What? I pointed to a betting market aggregator website as evidence against the claim that there are only three major Democratic candidates.
As a measure of how ridiculous the current median value is (87%), consider that the probability assigned to SpaceX landing people on Mars prior to 2030 is higher than the probability assigned to a Mars landing prior to mid-2069 by SpaceX, NASA, or any other private firm or government agency!
Would you mind phrasing your comments in a less opinionated way? Imagine how much less pleasant Metaculus would be if everyone expressed their personal opinions on questions involving issues that they care strongly about.
FWIW, I am strongly in favor of this proposition. I just would like Metaculus to remain focused on forecasting.
@Anthony I interpreted the question as asking about the party that would control the Senate, and my performance in this tournament will be adversely affected by a negative resolution (to be concrete, I predicted 75%). However, the question text specified the resolution criteria very clearly, and if you look at the comments below, many predictors were interpreting the question based on this text. While I agree that the title was confusing, people (such as myself) could have avoided this confusion by reading the text carefully.
@Jgalt We should create a question along the lines of "Will the cause of the mysterious bumps in so many recent questions be known by 2021?"
@nostream All the prediction markets give Trump much higher chances than the models do. I don't think the discrepancy can so easily be dismissed as resulting from manipulation, unless there's concrete evidence in favor of that hypothesis. Do you know of any such evidence?
I personally give Trump ~35% chances of winning the election, and in line with that belief I have made several bets for Biden totalling $7,000.
Sadly, Maria Giuseppa Robucci is dead. Kane Tanaka and Lucile Randon are the only two left.
(This also provides a good example of how the current scoring system fails to reward users who put a lot of effort into a few questions, relative to users (like me) who put little effort into lots of questions.)
@Jgalt End of an era.
@kale I wouldn't read too much into it. The volume is extremely low (because the market is new), so the behavior of just a couple of traders might explain the discrepancy. I moved the probability of 'No' from 38% to 58% by buying $450 worth of 'No' shares.
— edited by PabloStafforini