Get your own customer support community

Recent activity

Subscribe to this feed
  • idea

    RogerKni replied on September 08, 2008 09:50 to the idea "Allow Bettors to Consolidate Multiple Bets of Differing Amounts" in Hubdub:

    RogerKni
    Tom: I don't understand what the complications are. I'm only proposing that bets on identical outcomes be consolidated, not anything fancy. Therefore, it would be a no-brainer to compute the outcome: cash in the two bets (one after the other in either sequence), then take the proceeds and bet that amount on the same outcome. In effect the two bets would be consolidated into one, without the bettor having to make three transactions. The result would be less clutter on the bettor's My Predictions screen.
  • idea

    RogerKni replied on September 08, 2008 08:21 to the idea "Allow Margin-Betting on Long-Term Questions" in Hubdub:

    RogerKni
    I agree the devil is in the details. The way to avoid complicating things for beginners is to start them off with the current system, with no margin choices available. As I wrote:

    "I suggest that users be given the option to opt out of the margin system entirely, as it will be sure to confuse or unsettle many participants initially."

    Later, they could opt in--but if they did, the margin levels would be chosen for them automatically, and margin-call fulfillment would also be handled automatically (by default, unless over-ridden). This would keep complexity to a minimum.

    But there'd have to be several pages of documentation, including three or four fully explained examples, to satisfy the curiosity of users. This would be able to handle most puzzlement, if well done.
  • idea

    RogerKni replied on September 08, 2008 04:39 to the idea "Allow Bettors to Consolidate Multiple Bets of Differing Amounts" in Hubdub:

    RogerKni
    IM: I agree that it would be a good companion to my "consolidation" suggestion to allow partial cashing-in of bets, as that would also reduce the clutter of multiple bets on the same outcome. Indeed, I suggested just that, parenthetically, a day before this proposal, in my "Allow Margin-Betting on Long-Term Questions," where I wrote:

    "percentage-bet-reduction would be a desirable feature on its own, instead of forcing the bettor to cash in a bet in its entirety and then reenter the bet at a smaller amount, which is a bit annoying and inconvenient."

    But I disagree that this additional feature would be a prerequisite to the consolidation feature I've proposed here. My betting pattern, and that of others, I'm sure, is to tiptoe in to a bet in small amounts, gradually committing to it. If I then eventually have six or eight small bets on an outcome, I have more than enough separate bets in place to allow me to tiptoe out of my commitment--three or four would be adequate for that. So it would be worthwhile to be able to consolidate those six or eight down to three or four, even in the absence of a partial cash-in feature.
  • idea

    RogerKni replied on September 08, 2008 01:48 to the idea "Allow Bettors to Consolidate Multiple Bets of Differing Amounts" in Hubdub:

    RogerKni
    Oh, sure, but the solution is MTE (Merely a Technical Exercise), as people facetiously say in computerdom. The Hubdub software would calculate what the two bets being consolidated would pay out if they were successively cashed in, then take that amount and place a new bet at current odds. It shouldn't be complex--it would just bundle together three current steps (cash in, cash in, re-invest) in one convenient, click-click operation.
  • idea

    RogerKni shared an idea in Hubdub on September 07, 2008 19:51:

    RogerKni
    Allow Bettors to Consolidate Multiple Bets of Differing Amounts
    I have 15 bets down on the question, Will the Dow close below 10,000 this year? Half of them are 3rd quarter, the other half are 4th quarter. There are so many they waste space on the screen. I have the same situation with many other bets that I've nibbled my way into over time. I'd like to be able to highlight several of them, then right-click on "consolidate these bets". (Or click a check box on each bet that says "Consolidate?" After two such check boxes had been clicked, those two bets would be consolidated. Then the user could add additional bets to the consolidated pile in the same fashion, if he desired.) I think this would be a popular feature with heavy players here.
  • idea

    RogerKni replied on September 07, 2008 19:30 to the idea "Allow Margin-Betting on Long-Term Questions" in Hubdub:

    RogerKni
    Thanks. Here are a couple of afterthoughts: First, margin calls could also be set up (by default, which could be overridden by the user) to take their cash from user-profits on the bet needing additional margin. That would be the most "painless" (low-impact) way of handling the situation.

    Second, the attractiveness of allowing margin on long-term bets isn't just that it ties up less capital, but that it has the effect of exaggerating price moves. For instance, a 10% price move on a bet at 50% margin would yield a user-profit of 20%. Because the odds on long-term bets typically fluctuate in such a boringly sedate fashion, this would greatly increase their attractiveness.
  • idea

    RogerKni shared an idea in Hubdub on September 07, 2008 12:18:

    RogerKni
    Allow Margin-Betting on Long-Term Questions
    In a comment on one of the questions, Markov wrote:
    "I now only rarely wager on long term questions. I can make 10 good short term wagers with the same $ it takes to make 1 good long term wager and earn 10 times as much. IMHO the only time to do long term wagers is when you have too much $ to wager efficiently elsewhere (not my problem yet, unfortunately) or when you are highly confident you can get in and out real quick before the market stagnates."

    In order to level the playing field, I suggest that bets on long-term questions be automatically placed on margin, with longer-term questions being more highly margined. Here's an illustration of the % of the bettor's cash that he would put up for questions of the following suspension dates:

    Over 4 weeks: 70%
    Over 6 weeks: 60%
    Over 9 weeks: 50%
    Over 12 weeks: 40%
    Over 24 weeks: 30%
    Over 36 weeks: 20%
    Over 1 year: 15%
    Over 2 years: 10%
    Over 3 years: 5%

    Margin calls would be applied automatically as questions moved, over time, into a higher-margin category, with the required amount being deducted from the player's cash reserve or, if that was insufficient, from deductions from his other bets, starting with the least margined.

    There would be somewhere, perhaps atop the Predictions list, a running total of Margin Due Down-the-Road, perhaps shown as a bar-chart, to indicate the dates and amounts due at each point down the road.

    The bettor would be alerted one week before any margin call with a "pinned-to-the-top" notice of his Predictions and Dashboard screen--and maybe others too. He could, by clicking on that notice, have the margin call satisfied immediately. That would allow him to specify if he'd like the margined bet itself to be reduced to satisfy the call, or which set of bets he'd like to reduce to supply margin-cash, in case he didn't want them all reduced by an equal percentage. He'd do this either by highlighting them, or by manually cashing in some percentage of each bet in advance of clicking the "collect margin" button.

    (This percentage-bet-reduction would be a desirable feature on its own, instead of forcing the bettor to cash in a bet in its entirety and then reenter the bet at a smaller amount, which is a bit annoying and inconvenient.)

    If participants can't meet a margin call, their margined bet would be cashed out at that point--or reduced to a size their resources can support.

    In rare cases it might happen that a bettor would go into the red. (For instance, if a large, highly margined long term bet or bets happened to be settled against the bettor long before its suspension date.) But, since this is a game, I guess the bettor could be allowed to continue to play even with a negative balance. Alternatively, long-term bets could be divided into two categories: those subject to being suddenly settled if some event occurs, and those that must run until their termination date. The amount bet on items in the former category could be limited, in order to prevent bettors from suddenly going into the red.

    Or some other formula could be employed to analyze the riskiness of a bettor's bets in relation to his reserves, to prevent him from allowing his entire account from getting too highly margined, all things considered. This is a complex subject that I'll leave to people who are getting paid to strain their brains about such matters.

    Since only play money is involved, there should be no great wariness about the prospect of a few bettors getting overextended. The much greater risk is the unattractiveness of the whole Hubdub enterprise if long-term bets can't be margined, since they merely tie up capital and make the game no fun.

    I suggest that users be given the option to opt out of the margin system entirely, as it will be sure to confuse or unsettle many participants initially. However, if they opt to join, I suggest that it work automatically (according to a list of time-spans and percentages similar to the one I provided above), for the sake of simplicity and consistency.
  • idea

    RogerKni shared an idea in Hubdub on September 07, 2008 10:43:

    RogerKni
    Hubdub's gray "favicon" is too inconspicuous
    When I click on my list of 20+ active tabs (in Firefox) and scan the list for Hubdub, it's always too well camouflaged to find, because its gray "h" blends in with the gray text and the gray lines of the table-gridwork. I suggest you use a standout color for it, like orange.
  • question

    RogerKni replied on September 05, 2008 10:13 to the question "No more DJIA, the moron's approach to climbing the leaderboard" in Hubdub:

    RogerKni
    I like what Markov said: "co-mingling this [day-trading] with the vast majority of other question scenarios on Hubdub seems to be like mixing oil and water" and "...have a separate Hubdub for it that does not registers earning towards the primary Hubdub site."

    I think "separation" is the only way to please both factions: the ordinary, lightly involved majority, and the heavily involved in-game day-traders. However, there should not be a separate Hubdub site, but only a separate assets "counter" for day-trading winnings, and a separate leaderboard for winnings on one-day stock market predictions.

    This separate leaderboard could also accommodate in-game betting on sporting events, which I suspect would be very popular.