"For the purposes of this market, “next Governor Kathy Hochul announcement” refers to the first livestream on the Governor Kathy Hochul main YouTube channel (@GovernorKathyHochul) or official state website (https://www.governor.ny.gov/) after June 17th, 2026 at 9:45 AM ET. "
There was one stream on her website. Only one. It never ended. Apparently this has happened before and they didn't update the rules to account for this.
Complete unacceptable. Refund is warranted when you have rules that contradict the ruling.
"For the purposes of this market, “next Governor Kathy Hochul announcement” refers to the first livestream on the Governor Kathy Hochul main YouTube channel (@GovernorKathyHochul) or official state website (https://www.governor.ny.gov/) after June 17th, 2026 at 9:45 AM ET. "
There was one stream on her website. Only one. It never ended. Apparently this has happened before and they didn't update the rules to account for this.
Complete unacceptable. Refund is warranted when you have rules that contradict the ruling.
i remember my first hochul scam
i remember my first hochul scam
who we got for england
who we got for england
<@1448568704580456529> yeah we got cooked on this once already
<@1448568704580456529> yeah we got cooked on this once already
Here is my argument. I don't expect <@1417220501407011020> and team to decide this way, but logic is so solid.
The rules on the Hochul market state:
"For the purposes of this market, “next Governor Kathy Hochul announcement” refers to the first livestream on the Governor Kathy Hochul main YouTube channel (@GovernorKathyHochul) or official state website after June 17th, 2026 at 9:45 AM ET. "
She livestream on her website. She did NOT live stream on her YouTube. I had her YT pulled up the whole time. If someone saw differently then I'm all ears. I was confused and refreshed many times. I believe she uplaoded the videos after. There was not a YT livestream (again, that I saw).
She DID livestream on her site. And that was one continous live stream. It never stopped. It was one continous stream.
Per the rules the next live stream counts. Since she did not stream on her YT, those video uploads are irrelevant. What matters is the live stream on her site.
As the rules state:
"For the purposes of this market, “next Governor Kathy Hochul announcement” refers to the first livestream on the Governor Kathy Hochul...."
Rules say nothing about different parts of the same live stream.
What's in both videos ought to count becaues those are from the same stream, the Hochul team just decided to split them up.
Here is my argument. I don't expect <@1417220501407011020> and team to decide this way, but logic is so solid.
The rules on the Hochul market state:
"For the purposes of this market, “next Governor Kathy Hochul announcement” refers to the first livestream on the Governor Kathy Hochul main YouTube channel (@GovernorKathyHochul) or official state website after June 17th, 2026 at 9:45 AM ET. "
She livestream on her website. She did NOT live stream on her YouTube. I had her YT pulled up the whole time. If someone saw differently then I'm all ears. I was confused and refreshed many times. I believe she uplaoded the videos after. There was not a YT livestream (again, that I saw).
She DID livestream on her site. And that was one continous live stream. It never stopped. It was one continous stream.
Per the rules the next live stream counts. Since she did not stream on her YT, those video uploads are irrelevant. What matters is the live stream on her site.
As the rules state:
"For the purposes of this market, “next Governor Kathy Hochul announcement” refers to the first livestream on the Governor Kathy Hochul...."
Rules say nothing about different parts of the same live stream.
What's in both videos ought to count becaues those are from the same stream, the Hochul team just decided to split them up.
Yes, precedents that aren't in the rules are examples of criminal behavior by Kalshi and team. You can't resolve a market based on something other than the rules and think you are moral person. You're a criminal.
Yes, precedents that aren't in the rules are examples of criminal behavior by Kalshi and team. You can't resolve a market based on something other than the rules and think you are moral person. You're a criminal.
we've had the exact same thing happen before like 1 to 1
we've had the exact same thing happen before like 1 to 1
It looks like it's gonne be a $1,500 loss for me. Whatever. It's the principle of the matter. We see this far too much.
It looks like it's gonne be a $1,500 loss for me. Whatever. It's the principle of the matter. We see this far too much.
hasnt this happened before
hasnt this happened before
Based on what everyone is saying, it seems that, yes, they will resolve against their rules and against me.
Based on what everyone is saying, it seems that, yes, they will resolve against their rules and against me.
Making another argument here, <@1417220501407011020>, on the pending Hochul resolution. It sounds like you've ruled on this one before, but I, and others, believe that needs to be ammended.
What no one has said, is she didn't Livestream on her YouTube. You can click the LIVE button and see. The videos she has on her channel today were NOT livestreamed. They were uploaded later.
The livestream on her website is what counts. We can all agree there. And she never ended that stream. It had the entireity of both those videos AND more. It was one continuous stream. She also mentioned the 2nd speech in the first one.
"when I leave, believe it or not, I'm going to another housing project in Brooklyn funded by HCR and supported by all of us"
Maybe that's an argument against counting the second one but I think it's irrelevant.
The rules are very clear on the market. What counts IS the livestream. There is nothing in the rules that delinates announcements or parts within a livestream. The rules only delinate the "first livestream."
As we know, Hocul often puts the Livestream in a holding place so she can answer questions. Why would those count but this one not count? Again....
"For the purposes of this market, “next Governor Kathy Hochul announcement” refers to the FIRST LIVESTREAM on the Governor Kathy Hochul main YouTube channel or official state website after June 17th, 2026 at 9:45 AM ET. "
She said President and Safe is the "FIRST LIVESTREAM." Per the rules as published by Kalshi, I don't see how those can go anything but YES.
Making another argument here, <@1417220501407011020>, on the pending Hochul resolution. It sounds like you've ruled on this one before, but I, and others, believe that needs to be ammended.
What no one has said, is she didn't Livestream on her YouTube. You can click the LIVE button and see. The videos she has on her channel today were NOT livestreamed. They were uploaded later.
The livestream on her website is what counts. We can all agree there. And she never ended that stream. It had the entireity of both those videos AND more. It was one continuous stream. She also mentioned the 2nd speech in the first one.
"when I leave, believe it or not, I'm going to another housing project in Brooklyn funded by HCR and supported by all of us"
Maybe that's an argument against counting the second one but I think it's irrelevant.
The rules are very clear on the market. What counts IS the livestream. There is nothing in the rules that delinates announcements or parts within a livestream. The rules only delinate the "first livestream."
As we know, Hocul often puts the Livestream in a holding place so she can answer questions. Why would those count but this one not count? Again....
"For the purposes of this market, “next Governor Kathy Hochul announcement” refers to the FIRST LIVESTREAM on the Governor Kathy Hochul main YouTube channel or official state website after June 17th, 2026 at 9:45 AM ET. "
She said President and Safe is the "FIRST LIVESTREAM." Per the rules as published by Kalshi, I don't see how those can go anything but YES.
counter argument, the market was for the let them build announcement
counter argument, the market was for the let them build announcement
and the second event was separate
and the second event was separate
"when I leave, believe it or not, I'm going to another housing project in Brooklyn funded by HCR and supported by all of us"
"when I leave, believe it or not, I'm going to another housing project in Brooklyn funded by HCR and supported by all of us"
doesnt the title literally say which event counts. Each event, even though it was the same livestream (im assuming it was), were different events
doesnt the title literally say which event counts. Each event, even though it was the same livestream (im assuming it was), were different events
This one lowkey should have counted
This one lowkey should have counted
Yt should be > Vimeo but w/o yt the whole Vimeo stream should count
Yt should be > Vimeo but w/o yt the whole Vimeo stream should count
That's not founded in the rules though
That's not founded in the rules though
And my strong sense is this line of reasoning doesnt work because Kalshi team is philosophically opposed to allowing two events to count
And my strong sense is this line of reasoning doesnt work because Kalshi team is philosophically opposed to allowing two events to count
Ik it’s against the rules rn but that’s what jt should be changed to
Ik it’s against the rules rn but that’s what jt should be changed to