Remix clone Hacker News

new | show | ask | jobs Github

▲

pinkmuffinere 2 days 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 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Dart/Wong for America ‘28 - Give America Back Its Groove.

▲

kwar13 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Did 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 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Ah 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?