The Royal Bank Of HubDub
This idea started in another forum topic as a slightly whimsical possible solution to the increasingly intimidating wealth of the top 20 to a newcomer to the game. The idea was essentially that rich players could park some of their money such that it would remain in their total worth but be removed from their betting use and quarterly gain. It would mix things up a little.
But while contemplating a situation that came up in play today, I realized it is a much more useful idea than I had realized. Here's why.
There are more and more people with net worth over H$20,000, and presumably many more to come. What happens when you get around that level is that you discover that the strategies you used to get to 20K won't get you to 40K or beyond. (NB The numbers are relative to the total wealth in play - double the number of players and the 20K would be, say, 30K)
So what do you do? Well, you can bet 10K on long shots, just because you can. But there's not enough cash in most markets to make 10K betting worth much. The bet you thought you were making at 10:1 odds ends up being at something like 5:4 for such a large wager, and where's the fun in that.
So you find that you bet less after a while on each market, and so you try more and more markets at the same time. But you can't keep up with 500 markets at the same time, certainly not with the rudimentary portfolio organization tools available.
So next you keep most of your money out of the market(s), where it has 0% return, and only wager a fraction. But you're used to a, say, 20% daily growth rate that got you into the top 20 in the first place, and you've got hungry competitors ahead and behind you, so if you wager half your wealth, you want 40% return to make up for the half that's just sitting.
Well, finally you accept your growth rate may decline, but you still want growth, so you figure out what to do. You start betting large amounts on "safe" questions with one portion of your cash (and continue your robber baron ways with the rest). You're 90% sure X will happen, and the market's currently 75% sure of the same thing, and so you plug as much cash as it takes to make the market agree with you. Well, the world agrees with you, and soon 90% becomes 99% confidence. Great, you think. I'm not greedy ;) -- I'll cash-in at 99%. But cash-in is calculated at what the market will be at *after* you take out your wager, and you've been betting in 2-5 thousand dollar chunks. And now cash-in holds no value to you, so you let your money sit until settlement.
And so that market then sits at 99% for one choice, but the most likely choice, so that other players are wasting their time betting with you (1% return or less) and throwing their money away betting against you. So the market stops. But there's no duplicate questions, so that topic is effectively dead unless real-world conditions shock the market back into action.
I did this with/to several markets today, and felt like a shit afterwards. Without meaning to, I had effectively stopped play on questions I have no doubt other players wanted in on. All I wanted was a safe investment with a low rate of return on the growing amount of my wealth that I can't use aggressively in the normal HubDub way. What I want is a bank to keep some of my money in at low or no risk, with a low rate of interest.
Or perhaps a HubDub bond which I lock up for a period of time at a rate of return proportional to the time I keep it in there.
How would such a scheme work? Well I like the bond idea, so I'll explain that. I buy a 2 week or 1 month or 3 month, etc bond with some of my cash at a rate of interest due on cash-in date. The bank takes that money, and loans it out at interest to players who've flamed out, or just want to play with more moolah.
My excess cash is no longer doing nothing in my "wallet", is no longer clogging up the game's markets, and is in fact back in play in someone else's hands. My net worth grows, but my in-play cash is reduced, opening up the leaderboard (until the next time I conquer it ;-| ) I'll leave to others the issues of rates of return and defaulting on loans and bankruptcy.
What do you think?
But while contemplating a situation that came up in play today, I realized it is a much more useful idea than I had realized. Here's why.
There are more and more people with net worth over H$20,000, and presumably many more to come. What happens when you get around that level is that you discover that the strategies you used to get to 20K won't get you to 40K or beyond. (NB The numbers are relative to the total wealth in play - double the number of players and the 20K would be, say, 30K)
So what do you do? Well, you can bet 10K on long shots, just because you can. But there's not enough cash in most markets to make 10K betting worth much. The bet you thought you were making at 10:1 odds ends up being at something like 5:4 for such a large wager, and where's the fun in that.
So you find that you bet less after a while on each market, and so you try more and more markets at the same time. But you can't keep up with 500 markets at the same time, certainly not with the rudimentary portfolio organization tools available.
So next you keep most of your money out of the market(s), where it has 0% return, and only wager a fraction. But you're used to a, say, 20% daily growth rate that got you into the top 20 in the first place, and you've got hungry competitors ahead and behind you, so if you wager half your wealth, you want 40% return to make up for the half that's just sitting.
Well, finally you accept your growth rate may decline, but you still want growth, so you figure out what to do. You start betting large amounts on "safe" questions with one portion of your cash (and continue your robber baron ways with the rest). You're 90% sure X will happen, and the market's currently 75% sure of the same thing, and so you plug as much cash as it takes to make the market agree with you. Well, the world agrees with you, and soon 90% becomes 99% confidence. Great, you think. I'm not greedy ;) -- I'll cash-in at 99%. But cash-in is calculated at what the market will be at *after* you take out your wager, and you've been betting in 2-5 thousand dollar chunks. And now cash-in holds no value to you, so you let your money sit until settlement.
And so that market then sits at 99% for one choice, but the most likely choice, so that other players are wasting their time betting with you (1% return or less) and throwing their money away betting against you. So the market stops. But there's no duplicate questions, so that topic is effectively dead unless real-world conditions shock the market back into action.
I did this with/to several markets today, and felt like a shit afterwards. Without meaning to, I had effectively stopped play on questions I have no doubt other players wanted in on. All I wanted was a safe investment with a low rate of return on the growing amount of my wealth that I can't use aggressively in the normal HubDub way. What I want is a bank to keep some of my money in at low or no risk, with a low rate of interest.
Or perhaps a HubDub bond which I lock up for a period of time at a rate of return proportional to the time I keep it in there.
How would such a scheme work? Well I like the bond idea, so I'll explain that. I buy a 2 week or 1 month or 3 month, etc bond with some of my cash at a rate of interest due on cash-in date. The bank takes that money, and loans it out at interest to players who've flamed out, or just want to play with more moolah.
My excess cash is no longer doing nothing in my "wallet", is no longer clogging up the game's markets, and is in fact back in play in someone else's hands. My net worth grows, but my in-play cash is reduced, opening up the leaderboard (until the next time I conquer it ;-| ) I'll leave to others the issues of rates of return and defaulting on loans and bankruptcy.
What do you think?
4
people like this idea
I like this idea!
Tell me when this idea gets some attention.
The more people who like this idea, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who like this idea, the more it gets noticed.
Create a customer community for your own organization
Plans starting at $19/month
-
Inappropriate?Just some few minutes ago I mailed Nigel a suggestion to add an interest rate on long termed questions, to make those more juicy for the potential "investors".
But besides that I don't really see a point in your idea. If you loan your money away it will just grow with the same speed that all the others also receive there - and that will usually be significantly slower than any actions on the market.
So the result with the bank should be pretty much the same as without the bank. If you don't actively use your money you fall behind in growth rate, you don't want that to happen so you ignore the bank as long as there is any acceptable question left.
It sounds like a better and secure investment over the holidays and an additional investment for those who have more money than they can spend. Rather than that I would support a monthly reset and a hall of fame for previous winners, would solve all the problems.
Or more radical - ban the cash in button. Ban open life questions like those on the indexes. Ban hubdub questions. Just make it all more about news and polls and less about gambling. -
Inappropriate?I don't think a bank would be such a good idea. It would make HD too complicated and distract from the original objective of predicting news. Furthermore lending out the money wouldn't work, as there are no securities attached to the loans.
My suggestion would be to rather have a sort of "devaluation" or "tax", i.e. the amount of money held in cash decreases by a certain percentage every day, say 1%. That would reduce the attractiveness of holding cash for long periods of time.
Alternatively or additionally, there could be a "Tobin tax" to the transactions of say .1 to 1% on each transaction. That would slightly slow down rapidly moving in and out of markets.
Last not least, I think the "problem" that betting becomes unattractive for people with huge sums reflect quite accurately a real world problem. A giant player can strongly influence a market which is not very large. So what? If Warren Buffett were to invest all of his money in a single stock, it would move like crazy as well and he probably wouldn't make any profit.
The situation should resolve on its own as more and more people join HD. Another aspect would be to limit the number of markets by some (well thought out) mechanism, this would increase the activity and the volume of the markets. -
Inappropriate?Perhaps my post made too big a deal about a bank. It's just a suggestion. The important issue is in paragraphs 7,8,9 of my original post. Markets will become stuck on 99% when people make "safe" bets with large amounts. Not just at the last minute, but long before the suspend time or even date. It's the result of a technical math thing. Basically cashing out becomes too costly on large wagers near 100%, so the money just sits there.
Yes, with a lot more users, the problem will go away for a while, but it will eventually return, unless people with large amounts of cash have an easier way to make a little profit on the bulk of their cash. -
Inappropriate?Infernal, you are such a market killer! hehe!
I viewed this topic thinking that you were going to give up the goods on how you made it to H$150K so fast! How'd you do it?
I’m dissapointed! But, I'm hoping you'll fill me in!
-
Inappropriate?I made 50K today. It was largely on a fair question that I created (though tricky, but I explained the rules exhaustively) on the US stock markets. Because of the way the markets ran, the most likely answer remained the same most of the day, and I started betting on it with larger and larger bets. Someone with lots of money to throw away kept betting against the obvious heavily. I even posted comments to remind and warn whomever how the question was to be calculated, and that they were throwing their money away, but they kept on doing it and I kept countering, until the question was settled. I'd wagered 50-60K (I had $78 dollars in cash at one point, and I cashed-in on other bets to get more capital.) Who had 30K or more to bet on 1 question, and seemed to lose that amount late this afternoon, I can't say. ;-)
So today was all about playing poker with a royal flush.
Normally I make my money on political events like Super Tuesday, the in-game betting on the Superbowl (but I also had a good feeling about the Giants and Eli Manning), and daily trading on the Dow and such. The trick here is you don't bet on the answer, you play the wild shifts in the HD markets, buying low and selling high or holding on for settlement. It's a bit like betting on a series of duplicate questions, each beginning and ending at a specific piece of the day, only the stock market tells you when to buy and when to sell. It doesn't always work, and I'm still learning how to do it for really great payouts.
And thanks again to whoever helped me make a 50% gain today!
I’m thankful
-
Inappropriate?Hey InfernalMachine, I wish _I_ had your problems 8^)
But seriously, I do to a certain extent. Even though my assets are only around 10% of yours I'm struggling to stay 50% invested. The problem (not really problem I guess but situation) is there are so many folks with lots of H$ looking for high margins, that the market corrects really fast. Then you factor in some of the points in your post about looking for safe, low-margin, predictions and swamping markets and it becomes really difficult to find any predictions that seem worth investing in.
While this might be an issue for us personally as we accumulate, and try not to loose, H$, it is entirely in keeping with the intent of Hubdub to be a news predictor ... essentially a futures market for questions about the news.
I'd like the site to have some stats about how well Hubdub, as a community, predicts the news (I'll cross post this suggestion to the "How can Hubdub improve" thread.
I’m still having fun, but making H$ is more work
-
Inappropriate?Everyone loves to listen to a rich guy whining, I know.
-
Inappropriate?Are you referring to the DOW questions with the long math problems? (Twice the NASDAQ plus twice the S&P divided by half the DOW multiplied by a third of the DAX divided by 5 times the delegates....)
Wow, I was wondering how those were going. Especially when I was losing so much on the DOW questions today.
Ditto on watching the HD markets vs IRL. And ditto on dumping tons of H$ on an obvious answer. Seems like I had someone betting against me too today on a question that I dumped tons of cash into.
And, who was it that was counter-bidding you? I'm just curious... = )
I’m realizing that my measly H$60K is just a drop in the bucket...
-
Inappropriate?My son and I had almost the exact same thing happen last night, and he was the big winner. We were in the "Will the temperature in Washington, DC Fall Below 0 degrees Celsius?" question, on the "No" side, and it was getting close, but the odds were around 65-35 Yes/No. Suddenly, No fell to around 1%, my son took a H$300 position and settled out at around H$8,000. I made more modest gains, but it was a fun evening of Hubdubbing.
I’m having fun hubdubbing!
-
Inappropriate?I don't know who. I'm assuming it was one person. But it made no sense, Maybe it was HAL? But it was a fair amount of cash, because the odds would just jump back down from 85% on the sane answer to 60%, even with 30K just from me. I mean they were betting 5-10K at least 5 times, and I kept countering.
The question wasn't the one you mentioned (boy did I get grief on that one - it stands as the current worst-question-ever, even though it's actually well-thought out and even researched, the two numbers are incredibly close). It was the other one about adding the percent changes of the Dow and S&P and comparing that to the NASDAQ's. I only started writing these questions to perhaps spice up a dull afternoon (I mean the other market questions get a little monotonous). -
Inappropriate?I'm glad you wrote this topic. I was blown away when I saw the top leader have 200k. That's crazy... someone was at the top with 100k like yesterday and now...??? I dunno how that happend sooo fast.. makes me wonder how. I've been stuck at 6k for a while, but i'm really happy. I don't understand all that shift in the market... buying low selling high stuff InfernalMachine is talking about. I know what he means just I don't practice all that. I just want to think about can I get this answer right and such. I only know I don't bother betting on even sure things when I can only win like 5-10%. It seems pointless. So I do look for long shots. I dunno. I'm just glad we are bringing up the issue of these rich leaders. It would intimidate me as a new comer. I'm just PROUD to be in the top 100 usually. LETS just have fun guys!
1 person thinks
this is one of the best points
-
Inappropriate?No, I'm not complaining about you being a "rich guy whining". It's just my warped sense of humor. I actually hold you in very high regard for your constructive participation in this forum, your willingness to reveal your secret strategies (as evidenced in your post below), and your realization that the tactics you are being forced to employ, as a "rich guy", might be to the detriment of the HD community at large.
No animosity was intended in my post InfernalMachine, of the folks on the leader board you seem to have the most input, and most thoughtful input, in this forum.
Props to you!
I’m all about building the community
-
Inappropriate?What about me??? ;)
-
Inappropriate?to a.a.a. : I was just observing the absurdity of my own posts, seen from a certain angle. No offence was taken, no animosity was suspected. I should have used the smiley text for "I'm joking.". Thanks for the nice words though. It really is a very nice forum, we're all civil, friendly even. To tell the truth. I'm as or more excited about new topics and posts here than I am about new questions in the game.
I’m happy
-
Inappropriate?InfernalMachine,
I was thinking that I've only created one question in Hubdub, "Will the Rules Proposed by Nigel at GetSatisfaction.com Be Approved?", (and I asked Nigel to void it straight away). I was just trying to promote the fact that there _were_ rules for Hubdub being proposed that the community could influence. It seemed unfair that the only Hubdubbers opining on the rules were those participating here.
OTOH, I've asked lots of questions on this forum, plus I've made comments and responded to the posts of other users. So agree that I'm more excited by these topics and posts about Hubdub than I am in "winning" at Hubdub. But I'm also worried that the reason for this is that the Hubdub experience has changed to the point that it is not as exciting to me as it was a couple of weeks ago.
I’m happy about helping to shape Hubdub, but anxious about it too
-
Inappropriate?Certainly the leaderboard is the closest to community you find at HD. For some reason, the Comments pages have not initiated the same level of thoughtful discussion as you find here, and News items seem largely irrelevant (though they are central to the HD concept). Also there's the fact thing. To make questions that are able to be settled, you have to stick to facts and measurements. But people who are passionate about the news are also interested in the nuances of how facts interrelate, and that isn't really catered to in a contest to predict facts. So there's a bit of a conceptual letdown. It's fun to guess, it's fun to trade, it's fun to climb the leaderboard, but somehow it ends up having nothing to do with an interest in the world. (There's that horrible moment when you hear about some awful occurrence in the world, and your first thought is, "Hey. That would make an interesting HD question.") But we may mature as a community, get over all the competition, and return to a more thoughtful tone. Perhaps some changes in the presentation of the site will encourage that.
-
Inappropriate?Here's an amusing postscript to the story (I'm not particularly amused, as you'll see, but you might be). I checked my created questions folders tonight, and found the very question I've been talking about in the void questions folder. It was voided after being settled for being ambiguous! Which means someone complained about the question and result. I wonder if it was the same person who threw all that money at it (I mean they would have had a 3-5 x payoff on bets of more than 20K if they'd won)? Maybe I'm getting paranoid, but what a gam(ing)e strategy. Find questions, misinterpret them, bet heavy on the long shot, and then hope to bluster your way to winning or at least voiding the question and getting your money back. I have a firm response in with the editor on this one.
The question was complicated. And you had to read the background text to correctly interpret it. I was very very explicit there though. No misunderstanding if you read it. (And I'd think that if you found it too complicated to understand, you wouldn't bet the bank on it.)
Anyway, we'll see. It brings up an interesting issue though. What exactly is a question? Is it only the text of the question, or can it be partly specified in the background? In other words, if I bet on a question without reading the background text, and possibly the settlement info, can I claim, because the question itself can be interpreted in various ways (which a "good" question would disambiguate in the background text), that the question as a whole is ambiguous, and so can try to impose my own interpretation on it, or, failing that, get it voided? It's tricky. I mean, you want the main "title" of your question to be succinct. But that sometimes means leaving out details that influence how it is to be understood and later settled.
Any thoughts on this?
It also suggests (to me) to not write such labyrinthine questions in the first place.
I’m amused but furious but resigned to it all.
-
Inappropriate?You're right. It's just a game, and it should be fun.. But games have caused wars - wasn't there a war in the 70s in Central America over a football match? For games to be fun, they need a balance between intensity of effort, and the sober judgement of reason. So the players go all out, and the referee(s) keeps it fair. But when rules get bent, there is understandable, if not justifiable, anger. It's a matter of trust. For a game to be fun, you have to trust that the outcome is the same one that would have occurred if the rules had been fairly and accurately applied. Otherwise the honest players just end up being spectators to the cheaters winning, which defeats the purpose of playing. These discussions are useful at this point in the life of HubDub, because we are helping to form a sense of what those rules must be in order that the game can truly be fun for those that join later, as well as ourselves in the months and years to come.
(Is it ironic that the person who started the topic "Are we too concerned with gaming?" is writing this?)
I’m having fun. Grrr. Honestly.
-
Inappropriate?I've been thinking about this problem since before I made large quantities of cash on the odds shifts. I think that a question whose odds can be fairly easily and transparently calculated, whose odds are between 3-6%, and whose duration is about two weeks should be sufficiently equivalent -- especially if correct odds are stated up front. Volatility should be fairly low, and if the number converges fairly smoothly to it's final value, bettors may be able to spin money out in a useful way without waiting for settlement.
-
Inappropriate?i definitely think its an interesting idea
its certainly worth consideration
im not sure it would be fair to some bc people with a ton of money could then make money a lot faster than people with very little
also the interest rate would have to be pretty minimal so people dont just put all of their money in and stop betting altogether
I’m amused
-
Inappropriate?Although if current US monetary policy was followed this would be certain to wreck financial markets and increase HubInflation. Thanks, Beranake!
I’m wallowing in disgust at the Fed,
-
Inappropriate?I have an idea...
One way to alleviate the gap of the wealthy and the poor would be to have a bank that the poor could borrow from and have the bank financed by the wealthy.
An incentive to invest in the bank could be a 'badge' or 'rank' associated with the user.
The qualification of a loan should not be an easy matter. One way to qualify for a loan could be the condition of creating a question. The amount of the loan qualification could be directly proportional to the popularity of the question. A waiting period of one or two days could determine what the value of the approved loan would be.
The badge or rank should be subtle. As new users become more familiar with the site they will recognize the elite.
I think the leaders in wealth not only reflect wise market decisions but also the loyalty of the hubdub pioneers. (something worthy of a badge?)
I am a little disturbed by the cheeziness of my idea but I think the degree of the existing wealth amongst us may discourage new users.
I’m indifferent
1 person thinks
this is one of the best points
-
Inappropriate?Awesome post infernalmachine! Your description of the problems users face when they hit a certain dollar amount is right on the head.
As to the solution I cannot say. However, the problem as you stated it is very real and likely negatively impacts the site. I am not referring to some people having massive wealth but rather that, due to the problems you described, people will find it more and more difficult to maintain an interest in their Hubdub activities. I have already found myself following the exact progression you indicated and it is getting old. Maybe there are too many questions diluting the money. Maybe too many people have too much money "trapped" in dead markets with overly lengthy or non-existent settlement dates. Maybe there aren't enough new members joining and the majority of members have just plain gotten too savvy. Many questions, despite high activity levels, probably only have a few people wagering on them with large dollar amounts. Others have too little money and a "small" bet from a moderately wealthy user totally corrupts the market. The bottom line is this: There is a problem and it would behoove us all to find a way to fix it. Thanks for the good post!
I’m having the same problem (w/less$)
-
Inappropriate?mork, Markov:
Hubdub has addressed this topic earlier:
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...
What it was all about? Getting the $H out of the system again.
I had proposed to give away some bling-bling to users who give away money in return. http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top... -
Inappropriate?kruijs: Thanks for the enlightening links! I read most of the comments at the links and it looks like the solutions will not solve the problem. Re-valuing high achievers' money doesn't seem fair to them (I'm not one of them). Changing the leaderboard reporting format has been a good idea to reduce people getting discouraged and increase competition. Unfortunately, though, it does not address the market impact problem caused by too much money from just a few users skewing the markets. That creates problems for those both with and without a lot of money. Putting limits on wagers going into a particular market hurts the high achievers' ability to invest and thus their growth potential. Not limiting it screws up the markets. Although I have no great answer to the problem two less than perfect thoughts come to mind as having potential to alleviate the problem:
1) Facilitate a massive influx of new users (how, I do not know) to dilute the high achievers' wealth to overall market ratio. This will not change their actual dollar value and will trend toward making the Hubdub market more analogous to actual financial markets.
2) Separate the users into "question bands" based on their net worth. This is similar to, but different, than a previous suggestion. For example, users with a total net worth of between $20K and $40K would compete only with each other while they are in that particular grouping. When their net worth changes they are moved up or down a level. This would confine people to betting with people of similar net worth and would go a long way toward unskewing the markets. I could see this being a nightmare to facilitate on the server side but the Hubdub techs have been holding up pretty good so far so maybe it might be a good challenge for them. -
Inappropriate?CLARIFICATION:
"For example, users with a total net worth of between $20K and $40K would compete only with each other while they are in that particular grouping."
By this I did not mean to suggest only from a reporting standpoint, as that does not solve the market problem. My intention was that they have a separate market that includes only them. The same questions could be used for everyone, it's just that the wagers would be be confined into bands. If there were five bands there would be five markets for each question and users would only be able to wager on their market level.
Loading Profile...





EMPLOYEE



EMPLOYEE

