Loading Profile...
Recent activity
Subscribe to this feed
InfernalMachine replied on February 21, 2008 02:38 to the idea "Display Category on Question Page" in Hubdub:
How about loading the page with the settlement details tab open rather than the news links. Presumably it's faster to send and load, and the information is then more easily read (and more likely to be read) which might save some grief regarding settlement.-
InfernalMachine marked one of Golwar's replies in Hubdub as useful. Golwar replied to the idea "Sports Questions - Prefixes, Dates etc".
-
InfernalMachine replied on February 21, 2008 02:21 to the idea "Suggest "My Predictions" Be Listed Showing "Latest" First" in Hubdub:
It's not just the sorting and place in page that's a problem though. As the number of items in any of the 4 folders (open/void/settled/cashed in) increases, so do the load times. I'd like to just get the names of the questions, and then by clicking on the name, or an icon beside it, be able to expand or later hide the individual wagers and the various details. Arguably you might have some details of the question at the top level (or maybe just an indication of change in current value (same/up/down) since the last time you looked). The archiving will help with old questions, but the open question list becomes too big and too slow after about 100 open wagers. -
InfernalMachine started following the idea "Suggest "My Predictions" Be Listed Showing "Latest" First" in Hubdub.
-
InfernalMachine started following the idea "Display Original "Likelihood Percentages" on Question Page" in Hubdub.
-
InfernalMachine replied on February 21, 2008 02:08 to the idea "Display Original "Likelihood Percentages" on Question Page" in Hubdub:
If the likelihoods aren't all equal, I'd also like to know why. This could have its own text box, or be required in the background text box. It should be easy to read/find. Then we can quickly flag bad odds. If the question is a good one otherwise, the odds could be reset by an editor (I guess you'd have to void all previous bets, but maybe not the question itself), and if not, then void (and perhaps a note taken by the admins to catch people whose likelihoods are always off). -
InfernalMachine replied on February 20, 2008 01:20 to the problem "Settlement resolution: washington temp" in Hubdub:
I think these temperature questions need to be exactly specified. No slang terms like "break". Specific reporting source (either by hubdub or by questioner). And always some indication of how to resolve a tie. -
InfernalMachine started following the problem "Settlement resolution: washington temp" in Hubdub.
-
InfernalMachine replied on February 20, 2008 00:51 to the problem "Settlement resolution: washington temp" in Hubdub:
Break also means "break into" - ie enter into. Then 50.0 is sufficient to have "broken" the 50 degree mark. I don't think "break" = "beat/surpass".
Arguably, this is indeterminable because temperature on the NOAA site is given as 50.0 which could be anywhere from 49.95 to 50.05. So we don't really know if it reached or passed 50 or not. -
InfernalMachine replied on February 19, 2008 18:47 to the problem "Seeking repeal for the 50% penalty." in Hubdub:
Any chance to have a "follow this topic" button, separate from the "I have this problem" one? -
InfernalMachine started following the problem "Seeking repeal for the 50% penalty." in Hubdub.
-
InfernalMachine replied on February 19, 2008 12:17 to the problem "Seeking repeal for the 50% penalty." in Hubdub:
I don't have this problem. I'd appreciate it if you would be more careful with your insinuations.
I won an amount of money on a question on which I bet very heavily. Later someone who lost on that question convinced an editor to retroactively void the question. This is something I have disputed. Anyway, the money I made is included in my net worth but not in the quarterly gain, just as it would be for anyone else in my situation.
I just realized that because I clicked the button up top in order to follow this topic, it announces that I have this problem too. I don't. -
InfernalMachine started following the problem "Seeking repeal for the 50% penalty." in Hubdub.
-
InfernalMachine replied on February 18, 2008 02:00 to the problem "Individual stock questions" in Hubdub:
It's just an example. But people who follow the market would find Yahoo trading higher than 30 or 32 dollars news, while it would not be general news.
"The daily stock development isn't really that interesting or relevant." To you. You're entitled to your opinion. But so is everyone else. -
InfernalMachine replied on February 18, 2008 01:48 to the idea "Nationalities" in Hubdub:
Although I have been in Canada 99% of my life, I was actually born in that part of London that Arsenal draws its fans from. It's not a choice - it's a birthright. Some money was lost, but it's the pain I'm suffering. :-{ -
InfernalMachine replied on February 17, 2008 23:11 to the idea "Comments Feature" in Hubdub:
On a similar note, I think that, although the News feature is central to the hubdub concept, its current implementation ends up being a bit superfluous. I know I hardly follow any of the links, and to be honest hardly look at that tab.
Maybe you could add a Digg-like feature on the Home Page, where you can see news items that are linked to by the most questions, and even linked to by the questions with the most money wagered in total. -
InfernalMachine replied on February 17, 2008 23:03 to the problem "Individual stock questions" in Hubdub:
I think individual stock questions should be allowed, if they are newsworthy, and they suspend a couple of hours before the market closes (or even when the market opens). Yahoo prices, for example, are tied to a current news issue, namely the possible Microsoft take-over. I think the in-running rules should be strict, but the general business question rules (not in-play) could be a little more lenient. -
InfernalMachine replied on February 17, 2008 22:58 to the problem "Individual stock questions" in Hubdub:
No problem here, using Firefox. So the page is there. -
InfernalMachine replied on February 17, 2008 22:54 to the problem "What is the "value" of a prediction?" in Hubdub:
I'm asking for 3 things.
1. Soften the penalty on cash-in for large wagers.
2. (This is new) Allow cash-ins of portion of a wager, sort of like the betting page. You could take out 1-10 tenths of your wager, each tenth at a increased "loss" or penalty.
3. Calculate a wager's worth at the market rate times the (100%) "if you win" payout, display this alongside the cash-in amount, and use it as the value for calculating the Predictions total, and thus the current Net Worth, quarterly gain, etc. -
InfernalMachine reported a problem in Hubdub on February 17, 2008 22:27:
What is the "value" of a prediction?Net worth is calculated as the sum of cash on hand and the Prediction "worth". Cash is cash, so this is all about the latter. As far as I can tell, the Prediction value is the sum of the open questions wagers' cash-in value.
But what is the cash-in value of a wager? Is it the "actual" value of that wager? In one sense, yes. If you have exactly one wager per question, the actual value can be interpreted as how much you'd get if you cashed in. (The idea being that a wager has no intrinsic value other than the money you can get for it NOW.) However once you have more than 1 wager on a given question, that interpretation has problems, because cashing-in the first wager will change the odds, and thus the value of your other wagers on that question. So the practical "a wager is worth what you get for it if you cash it in"approach is not as simple as it seems.
The other way to value a wager, which I feel more accurately reflects both common-sense and the predictive utility of the market, is to multiply the current percent for that wager's prediction choice by the amount that wager gets if it's correct at settlement time.
Why does this matter? Well, for people making wagers at or less say $200 it hardly does. But since people can and will be making wagers at up to $10,000, it makes a huge difference. The cash-in value of a wager is calculated relative to how the market will look AFTER the wager is cashed in. A small wager is a drop in the bucket (unless it was bought at very low odds and is now at 99%). But a larger wager stands a good chance of being a significant portion of the total money wagered on the question. This wager will affect the odds dramatically both when it's made (it sends them up - relative to the chosen answer), and when it's removed through cash-in (it brings them down). So, for a large wager, its cash-in value will be calculated at a significantly lower rate than a smaller wager.
I'm not sure I think this is entirely a good idea. From what I understand, the buy-in mechanism softens the blow on what percent a wager goes in at (somewhere between the going rate and the rate to come as a result of the wager), but the cash-in value takes the full percentage drop. I realize you can argue that that's the penalty you take for cashing in. I think the penalty is excessive on large wagers, but I can basically accept the reasoning.
But basing the Prediction portion of the Net Worth on the cash-in values sum means that these penalties are accrued serially, such that someone who only bets $10,000 per question will be noticeably lower in current net worth than someone who bets identically but instead wagers $100 a hundred times per question, even if they start out with the same amount of money.
I believe that a wager's value should be separate from its cash-in value, based on the market rate. This would make clear that cashing-in costs big-time, and that huge wagers on questions are not a smart strategy. But it would make the net worth much more reflective of the net worth before a series of large wagers, and to some extent of the likely net worth of those wagers after settlement.
jersjusttrolling has lost a huge amount of apparent net worth because of this mechanism, and if their predictions weren't crazy, they will jump up shockingly later (leading to potential unfair suspicions of dishonourable conduct, when it's all the result of, to my mind, an unfortunate mechanism for calculating net worth).
| next » « previous |
