Resolves to YES if, after the 45th Canadian federal election, the Liberal Party forms the next government.
Sep 11, 9:48am: This resolves to YES in the case of a minority Liberal government. Specifically, it resolves to YES if the prime minister and cabinet are Liberals, and NO if none of the prime minister and cabinet are Liberals.
1,000
3.00To be clear, a coalition government led by the Liberals would resolve N/A? (Say, one NDP cabinet member in exchange for NDP support.)
@UnspecifiedPerson N/A if a cabinet member was NDP (I regret defining it in this confusing way now, but going to stick with it). Resolves to Yes for a normal minority government.
@gwylim I would argue it should resolve NO in that case since it still wouldn't be the Liberals forming the government, but that simply isn't going to happen so I don't really care
@Tetra Enlightened Chad all of a sudden. Do you have any reason to believe it's an exact 20% chance? You seem fixated on arbitraging these markets when you have nothing to back up your esoteric beliefs
The whole point of the arbitrage is that there's no belief necessary, only profit.
I guess if I were to try to generate a solid estimate I'd try to find historic polling data for the middle of terms, to see how closely they tend to relate to the end results years later.
I might do that later to generate a numerical belief, once the proverbial free mana button stops working.
@PeterNjeim PS: It's 20% because if the gap gets too slim I'd have to sink hundreds in to get anything, and that's no good
@Tetra I understand arbitraging is for the purpose of profit, but it skews the market to do a weighted average between this market and the other one, which isn't necessarily a better prediction since the bettors in this market are (imo) less intelligent than the ones in mine. I explained this in my market's comment section where the fake money actually makes the market less accurate because I have no incentive to waste real money on fake money, and so I don't have enough fake money to make my market hit the percentage I believe is true. Thanks for admitting you aren't betting on your beliefs though. I tried my best to prevent arbitrage betting by hiding comments but some individuals are persistent in their anti-predictive practices
@PeterNjeim Everything you just said is highly illogical. Arbitrage is profitable because it improves accuracy of the markets. It sucks that you don't have enough mana to bet as hard as you want to, but the problem isn't arbitrage. The problem is you are a new user and thus mana-poor. I know how that feels, I'm in the same boat, almost my entire net worth is loans from other users I will soon have to pay back
@PeterNjeim I think you should try to remember that if if the conservatives are guarantied to win, and everyone else thinks they aren't, that's good for you! There's no reason to get upset, you can just keep sinking mana into it. The lower the chance listed on the market, the bigger your profit when the election is held!
@Tumbles Adding superlatives doesn't make you correct. Arbitraging actually doesn't guarantee higher market accuracy, especially if dumb money is what you're arbitraging with (this market). Guaranteed profitability doesn't guarantee increased predictive accuracy
I don't care about the mana, that's fake money. I want to make a highly predictive market, and people are ruining it by exploiting non-predictive aspects of the markets (mana-poverty among new users who are highly predictive) and using dumb money (this market) as information to bet in another market
@PeterNjeim "Adding superlatives doesn't make you correct" you're one to talk lol
Guarantied profitability by definition is increased predictive accuracy. You just don't like that other people's predictions aren't in line with yours.
It's true that the conservatives would win if an election was held today, but the fact is the election isn't going to be held today. The simple fact is many people seem to disagree with you about the percentage chance, and many of those people have a track record of predicting things correctly that you don't have yet. So naturally they have more say, in the form of having more mana to bet.
You can say it's "dumb money", but until you have a track record of being right about things you will have to live with it. I would suggest you ask somebody for a loan so you can bet more, but with peace and love I think people would hesitate to trust somebody with a loan when they make comments like yours.
@Tumbles Somehow I missed this comment. Not sure what you mean by "you're one to talk". Where did I use a superlative as a placeholder for a sorely needed argument?
No, guaranteed profitability is not definitionally increased predictiveness. What kind of evidenceless statement is that? That's your third today.
I do have a track record of predicting things correctly. You probably mean predicting things on Manifold specifically. Naturally they have more say, correct, not because they are better predictors, but because they've used this platform longer than I have.
Your comments are largely substanceless, kinda boring talking to you, all peace and love of course
@PeterNjeim I'm not really sure what you have against arbitrage, but you aren't going to get away from it on Manifold. When a trading strategy has a guaranteed profit, people are going to apply that strategy.
@gwylim of course, doesn't change how it made my market less predictive though, which is my main criticism
@JoshuaWilkes Now all of a sudden you're an Enlightened Chad. Why bet differently here? Are you arbitrage betting instead of giving your honest speculation? That's lame
26% seems so undervalued this far away from the election, especially given all the ways an incumbent party can cling onto power past their popularity.
@Joshua Being over exposed doesn't mean my bets are irrational. That would only be in the case where I'm trying to minimize risk.