BostonGraf's dashboard

ahh yeah didnt see this question was from a while ago

This feature wasn't there 3 months ago – InfernalMachine, on June 01, 2008 18:44

you can do this though

if you go to the leaderboard
click all users
and then click net worth
then click 'go to me (page ....)'
that will have everyone around your net worth

CLARIFICATION:

"For example, users with a total net worth of between $20K and $40K would compete only with each other while they are in that particular grouping."

By this I did not mean to suggest only from a reporting standpoint, as that does not solve the market problem. My intention was that they have a separate market that includes only them. The same questions could be used for everyone, it's just that the wagers would be be confined into bands. If there were five bands there would be five markets for each question and users would only be able to wager on their market level.

kruijs: Thanks for the enlightening links! I read most of the comments at the links and it looks like the solutions will not solve the problem. Re-valuing high achievers' money doesn't seem fair to them (I'm not one of them). Changing the leaderboard reporting format has been a good idea to reduce people getting discouraged and increase competition. Unfortunately, though, it does not address the market impact problem caused by too much money from just a few users skewing the markets. That creates problems for those both with and without a lot of money. Putting limits on wagers going into a particular market hurts the high achievers' ability to invest and thus their growth potential. Not limiting it screws up the markets. Although I have no great answer to the problem two less than perfect thoughts come to mind as having potential to alleviate the problem:

1) Facilitate a massive influx of new users (how, I do not know) to dilute the high achievers' wealth to overall market ratio. This will not change their actual dollar value and will trend toward making the Hubdub market more analogous to actual financial markets.

2) Separate the users into "question bands" based on their net worth. This is similar to, but different, than a previous suggestion. For example, users with a total net worth of between $20K and $40K would compete only with each other while they are in that particular grouping. When their net worth changes they are moved up or down a level. This would confine people to betting with people of similar net worth and would go a long way toward unskewing the markets. I could see this being a nightmare to facilitate on the server side but the Hubdub techs have been holding up pretty good so far so maybe it might be a good challenge for them.

mork, Markov:
Hubdub has addressed this topic earlier:
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...

What it was all about? Getting the $H out of the system again.
I had proposed to give away some bling-bling to users who give away money in return. http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...

Awesome post infernalmachine! Your description of the problems users face when they hit a certain dollar amount is right on the head.

As to the solution I cannot say. However, the problem as you stated it is very real and likely negatively impacts the site. I am not referring to some people having massive wealth but rather that, due to the problems you described, people will find it more and more difficult to maintain an interest in their Hubdub activities. I have already found myself following the exact progression you indicated and it is getting old. Maybe there are too many questions diluting the money. Maybe too many people have too much money "trapped" in dead markets with overly lengthy or non-existent settlement dates. Maybe there aren't enough new members joining and the majority of members have just plain gotten too savvy. Many questions, despite high activity levels, probably only have a few people wagering on them with large dollar amounts. Others have too little money and a "small" bet from a moderately wealthy user totally corrupts the market. The bottom line is this: There is a problem and it would behoove us all to find a way to fix it. Thanks for the good post!

I have an idea...
One way to alleviate the gap of the wealthy and the poor would be to have a bank that the poor could borrow from and have the bank financed by the wealthy.

An incentive to invest in the bank could be a 'badge' or 'rank' associated with the user.

The qualification of a loan should not be an easy matter. One way to qualify for a loan could be the condition of creating a question. The amount of the loan qualification could be directly proportional to the popularity of the question. A waiting period of one or two days could determine what the value of the approved loan would be.

The badge or rank should be subtle. As new users become more familiar with the site they will recognize the elite.

I think the leaders in wealth not only reflect wise market decisions but also the loyalty of the hubdub pioneers. (something worthy of a badge?)

I am a little disturbed by the cheeziness of my idea but I think the degree of the existing wealth amongst us may discourage new users.

Although if current US monetary policy was followed this would be certain to wreck financial markets and increase HubInflation. Thanks, Beranake!

i definitely think its an interesting idea
its certainly worth consideration

im not sure it would be fair to some bc people with a ton of money could then make money a lot faster than people with very little

also the interest rate would have to be pretty minimal so people dont just put all of their money in and stop betting altogether

I don't like the idea of there being a huge gap between suspend times and settlement times. I think for questions in which there is no definite settlement date, there shouldn't be a suspend date. Suspending a market locks up that market and thereby takes away the ability to be a market website. Basically you are just guessing about the outcome, that isn't what this site is. If it was we would have 1000 credits and bet 1 credit on the outcome, not buying and selling a market. I don't think having a bunch of questions predicted correctly is a measuring stick of anything. I will wager on 100 questions and close out the position on 95 of them at a profit, the other 5 I will either let settle if I can't get out at a profit and believe the outcome will be in my favor, or cash out and take a loss, rarely will I let a question settle. On some questions in which I do allow to settle are questions in which I have wagered lets say 10,000 dollars at 92%, I am earning 8% on the outcome, but if I cash even it market was at 99%, moving that much money out would put me out at 95%, so only make 3%. I will then let those wagers go to settlement. There are also times I will let a small wager go to settlment, if I have 100 bucks on question and I got in at less than 10%, then I will let it settle cause I might win big and lose just a little.
The problem I have with suspend times being far out, is that you have closed the market. Money is locked up and the market can no longer function and that goes against the foundation of this site. If a question creator wants to create a question with a suspend date far out from the settlement date, more power to them, I won't wager on them, and doubt many other would. Why would I want to wager on a presidential market that wont settle til November, if my money is locked up in June. If a person doesn't have the ability to follow a market closely, then don't wager on it. There are some days I have meetings when dow is closing (I try to schedule meetings around my hubdubbing) and I don't play the markets on those days. I would like the suspend time to be easier to see on the question page. As a hubdubber I read the settlement details before every question but I am sure alot of others don't have that habit.
As far as duplicate questions I would say that in the presidential example if someone wants to create a question about the race and suspend it in June then we shouldn't allow any other questions about the race until that market settles. If someone creates a market that has no suspend date, and someone else want to create a question with early suspend date, then the starting odds of that question should be whatever the other question are at the time of creation. I can guarantee you that the question with later suspend date will get more action. Why would anyone want to wager on the other question? Those that want to see how well they do, still can but also have ability to get out if market is good and can cash out early if they choose.

Hello lovely users

I've read through all your responses here and have had a few emails about this too. Conclusions are as follows:

7 users believe we should leave it up to the question creator
4 users want suspend and settle to be as close to each other as possible
3 users want a capped period

So in the interests of democracy, we'll go with the 7. This does however throw up a few problems that we need to iron out.

The following are suggested revisions to the rules and our working practices. Let me know if you have a problem with any of them, or if there's something we've missed:

- Suspend dates in question creation will be made compulsory.
- Where a specific settlement date is NOT given in a question, if the suspend date has been reached and the question is still unsettleable, but it may become settleable in the future (e.g. a court case) then the Category Editor will extend the suspend date
- Where there is an obvious mistake in a suspend date, Category Editors will amend the suspend date, e.g. when a suspend date is after the settlement date refered to in the question.
- In all other cases, Category Editors will not amend the suspend dates.

This leaves us with one problem. What constitutes a duplicate question? If a question has been created with a significant suspended period, there is a distinct possibility that a user will create a duplicate question with a suspend date nearer the settlement date (as in Ryan's presidential election example above). So when do we void for being a duplicate? The suspend dates could be different by 1 day, 1 week or several months, but the questions are the same. Where do we draw the line? If we disallow them all, then the option for different types of play is restricted. If we allow them all, things will be very messy.

Any thoughts?

Thanks, Leslie, for creating this topic.

In short, I agree completely with the three posts from An Average American, and the post from Boston Graf, in this topic thread.

For emphasis, I'll repost all of them in their entirety, in this post:

;-)

I do hope you will re-read them, however.

As you know, I have been frustrated by the ongoing arbitrary way Suspension Dates have been applied by Category Editors. My most recent (and perhaps most telling) comment on that is in this comment thread: <http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_D...>

Hopefully, resolution of this issue will also result in consistency by the Category Editors.

Hello everyone
I realise that there's been no final decision made on this issue. There's a heck of a lot of information here, so I'm going to go through it with a fine tooth comb over the weekend and come back to you on Monday.
Thanks for all your input.
Lesley.

I am satisfied. I am proud. I am fine with low voter numbers because those well-known and IDENTIFIABLE Dubbers are a great sample of the best we are. Stef and Nigel, don't worry about any minor aftershocks for I bet they could only come from bit-player boat -rockers anyway!! Can we please move on, enjoy this site and each other's company and ideas, and let go of this miniscule glitch in a great, new way for having fun with the news?! Thank you!!

I agree Steph. Unfortunately it is exactly what I anticipated and the reason I accepted humiliating myself campaigning. Thankfully the perpetrator did not try and find a handful of people with similar disregard for hubdub to rock the vote.

In the future I hope hubdub admin can make decisions more promptly.

The Spitzer Question is another example of something that got way out of hand because of the reluctance to make a decision. I suspect if the Spitzer Q went to a vote it would have had another majority vote result supporting one option, and it wouldn't have been the outcome that actually did resulted with that Question. – mork, on April 10, 2008 17:39

Congrats to all! I'm satisfied with this, but I am disappointed that only 13 of us voted! I'm afraid of folks questioning the worth of this decision because of the low "voter turnout".

I _can_ tell you were teasing, and I can take it as well as I can dish it out 8^) \ I was not surprised by the result of the vote, and I say let the majority rule! – anaverageamerican, on April 10, 2008 03:09

After the ridicule he has recieved I suspect he would have left anyhow. I couldn't bear look at that creepy profile pic anylonger. Closing his account sends a strong statement that cheating will not be tolerated on hubdub. Simply watch cricket questions if you want to see if he is still participating since I think it is the only thing he knows anything about. – mork, on April 09, 2008 15:28

I think in the interest of full disclosure that you identify your hubdub screen name, newscollector.