Polymarketbetter to just resolve Y and decide later which you prefer
better to just resolve Y and decide later which you prefer
Gr33dy参与话题 7消息总数 667
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 667 条，显示第 401-450 条I don't think it's a Y if you dispute I will fight for N
I don't think it's a Y if you dispute I will fight for N
bruh what was the dispute on 25th april?
bruh what was the dispute on 25th april?
bm apy 99 2d
bm apy 99 2d
I have been filled for 3 shares
I have been filled for 3 shares
It's more complicated thant that example. And they have literally completely changed the rules (without clarif) before if they have made a mistake, usually only is pretty dead markets though
It's more complicated thant that example. And they have literally completely changed the rules (without clarif) before if they have made a mistake, usually only is pretty dead markets though
Fill me at .1 N pls
Fill me at .1 N pls
otherwise the incease makes no sense in the brackets
otherwise the incease makes no sense in the brackets
They clearly meant to make it 4-day and just copy-pasted the regular 3-day.
They clearly meant to make it 4-day and just copy-pasted the regular 3-day.
This is a thursday opening
This is a thursday opening
You are conflating openings with previews?
You are conflating openings with previews?
?
?
you think these brackets make sense?
you think these brackets make sense?
bruv all I said was it's possible for team to change rules when they made a mistake, it's happened before (I do not think it's likely at all though)
bruv all I said was it's possible for team to change rules when they made a mistake, it's happened before (I do not think it's likely at all though)
.1c
.1c
Once they referred to Nvda as Apple in the rules and later changed it
Once they referred to Nvda as Apple in the rules and later changed it
Has happened a few times
Has happened a few times
You certainly can
You certainly can
what if they realize it was a mistake and clarif against y <:PB_SweatWhat:746146560798228581>
what if they realize it was a mistake and clarif against y <:PB_SweatWhat:746146560798228581>
And miss a lot of EV
And miss a lot of EV
If true, and you're correct in what you said before, then you often under-bid for sure.
If true, and you're correct in what you said before, then you often under-bid for sure.
so same argument goes for you
so same argument goes for you
You're bidding 8c below FV and not likely to get fill anyway
You're bidding 8c below FV and not likely to get fill anyway
If FV is 99c shouldn't you then raise your bid?
If FV is 99c shouldn't you then raise your bid?
real
real
they adding taker rebates <a:ChonkyCatYayHands:1223294234698846329>
they adding taker rebates <a:ChonkyCatYayHands:1223294234698846329>
This is way more P2 than ceasefire extension lol
This is way more P2 than ceasefire extension lol
Now ur on N for some reason
Now ur on N for some reason
Bruv you were by far the strongest supporter of Y here earlier
Bruv you were by far the strongest supporter of Y here earlier
<a:blinkhuh:1139992246154973184>
<a:blinkhuh:1139992246154973184>
The markt he's been arguing Y for for hours
The markt he's been arguing Y for for hours
canada referendum
canada referendum
the fucky
the fucky
dog clarified P4? GG
dog clarified P4? GG
bm profile gr33d
bm profile gr33d
+1 I can dispute if you send to me
+1 I can dispute if you send to me
*holy* p4
*holy* p4
wait so this isn't even a referendum on leaving?
wait so this isn't even a referendum on leaving?
Unreliable source
Unreliable source
<:ace_of_hearts:748711960585044079>
<:ace_of_hearts:748711960585044079>
Let's unpack this, because it's a nuanced point that's worth examining closely. At its core, the P2 argument fundamentally hinges on recognizing that the P1 framing rests on a false dichotomy. It's important to understand that this isn't merely a binary question — rather, it's a multifaceted issue that operates on two distinct yet interrelated levels simultaneously. The P1 position contends that it doesn't count because it's solely a vote on whether a vote on secession will be held. However, I'd argue that this overlooks a crucial distinction. In reality, it's not just a vote on whether a future secession vote will occur — it's also, in a very real sense, a non-binding vote on secession itself, owing to the somewhat unconventional way the question has been structured. Ultimately, when we delve into the underlying mechanics, both interpretations can be true at once. And that, in essence, is precisely why the dichotomy at the heart of the P1 argument simply doesn't hold up
Let's unpack this, because it's a nuanced point that's worth examining closely. At its core, the P2 argument fundamentally hinges on recognizing that the P1 framing rests on a false dichotomy. It's important to understand that this isn't merely a binary question — rather, it's a multifaceted issue that operates on two distinct yet interrelated levels simultaneously. The P1 position contends that it doesn't count because it's solely a vote on whether a vote on secession will be held. However, I'd argue that this overlooks a crucial distinction. In reality, it's not just a vote on whether a future secession vote will occur — it's also, in a very real sense, a non-binding vote on secession itself, owing to the somewhat unconventional way the question has been structured. Ultimately, when we delve into the underlying mechanics, both interpretations can be true at once. And that, in essence, is precisely why the dichotomy at the heart of the P1 argument simply doesn't hold up
ok thonkerGPT
ok thonkerGPT
yuh
yuh
i made the mistake of posting alfa in here a few times and market will flip (people are clueless most of the time so a lot of things are alfa)
i made the mistake of posting alfa in here a few times and market will flip (people are clueless most of the time so a lot of things are alfa)
do not post until after you have filled enough shares
do not post until after you have filled enough shares
vro has an ace
vro has an ace
Only if someone dares to propose again
Only if someone dares to propose again
He clearly is sharp because he's one of the few people that can actually read
He clearly is sharp because he's one of the few people that can actually read
"secret"
"secret"
If there's one thing we need more of, it's disputes.
If there's one thing we need more of, it's disputes.