The whole point of these markets is to prevent the kind of arbitrage you’re trying to figure out. You’re supposed to have skin in the game. That’s what makes them accurate.
You can’t arbitrage a single wrong opinion; you need two external differing opinions to start looking at arbitrage opportunities.
The whole point of these markets is to prevent the kind of arbitrage you’re trying to figure out. You’re supposed to have skin in the game. That’s what makes them accurate.
He just thinks that people are buying contracts at the wrong price and is frustrated because the particular setup of the InTrade market is such that a large collateral is required to bet against this particular kind of stupidity. He is trying to have an appropriate amount of skin in the game and not trying to arbitrage against InTrade.
It doesn’t strike me as very sporting to edit a post to make it sound like I didn’t address your point.
My reply to what used to be here was one of clear agreement with you and I marked the edit explicitly.
For the record, the edit was a remove “No, taw is trying to figure out a different kind of arbitrage”. A more correct statement would perhaps be “No, taw is trying to figure out a different kind of thing than what you are talking about and which isn’t really arbitrage at all”. But that is a distraction from the gist of your post, which I disagree with for the reason stated.
I will, of course, take more care to acknowledge contributions by name when I add edit notes. I erred too far on the side of brevity here.
From what I can tell, I’m being downvoted because taw doesn’t know what arbitrage means. This is happening on a site called “Less Wrong.” The Internet is a fantastic place.
From what I can tell, I’m being downvoted because taw doesn’t know what arbitrage means. This is happening on a site called “Less Wrong.” The Internet is a fantastic place.
No, you were downvoted for talking about what “[taw is] trying to figure out” and being wrong about it.
You can’t arbitrage a single wrong opinion; you need two external differing opinions to start looking at arbitrage opportunities.
If this was your post then I (for one) would have voted you up.
The Internet is a fantastic place.
(Now I am downvoting you Making a False Claim While Under the Influence of Petulance.)
The whole point of these markets is to prevent the kind of arbitrage you’re trying to figure out. You’re supposed to have skin in the game. That’s what makes them accurate.
You can’t arbitrage a single wrong opinion; you need two external differing opinions to start looking at arbitrage opportunities.
He just thinks that people are buying contracts at the wrong price and is frustrated because the particular setup of the InTrade market is such that a large collateral is required to bet against this particular kind of stupidity. He is trying to have an appropriate amount of skin in the game and not trying to arbitrage against InTrade.
(Edited)
It doesn’t strike me as very sporting to edit a post to make it sound like I didn’t address your point.
It is probably not the best title. Intrade do not try to discourage the kind of thing taw is talking about.
My reply to what used to be here was one of clear agreement with you and I marked the edit explicitly.
For the record, the edit was a remove “No, taw is trying to figure out a different kind of arbitrage”. A more correct statement would perhaps be “No, taw is trying to figure out a different kind of thing than what you are talking about and which isn’t really arbitrage at all”. But that is a distraction from the gist of your post, which I disagree with for the reason stated.
I will, of course, take more care to acknowledge contributions by name when I add edit notes. I erred too far on the side of brevity here.
From what I can tell, I’m being downvoted because taw doesn’t know what arbitrage means. This is happening on a site called “Less Wrong.” The Internet is a fantastic place.
No, you were downvoted for talking about what “[taw is] trying to figure out” and being wrong about it.
If this was your post then I (for one) would have voted you up.
(Now I am downvoting you Making a False Claim While Under the Influence of Petulance.)