Anything this complicated is a non-starter. I do think its heart is in the right place, but needs to be kept simple.
It's all pretty great. Agreed that the additional versus are on point, but I didn't want to go on too long.
One weird implication is that if *enough* people do this and force the market back into line with 100% combined probability, you could then close out of your positions with no losses and only wins, and still make a profit. Quirky.
Basically you can deposit for free. You pay 5% to withdraw. Net winnings cost 10%. Capital lock up is max loss on a given market, bet limit is $850 liability on each contract regardless of what you have in other contracts. Market is always live. You always use limit orders, which you can cancel any time.
Rules for some contracts are kind of weird, so if it matters, read 'em.
I've edited this in the OP, mods are requested to re-input the post.
It would be really weird if they charged you 10% on your net winnings, and didn't tie up the capital to pay that fee, but that is what the written rules imply. If that was true and the issue never corrected, you would pay back most of the cash. 112% would still technically be a win (and you get a full win if the field comes in, of course) but it's quite the tiny profit.
The 5% is another issue if you plan to move things in and out frequently; I've been rolling wins. Rossry's right that you don't put money in to then sell 95s, win and withdraw it, but you can do lots of 95s in succession (and probably should from a pure maximizing perspective).
And I certainly haven't been doing full arbitrage, in general, so there's that.
All fits the basic hypothesis of 'things need to be extremely wrong before they are worth fixing.' I will edit to make sure people realize the fee issue properly.
I haven't seen a documentation on this but I know that it does this, and it seems to base this on the right thing to do - which is that it ties up capital equal to max possible loss.
Agreed, this. Similar to how I was willing to play the Paperclipper clicker game based on knowing it had an endpoint, it was terribly distracting for a few days and then it was a good memory to look back upon. Whereas a real clicker that doesn't end... shudder.
This game feels like it's going to be very life-toxic for its 30 days, *but* then it's fine, and it sounds like quite an experience. So it's something worth doing if you can spend 30 days like that. I don't think I can afford to check it out but sounds like it could be pretty cool.
I am deeply confused how someone who is taking decision theory seriously can accept Guaranteed Payoffs as correct. I'm even more confused how it can seem so obvious that anyone violating it has a fatal problem.
Under certainty, this is assuming CDT is correct, when CDT seems to have many problems other than certainty. We can use Vaniver's examples above, or use a reliable insurance agent to remove any uncertainty, or we also can use any number of classic problems without any uncertainty (or remove it), and see that such an agent loses - e.g. Parfit's Hitchhiker in the case where he has 100% accuracy.
Exactly. This seems to be a popular model of design, where mostly nothing beyond checking back in periodically will ever be the long term limiting factor if you are playing in any reasonable way. The game that inspired this post does not make this mistake, but it does a similar thing where it offers rewards to everyone over time that dwarf anything a player can otherwise accomplish in their first few weeks - you still have to play to utilize what they give you, but mostly you're stuck with their gifts until reasonably far in.