2 ms·
Am I misunderstanding? I think that’s trivially not true. Consider: Joe Dart elected president Y/N Cory Wong elected president Y/N A no bet on Joe Dart is no
by pinkmuffinere 6mo ago
Am I misunderstanding? I think that’s trivially not true. Consider:
Joe Dart elected president Y/N
Cory Wong elected president Y/N
A no bet on Joe Dart is not a yes bet on Cory Wong.
- rgmerk 6mo agoDart/Wong for America ‘28 - Give America Back Its Groove.
- kwar13 6mo agoDid you read the link? A NO bet on Joe Dart is a YES bet on Cory Wong + Others. It is trivial. Saying NO to a candidate means you're saying YES to ALL other candidates with varying probabilities that would sum to the neg risk of that NO bet.
- pinkmuffinere 6mo agoAh I see, I missed the + Others part in my initial reading, i see it gives the same payout. The shared link just asserts the same thing you’ve asserted with additional technical language that I don’t understand, so reading it didn’t help me much. Perhaps this is pedantic, but this equivalence is ignoring fees, spread, and slippage, right?