Friends
electroaffinity has not made any friends yetelectroaffinity
Net worth: H$7,181
Predictions made: 457
Member since Mon 28th Jan
Comments
electroaffinity left these comments.
This question is different from the question you speak of, this one concerns the politics of the situation not the actual shooting down of the object.
What amazes me is that people have actually bet yes on this question. I posted it to see what peoples reaction to the question might be, it is obvious that questions with skewed odds are rarely worth wasting your time with. Now if I had set the odds in the opposite direction melmel07 I might have been able to make some serious cash, but then the question would and should have been quickly voided.
These things go out all the time. An end date is needed for this to be valid. Otherwise this question must remain open until a cable is broken. So this question has only one outcome, yes! (Flagged)
Maybe, but who is to judge? The hype sure could have made someone think it was Obama's night. Besides this question has see sawed all night.
Thats what I want to here... : )
But on what grounds should it be voided?
My point is that questions need to be vetted in someway before they are posted.
But on what grounds should it be voided?
My point is that questions need to be vetted in someway before they are posted.
The US government and Hollywood have been "preparing" us for years with movies, novels and TV shows about aliens, abduction and other seemingly outlandish scenario's. Is this internet rumor true? Are the aliens about to make a presentation at the UN in New York City.
As to this question it is going to be a draw is it not? You have stopped the Hubdub team from participating in their own categories. So the question has passed the "yes" aspect since the Hubdub team cannot make predictions. But since it is structured in such a way that they can still make predictions in other categories this question should be voided and only the stakes put up should be returned.
Issuing a yes or no on this question is not possible so it should be voided.
Issuing a yes or no on this question is not possible so it should be voided.
Very good Nigel, I am very happy with progress we are seeing. I am glad I can be a part of this process. Thanks for listening to us. The "customer service" on this site is awesome.
Remember if this were a "real" gambling site it is unlikely that regulators would allow the
Hubdub team to "wager".
I am sure during the closed beta the team needed to participate because the number of players was limited. Once the beta test is over I cannot foresee how they can possibly continue. It is just not ethical...
Hubdub team to "wager".
I am sure during the closed beta the team needed to participate because the number of players was limited. Once the beta test is over I cannot foresee how they can possibly continue. It is just not ethical...
Well now my question sure has caused some controversy, you can easily see how misinformation can cause people to panic.
1.Nigel and the gang have always been upfront about the Hubdub Team participating in the Game. But as we can see even being upfront with everyone leaves some places in the dark.
2.This is a beta test.
3. I am finally able to place a prediction on my own question some 12 hours later, but at much lower odds, so we know the 12 hour rule is working and is very effective. I think this rule is helpful but needs tweaking, see comment #3 by me.
4. It is clear that The Hubdub team should not for ethical reason participate.
1.Nigel and the gang have always been upfront about the Hubdub Team participating in the Game. But as we can see even being upfront with everyone leaves some places in the dark.
2.This is a beta test.
3. I am finally able to place a prediction on my own question some 12 hours later, but at much lower odds, so we know the 12 hour rule is working and is very effective. I think this rule is helpful but needs tweaking, see comment #3 by me.
4. It is clear that The Hubdub team should not for ethical reason participate.
We are now at 60/40 and I still cannot place a bet...Remember it started at 5% for yes 95% for No...
I am really locked out from profiting on my own question so the new system is working. But if this was not a test on my part I would be very frustrated that I cannot place a bet.
Again I will suggest that there needs to be a way for good questions to be "profitable" to questioners, see comment #3 in this comment queue.
I am really locked out from profiting on my own question so the new system is working. But if this was not a test on my part I would be very frustrated that I cannot place a bet.
Again I will suggest that there needs to be a way for good questions to be "profitable" to questioners, see comment #3 in this comment queue.
ratel,
I like your idea of x number of people placing predictions and opening up the question to the author. There is still the problem of the odds being significantly changed before the questions author gets in on the action.
When I posed the question the percentage in favor was set by me at 5% now it has increased to 10%. I am being penalized for submitting the question. Maybe that is the price of posing a question, I hope more people will put in their 2 cents.
And remember to put in my $662.00 on this one as well. LOL
I like your idea of x number of people placing predictions and opening up the question to the author. There is still the problem of the odds being significantly changed before the questions author gets in on the action.
When I posed the question the percentage in favor was set by me at 5% now it has increased to 10%. I am being penalized for submitting the question. Maybe that is the price of posing a question, I hope more people will put in their 2 cents.
And remember to put in my $662.00 on this one as well. LOL
Now since I am not allowed to place a prediction on this question for 12 hours shouldn't I be allowed to make a provisional prediction of some kind? As more people predict yes, my chance for a big windfall diminish.
If you are going to allow people to make a prediction on their own questions (which I think is problematic to say the least) it really isn't fair that they cannot benefit to the maximum amount. If one is allowed to create a question, one presumes that they have some intention in trying to win as much as possible.
One solution would be to not allow predictions by the questions creator, but instead create an algorithm which rewards questioners for creating an exciting, dynamic question which "pays out" based on the amount of cash put into the prediction pool. Meaning if you create a question in which hundreds of thousands of dollars are wagered the questioner scores big time. If your question flops they get nothing.
Another solution is to have a "vetting" of the question by an impartial group, say the Hubdub Team (if they of course are not allowed to make predictions) during this vetting a question cannot be predicted on by any member. Therefore once "vetted" it cannot be removed. No flagging needed.
Another variation would be a 12 hour provisional period in which time a question can be flagged and removed. Allowing predictions during that time would keep the system lively, but if a problem were found only the amount staked would be returned to the predictors.
I am sure there are many other creative solutions out there, so lets here them.
In the mean while will someone bet $662.00 on this for me cause the odds keep changing. LOL
If you are going to allow people to make a prediction on their own questions (which I think is problematic to say the least) it really isn't fair that they cannot benefit to the maximum amount. If one is allowed to create a question, one presumes that they have some intention in trying to win as much as possible.
One solution would be to not allow predictions by the questions creator, but instead create an algorithm which rewards questioners for creating an exciting, dynamic question which "pays out" based on the amount of cash put into the prediction pool. Meaning if you create a question in which hundreds of thousands of dollars are wagered the questioner scores big time. If your question flops they get nothing.
Another solution is to have a "vetting" of the question by an impartial group, say the Hubdub Team (if they of course are not allowed to make predictions) during this vetting a question cannot be predicted on by any member. Therefore once "vetted" it cannot be removed. No flagging needed.
Another variation would be a 12 hour provisional period in which time a question can be flagged and removed. Allowing predictions during that time would keep the system lively, but if a problem were found only the amount staked would be returned to the predictors.
I am sure there are many other creative solutions out there, so lets here them.
In the mean while will someone bet $662.00 on this for me cause the odds keep changing. LOL
See the new rule below, but you are correct.
"This question is less than 12 hours old
As you created the question you cannot make a prediction on it until it is 12 hours old. This helps us to prevent users gaming the system."
"This question is less than 12 hours old
As you created the question you cannot make a prediction on it until it is 12 hours old. This helps us to prevent users gaming the system."
What does solved mean? Does it mean a body will appear? Does it mean someone will be convicted of the crime? Does it mean the police will present a solution to the case. To vague in my opinion. (Flagged)
Is this in degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit? Also where in the state do you measure. Needs to be more specific. (Flagged)
The problem here is area. The official city of Chicago snowfall total is recorded at O'Hare airport. What if Oak Park (Chicago's immediate western suburb) gets 5.5 inches by midnight tonight but Chicago O'Hare only records 4.5?
Featured means what? Front page, on the website? Maybe in David Pogues column. Of course I can mention Hubdub on a NYT forum or comments section, would that count? A better question might be "Will the New York Times publish an article article in print or online about Hubdub this week". I can find flaws with my question as well, but being as specific as possible is a key factor in making the site work successfully.
I agree the question cannot possibly have an outcome the President cannot submit a bill, therefore his package cannot be passed.
I hope its not because I am bitching at the team?