _must_ make a decision _prior_ to the end of the quarter. I'm not trying to take shots at anyone, I just think it is important that a definite policy is communicated to the Hubdub community that permits enough time for each user to determine how best to take action to preserve their Hubwealth (C 2008 AnAverageAmerican).

4d posted that he cashed out of positions that will close in Q2. I'm considering the same thing. I have significant potential profits in long-term predictions, in which I invested, because I _thought_ Hubdub was all about predicting the news. If those positions are going to be re-factored, I might want to bail on those in which I have a profit. OTOH, I suppose I could look forward to my potential losses being reduced.

anaverageamerican replied on March 20, 2008 23:03 to the discussion "Leaderboard end-of-quarter changes" in Hubdub:

I didn't propose that you would be able to use funds earned in previous quarters. In my opinion the proportional rescaling of the markets is going to wreak havoc, and as jersjusttrolling pointed out it will make long-term predictions pointless.

My proposal is that the markets are cashed out and restored to their original odds. I imagine that an incredible trading frenzy would ensue ... and the next day the top of the leader board would probably include crudsy, rohan, infernalmachine, satyaki, jersjusttrolling, destry and maybe 4d.

anaverageamerican replied on March 20, 2008 22:39 to the discussion "Leaderboard end-of-quarter changes" in Hubdub:

Tom,

Sorry I'm coming into the discussion late, and not just giving your proposal a rating on a 10-pt scale, but you posted the question before the US workday began and at least some of us Hubdubbers have demanding careers that prevent them from checking Hubdub and GetSatisfaction too much during the day (thanks for the shout 4d).

I'd like to suggest an alternative way of leveling the playing field at the end of each quarter. I'm fairly certain that my proposal will be just as contentious as yours, but I think it levels the field far better. Why not cash out all the markets, add everyone's quarter-end total net worth to their All-Time Leader Board total, and then set new H$ cash positions for each user either tiered or not?

That way all the markets return to their initial odds, and everyone gets to start over at the same time, possibly still with differing amounts of H$.

As to my opinion on the Hubdub proposal, I'd say 3-4. It wouldn't have too much impact on me, particularly if it is based on quarterly gain rather than net worth, but I agree with Destry that it punishes those at the top of the leaderboard, and rewards those at the bottom, too much.

Okay everyone, how do you like the AverageAmerican proposal on a scale of 1-10.

AnAverageAmerican (donning flame-retardant suit 8^)

anaverageamerican replied on March 20, 2008 22:09 to the discussion "Leaderboard end-of-quarter changes" in Hubdub:

Plus your daily H$20

anaverageamerican replied on March 18, 2008 22:34 to the idea "How to fix HubDub." in Hubdub:

I would definitely not want all questions to have to start at 50/50. That would take the bizarre news off the site. I like the questions like "Will the gnome terrorizing Argentina be discovered?" and the like. But I wouldn't want it to have started at 50/50 odds.

anaverageamerican replied on March 17, 2008 23:24 to the problem "i'll be leaving the site....happy gambling" in Hubdub:

Good comments Destry! I think in order for HD to reach the next level they need to become serious about the rules that the exchange operates under, and to cede question approval rights to proven members of the community. I find that I flag more questions than I invest in, and spend more time on GetSatisfaction than I do on Hubdub (that's why I'm only 46th in Net Worth ... Yeah, yeah .., that's the reason 8^)

anaverageamerican replied on March 17, 2008 23:19 to the problem "i'll be leaving the site....happy gambling" in Hubdub:

Good moves. I particularly like that #1 is "Suspend the question". That's what the major financial markets do, not that it always works perfectly. IIRC, a few years someone called the NASDAQ claiming to be the CFO of Sybase, and asked them to suspend trading in their stock pending a press release. NASDAQ suspended trading in Sybase, but the whole thing turned out to be a fraud, sometimes USD are at stake and not just H$.

anaverageamerican replied on March 17, 2008 23:13 to the problem "i'll be leaving the site....happy gambling" in Hubdub:

Crudsy,

You _had_ to bring up the Ebay auction! It seemed like a good idea when I created it, and on top of the controversy it caused I lost H$ on it. I nominate the Spitzer questions as the new face of poorly constructed Hubdub questions 8^)

anaverageamerican replied on March 17, 2008 23:09 to the problem "i'll be leaving the site....happy gambling" in Hubdub:

Nigel,

It's my feeling, really more of developer's intuition, that there are other members of your nascent community who feel the same way pics4d does (did). I'm completely serious about the rules for the exchange have to come before the rules for those using the exchange. Have you followed the demise of Bear Stearns? They were the hot commodity through the late '90's early 2000's. BSC didn't default on anything, they were highly leveraged and just getting by, when rumors arose about their ability to pay interest on CDOs. Those unsubstantiated rumors led to the downfall of an 85 year old investment bank. They were just bought out by JPMorgan/Chase for around $2 a share when they had traded at about $100 a share 7-8 months ago.

Trust is everything in investments, and markets, and I think trust in Hubdub is a little low at this point. I find myself spending more of my limited time here than on Hubdub.

anaverageamerican replied on March 14, 2008 23:36 to the discussion "More users" in Hubdub:

How many of your friends have become Hubdubbers? I'm not a marketing wizard, but I think the basic idea of sites like Hubdub is to get some traction and go viral through grass-roots expansion.

I'm not the most sociable of people but I have enlisted 8 Hubdub users since signing up in late January.

anaverageamerican replied on March 14, 2008 23:28 to the problem "Consistency in settlement" in Hubdub:

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.

anaverageamerican replied on March 14, 2008 13:02 to the problem "Spitzer Market Issues" in Hubdub:

I agree with InfernalMachine and Orlin, except I'd say we don't have to search for the common sense meaning. it should be obvious! It's when we _do_ search for the hidden meaning of a question that a Spitzer occurs.

anaverageamerican replied on March 13, 2008 22:40 to the problem "Spitzer Market Issues" in Hubdub:

If your account is showing predictions you did not make, or in opposition to those that you _did_ make, I would recommend opening a new thread as a bug report. That might elicit more of a response from Hubdub than a comment buried in this thread.