聊天记录
共 66 条，显示第 1-50 条
Such an interesting find <@252554263841079296>. I wasn’t on this market so just seeing it.
Good point on that travel / trailing by Doris from that NBA game.
Logically it seems he’s cutting himself off from saying exclusive. I hear an L in real time but no L in your slowed down clip.
We’ve never seen one of these with only 1 syllable that I can recall. “Travel” “Ankle”. Obvi clearer with 2.
I still don’t understand why travel went Y. When that one happened I thought it would go NO because Ankle went NO, but has Ankle gone Y or never happens I would have thought Travel as Y as well.
Seems like a stutter of some kind, not a word. Spirit of rules is NO.
I’ve never bonded Ex NO on any LI mention market. I knew it was too easy to miss / have something come up. I’ve always thought people were crazy for doing so.
Such an interesting find <@252554263841079296>. I wasn’t on this market so just seeing it.
Good point on that travel / trailing by Doris from that NBA game.
Logically it seems he’s cutting himself off from saying exclusive. I hear an L in real time but no L in your slowed down clip.
We’ve never seen one of these with only 1 syllable that I can recall. “Travel” “Ankle”. Obvi clearer with 2.
I still don’t understand why travel went Y. When that one happened I thought it would go NO because Ankle went NO, but has Ankle gone Y or never happens I would have thought Travel as Y as well.
Seems like a stutter of some kind, not a word. Spirit of rules is NO.
I’ve never bonded Ex NO on any LI mention market. I knew it was too easy to miss / have something come up. I’ve always thought people were crazy for doing so.
He says Russia, Trump and Arctic in both videos so those are clear Y. He says AI only in the second one.
For a while we wondered if the 2nd video was even livestreamed which could in theory have led to everything going NO and ENDQ going Y, if you believe the first video didn't count (I think it does). That caused prices for those 3 strikes to come down for a bit even though they was no doubt they were said in both.
Once Lawrence confirmed it livestremed then we knew that one would count so those 3 strikes bonded. Nothing else hit (I didn't awtch the 2nd video, I only checked the transcript).
He says Russia, Trump and Arctic in both videos so those are clear Y. He says AI only in the second one.
For a while we wondered if the 2nd video was even livestreamed which could in theory have led to everything going NO and ENDQ going Y, if you believe the first video didn't count (I think it does). That caused prices for those 3 strikes to come down for a bit even though they was no doubt they were said in both.
Once Lawrence confirmed it livestremed then we knew that one would count so those 3 strikes bonded. Nothing else hit (I didn't awtch the 2nd video, I only checked the transcript).
Good luck on Trump. I am going to sleep. Here is my write up on the Carney market. Didn't know anyone was waiting. <@1417220501407011020>, <@1460986477742657662> , <@1413713829883543613>
https://x.com/alch3my101/status/2074817057754169349?s=20
FWIW, when these thigns happen, even though I may sometimes be aggressive to my side, I'm always content with a FV resolution or people just getting refunds. I hate the rule cucks, and I don't play them intentionally.
Good luck on Trump. I am going to sleep. Here is my write up on the Carney market. Didn't know anyone was waiting. <@1417220501407011020>, <@1460986477742657662> , <@1413713829883543613>
https://x.com/alch3my101/status/2074817057754169349?s=20
FWIW, when these thigns happen, even though I may sometimes be aggressive to my side, I'm always content with a FV resolution or people just getting refunds. I hate the rule cucks, and I don't play them intentionally.
One day they will resolve a 99c the other way. Perhaps toady is the day.
We must ask, "Do we want Kalshi to be a scam site like Polymarket where whales can determine outcomes? Or do we want Kalshi to be principled wehre there rules are followed and we accept that whales sometimes have a lot of ego, mess up, and get wrecked?"
I vote for the latter, and I think most people would as well.
One day they will resolve a 99c the other way. Perhaps toady is the day.
We must ask, "Do we want Kalshi to be a scam site like Polymarket where whales can determine outcomes? Or do we want Kalshi to be principled wehre there rules are followed and we accept that whales sometimes have a lot of ego, mess up, and get wrecked?"
I vote for the latter, and I think most people would as well.
One day I am going to be on a late night show and you'll make a mention market for me without knowing it. I thought of an insane rule cuck today that a speaker could pull. Will see what happens.
One day I am going to be on a late night show and you'll make a mention market for me without knowing it. I thought of an insane rule cuck today that a speaker could pull. Will see what happens.
I had to type out all the bad arguments first. I deleted those because tehre was no reason to share them.
I had to type out all the bad arguments first. I deleted those because tehre was no reason to share them.
Yes, it seems to be a fair argument.
<@807477657867649095> and others are arguing for a non-NATO interview to count even though the contract rules state clearly it's the NATO media availability interview at 1:30am ET. Carney was interviewed at 1:34am ET as scheduled by NATO and NATO posted about it, streamed it, and it was also streamed by AP.
This reminds me in many ways of two markets:
#1. The recent Hochul market where she had two events in one stream. The first one counted. The second one didn't. Different but very, very similar from the time perspective.
#2. One of the first NBA post media markets. A Laker player was interviewed in the locker room and people thought it counted. It didn't because it wasn't part of the "NBA post media availability" interview. Again, different, but similar.
The first video was a NATO interview. The second Carney interview was ilke the locker room interview.
FWIW, I stand to lose a luaghable $230 on this if it goes against me. I have friends who will lose a lot more.
Yes, it seems to be a fair argument.
<@807477657867649095> and others are arguing for a non-NATO interview to count even though the contract rules state clearly it's the NATO media availability interview at 1:30am ET. Carney was interviewed at 1:34am ET as scheduled by NATO and NATO posted about it, streamed it, and it was also streamed by AP.
This reminds me in many ways of two markets:
#1. The recent Hochul market where she had two events in one stream. The first one counted. The second one didn't. Different but very, very similar from the time perspective.
#2. One of the first NBA post media markets. A Laker player was interviewed in the locker room and people thought it counted. It didn't because it wasn't part of the "NBA post media availability" interview. Again, different, but similar.
The first video was a NATO interview. The second Carney interview was ilke the locker room interview.
FWIW, I stand to lose a luaghable $230 on this if it goes against me. I have friends who will lose a lot more.
I believe you are wrong ( <@807477657867649095> ). I believe video 1 counts and video 2 doesn't. Thus AI goes NO. <@1417220501407011020> and Arctic, Russia, and Trump go YES .
Why do I believe this? Because the rules say so. The rules say....
"Mark Carney says Arctic as part of NATO media availability originally scheduled for 1:30am ET.... Video of the NATO media availability originally scheduled for 1:30am ET July 8th, 2026 will be primarily used to resolve the market;....transcripts of the NATO media availability originally scheduled for 1:30am ET July 8th, 2026 will be used."
Note, the rules do not say "Mark Carney's schedule" or "Mark Carney's media availability." The rules explicitly say "NATO media availability scheduled for 1:30am" for which Mark Carney will be a part of.
Carney arrived as schedule for NATO and did his media availability interview at 1:34am, basically right on time. It was livestreamed and easy to find. NATO posted a link on their X, had their own stream, as did AP, and others.
A comment from IDEAS (not always reliable, but sometimes astutely brilliant) reflects this interpretation in other words:
"the second {interview} is NOT on the NATO schedule because it literally isn't directly part of NATO. The Kalshi market rules say "as part of NATO media availability"; you cannot say that and then say the.....NATO event itself doesn't count but {a later interview which is not a NATO event} does. It is two conflicting rules."
To show how dumb ya'lls interpretation is, THE CARNEY SHARP WHO PROPOSED THIS MARKET WITH THE INTENTIONS OF FARMING PEOPLE COULDN'T FIND THE LIVESTREAM of the second video, and half a dozen mentions sharps worked for an hour and couldn't find it either.
The rules for this one are the first video. Vibes for this one is the first video. The keyword is NATO. This is a Mark Carney interview at a NATO event, not a private interview later on his schedule. <@252554263841079296> <@660000249774997504> <@1210384389092151359>
I believe you are wrong ( <@807477657867649095> ). I believe video 1 counts and video 2 doesn't. Thus AI goes NO. <@1417220501407011020> and Arctic, Russia, and Trump go YES .
Why do I believe this? Because the rules say so. The rules say....
"Mark Carney says Arctic as part of NATO media availability originally scheduled for 1:30am ET.... Video of the NATO media availability originally scheduled for 1:30am ET July 8th, 2026 will be primarily used to resolve the market;....transcripts of the NATO media availability originally scheduled for 1:30am ET July 8th, 2026 will be used."
Note, the rules do not say "Mark Carney's schedule" or "Mark Carney's media availability." The rules explicitly say "NATO media availability scheduled for 1:30am" for which Mark Carney will be a part of.
Carney arrived as schedule for NATO and did his media availability interview at 1:34am, basically right on time. It was livestreamed and easy to find. NATO posted a link on their X, had their own stream, as did AP, and others.
A comment from IDEAS (not always reliable, but sometimes astutely brilliant) reflects this interpretation in other words:
"the second {interview} is NOT on the NATO schedule because it literally isn't directly part of NATO. The Kalshi market rules say "as part of NATO media availability"; you cannot say that and then say the.....NATO event itself doesn't count but {a later interview which is not a NATO event} does. It is two conflicting rules."
To show how dumb ya'lls interpretation is, THE CARNEY SHARP WHO PROPOSED THIS MARKET WITH THE INTENTIONS OF FARMING PEOPLE COULDN'T FIND THE LIVESTREAM of the second video, and half a dozen mentions sharps worked for an hour and couldn't find it either.
The rules for this one are the first video. Vibes for this one is the first video. The keyword is NATO. This is a Mark Carney interview at a NATO event, not a private interview later on his schedule. <@252554263841079296> <@660000249774997504> <@1210384389092151359>
Unlike Mitchie, I did NOT believe you. But it was indeed impossible for you to do this if it wasn't livestreamed so now I believe you.
Unlike Mitchie, I did NOT believe you. But it was indeed impossible for you to do this if it wasn't livestreamed so now I believe you.
I concur. I checkd this as well.
I concur. I checkd this as well.
Yah when you have a lot of people on something like this. And then one person is like, "Actually XYZABC123/pie and the answer is this other stream that wasn't announced, and it counts but the first one doen't and I have a 7 figure port and I"m going to push price into the 90s so f*ck you" then I think it's time for the whale to lose.
Yah when you have a lot of people on something like this. And then one person is like, "Actually XYZABC123/pie and the answer is this other stream that wasn't announced, and it counts but the first one doen't and I have a 7 figure port and I"m going to push price into the 90s so f*ck you" then I think it's time for the whale to lose.
Which interview do you think counts? What is your view on this? If you proposed it, what was your intention?
Which interview do you think counts? What is your view on this? If you proposed it, what was your intention?
Amazing
Amazing
Imho, June birthdays are the best. Half way after Christmas too so perfect for getting presents too.
Imho, June birthdays are the best. Half way after Christmas too so perfect for getting presents too.
Very kind of you to ask. Was actually not that fun for most of it. We have a 7 month old and she hated it. Way too hot and humid (Florida), nowhere for her to crawl, having to trade her off to stand in line. Was a lot of work. But some great moments towards the end of the trip.
Very kind of you to ask. Was actually not that fun for most of it. We have a 7 month old and she hated it. Way too hot and humid (Florida), nowhere for her to crawl, having to trade her off to stand in line. Was a lot of work. But some great moments towards the end of the trip.
https://klipy.com/gifs/i-dont-know-idk-99
https://klipy.com/gifs/i-dont-know-idk-99
I have a couple other articles in the works. May not finish them. Idk.
I have a couple other articles in the works. May not finish them. Idk.
It was my birthday this past week. I decided I need to be more economical with my words. Slow progress.
It was my birthday this past week. I decided I need to be more economical with my words. Slow progress.
*knock on wood* I don't think rulecucks really exist anymore. In the macro, they happen, but in mentions it seems we have the rules figured out pretty well. Yes, there are still holes in the rules, and numbers is a great example, but it seems like this idea of rule cucks isn't as relevant as it once was.
I think the right terminology now is "bad beat." They say it in poker. You get your money in at a good price in a great position, but sometimes the card don't go your way. Not your fault. It just happens sometimes and you move on to the next.
This seems much more indicative of what we see in mentions now. It's just a bad beat. The reason we don't call it that is we have an adjudicator, the Kalshi team. But since that seems random sometimes, and since we really have no idea how they decide some of these things, I don't see it as much different than turning over the cards in poker.
We have bad beats. We have misresolves. We have ear cucks. I don't the term rule cuck is all that relevant anymore. Just my perspective.
*knock on wood* I don't think rulecucks really exist anymore. In the macro, they happen, but in mentions it seems we have the rules figured out pretty well. Yes, there are still holes in the rules, and numbers is a great example, but it seems like this idea of rule cucks isn't as relevant as it once was.
I think the right terminology now is "bad beat." They say it in poker. You get your money in at a good price in a great position, but sometimes the card don't go your way. Not your fault. It just happens sometimes and you move on to the next.
This seems much more indicative of what we see in mentions now. It's just a bad beat. The reason we don't call it that is we have an adjudicator, the Kalshi team. But since that seems random sometimes, and since we really have no idea how they decide some of these things, I don't see it as much different than turning over the cards in poker.
We have bad beats. We have misresolves. We have ear cucks. I don't the term rule cuck is all that relevant anymore. Just my perspective.
Impressive!
Impressive!
Doing my part. And when I lose, I give money to the mentions fam. It's a win win.
Doing my part. And when I lose, I give money to the mentions fam. It's a win win.
Some of you guys trade the market. I trade what I believe. I heard WALKED at slow speeds. Imho Bloody/blodied was this. At even half speed I heard Bloody. When it was slower than that I heard bloodied. You gotta slow these down to hear the sounds especially when they are connected/muddied.
I am not always right, but I put my money where my mouth is.
Some of you guys trade the market. I trade what I believe. I heard WALKED at slow speeds. Imho Bloody/blodied was this. At even half speed I heard Bloody. When it was slower than that I heard bloodied. You gotta slow these down to hear the sounds especially when they are connected/muddied.
I am not always right, but I put my money where my mouth is.
Correct. I considered this before buying. Both are grammitically correct. Also my oiriginal feeling is that given the choice, the present tense, walk, was more common in this situation. But again, I changed to NO after slowing it down.
Correct. I considered this before buying. Both are grammitically correct. Also my oiriginal feeling is that given the choice, the present tense, walk, was more common in this situation. But again, I changed to NO after slowing it down.
What is your setup?
What is your setup?
"....he had it in his glove, couldn't put it away. That's a tougher play certainly. It led to a 2-run 10th inning for New York as well. And his partner in crime {name} consoling him as they [walk/walked] off the field."
"....he had it in his glove, couldn't put it away. That's a tougher play certainly. It led to a 2-run 10th inning for New York as well. And his partner in crime {name} consoling him as they [walk/walked] off the field."
Not sure. It's a pro level.
Not sure. It's a pro level.
I think it's the opposite. I think context supports it.
He's talking about how she isn't a good striker. But now they are on the ground so he brings up her BJJ credentials.
I think it's the opposite. I think context supports it.
He's talking about how she isn't a good striker. But now they are on the ground so he brings up her BJJ credentials.
I can't hear it. Maybe I can't hear that sound in that accent. I tried multiple transcription softwares that picked it up as blood belt.
I can't hear it. Maybe I can't hear that sound in that accent. I tried multiple transcription softwares that picked it up as blood belt.
Yo fam, found a weird one on UFC. <@1417220501407011020> <@1460986477742657662> Some of you guys hear sounds differently so here it is to assess. At the moment I believe BLOOD was said in the Mequita vs Mullins fight. It's trading at 2c YES.
https://kalshi.com/markets/kxfightmention/fight/kxfightmention-26jun20mesmul
**Transcription from the Mesquita vs Mullins fight. Paul Felder speaking. The strike in question said it at 2:24 in R1:**
“...but doing it in the octagon under the bright lights when there's a live crowd around you much harder to perform. Now, given the [blood] belt credentials that Melissa Mullins does have, it would mean that typically she should have the defensive strategy to not get submitted.
**What is a “blood belt credential”? (answer from Claude)**
“ "Blood belt" is a term used in BJJ/grappling circles — it refers to someone who has legitimate, hard-earned black belt level skills, usually proven through years of competition and tough training rather than just time on the mat.
The idea is that the belt was "earned in blood"....
In MMA context it usually means — can they impose their grappling on a resisting opponent at the highest level, or does it fall apart when tested?”
Context: Mullins isn’t a great standup fighter, but now that the fight is on the ground she has the defensive strategy. Mullins is a black belt in BJJ.
**Alternate possibility….**
The most logical other conclusion is that Felder says, "Black belt credentials” but I don’t here “ah” or “ck.”
There's nothing else I can figure that he said.
**My position: **I think it’s “blood belt credentials.” It sounds like it and context supports it 100%. I have a lot of BLOOD YES shares. If it's not, ohhh welllllllllll.
Yo fam, found a weird one on UFC. <@1417220501407011020> <@1460986477742657662> Some of you guys hear sounds differently so here it is to assess. At the moment I believe BLOOD was said in the Mequita vs Mullins fight. It's trading at 2c YES.
https://kalshi.com/markets/kxfightmention/fight/kxfightmention-26jun20mesmul
**Transcription from the Mesquita vs Mullins fight. Paul Felder speaking. The strike in question said it at 2:24 in R1:**
“...but doing it in the octagon under the bright lights when there's a live crowd around you much harder to perform. Now, given the [blood] belt credentials that Melissa Mullins does have, it would mean that typically she should have the defensive strategy to not get submitted.
**What is a “blood belt credential”? (answer from Claude)**
“ "Blood belt" is a term used in BJJ/grappling circles — it refers to someone who has legitimate, hard-earned black belt level skills, usually proven through years of competition and tough training rather than just time on the mat.
The idea is that the belt was "earned in blood"....
In MMA context it usually means — can they impose their grappling on a resisting opponent at the highest level, or does it fall apart when tested?”
Context: Mullins isn’t a great standup fighter, but now that the fight is on the ground she has the defensive strategy. Mullins is a black belt in BJJ.
**Alternate possibility….**
The most logical other conclusion is that Felder says, "Black belt credentials” but I don’t here “ah” or “ck.”
There's nothing else I can figure that he said.
**My position: **I think it’s “blood belt credentials.” It sounds like it and context supports it 100%. I have a lot of BLOOD YES shares. If it's not, ohhh welllllllllll.
He said "Coming back"
He said "Coming back"
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.
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.
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.
It's wrong on so many levels
It's wrong on so many levels
When this happens and they don't update the rules, they are criminally negilgent.
When this happens and they don't update the rules, they are criminally negilgent.
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.
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.
"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.
You're wellllllllllllcome
You're wellllllllllllcome
I donated to him.
I donated to him.
Yes.
Yes.
When the decision contradicts the rules, that's a rule cuck. When the rules aren't clear, that's a rule cuck.
When the decision contradicts the rules, that's a rule cuck. When the rules aren't clear, that's a rule cuck.
Damn, didn't know this niche precedent. I'm screwed.
Damn, didn't know this niche precedent. I'm screwed.
Rule cuck incoming.
Rule cuck incoming.
https://tenor.com/view/cheers-new-york-governor-hochul-kathy-hochul-kathleen-hochul-gif-24393012
https://tenor.com/view/cheers-new-york-governor-hochul-kathy-hochul-kathleen-hochul-gif-24393012
Someone asked for a post on the Blood / Bloody strike last night, so I made one. Price movement analysis was based on me watching the fight, graph doesn't reflect it. Maybe someone saw something different. Also, in hindsight this one was pretty straightforward so I'm not sure it deserved a post, but I like recoding these, and maybe there is some learning in it.
https://x.com/alch3my101/status/2066774914728943797?s=20
Someone asked for a post on the Blood / Bloody strike last night, so I made one. Price movement analysis was based on me watching the fight, graph doesn't reflect it. Maybe someone saw something different. Also, in hindsight this one was pretty straightforward so I'm not sure it deserved a post, but I like recoding these, and maybe there is some learning in it.
https://x.com/alch3my101/status/2066774914728943797?s=20
Amazing comment 😂🤣
Amazing comment 😂🤣
No. I’m here. Will be back tonight and do a write up about it for fun.
No. I’m here. Will be back tonight and do a write up about it for fun.
It was a great resolve. If you slow it down, he clearly says “bloodied.” This resolve showed me in a new way that Kalshi and team cares about the truth. Very cool to see.
*I did not have a position. Had 1,300Y at 95c and sold out at 89c when I realized it was a close one.
It was a great resolve. If you slow it down, he clearly says “bloodied.” This resolve showed me in a new way that Kalshi and team cares about the truth. Very cool to see.
*I did not have a position. Had 1,300Y at 95c and sold out at 89c when I realized it was a close one.
Because that’s why
Because that’s why
Kalshi