http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/ Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:47:10 -0600 MyBB http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=154 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:42:06 -0600 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=154 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=153 Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:12:35 -0700 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=153 See:
http://realitymarkets.com/index/130/What...NBA-title?

Second, Market Cap on the NBA Eastern Conf stock is $0

Third, the system won't allow me to sell my stock.]]> See:
http://realitymarkets.com/index/130/What...NBA-title?

Second, Market Cap on the NBA Eastern Conf stock is $0

Third, the system won't allow me to sell my stock.]]> http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=150 Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:13:02 -0700 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=150 Not likely.

Pats are a dynasty with a destiny to be crowned this year the best NFL team in history!
Just 2 steps away from the first ever perfect season/post-season!
19-0 here we come!

Brady/Moss '08

Woo Hooo!]]> Not likely.

Pats are a dynasty with a destiny to be crowned this year the best NFL team in history!
Just 2 steps away from the first ever perfect season/post-season!
19-0 here we come!

Brady/Moss '08

Woo Hooo!]]> http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=149 Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:11:21 -0700 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=149
Another strange effect of forcing each index to always total to 100 is: Lindsay Lohan Sex Video competes with Manned Mission to Mars & Legalization of Weed - because they're all in the Pop culture index. No reason why someone should not be able to invest in any or all of them without driving down the price of their other stocks.

Another thing that makes no sense TODAY is... Mike Gravel & Tommy Thompson now leading the party nomination stocks.

Tommy Thompson dropped out of the race months ago - that stock should be zeroed out - Chuck Hagel and Sam Brownback also dropped out long ago (those should be zeroed out too).]]>
Another strange effect of forcing each index to always total to 100 is: Lindsay Lohan Sex Video competes with Manned Mission to Mars & Legalization of Weed - because they're all in the Pop culture index. No reason why someone should not be able to invest in any or all of them without driving down the price of their other stocks.

Another thing that makes no sense TODAY is... Mike Gravel & Tommy Thompson now leading the party nomination stocks.

Tommy Thompson dropped out of the race months ago - that stock should be zeroed out - Chuck Hagel and Sam Brownback also dropped out long ago (those should be zeroed out too).]]> http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=148 Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:52:33 -0700 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=148
The current system, though it has "fixed" these former problems, has a number of other strange problems with it.

First, it is now essentially now a zero-sum game. All stocks in each index always total to 100. There are several problems with this:
1) Indexes will never grew above 100 & overall index will never grow above 3700 (unless more indexes are added) - this makes all the charts and graphs essentially useless now.

2) Starting prices of stocks are not realistic. They are based only on how many stocks are in that index, NOT realively likelihood, nor anything meaningful. There is one stock that is the only one in that index so its value is $100 (and can never move up or down). Other stocks start at $50 (because there are just two choices), but that stock may be less likely to occur than other stocks that start at just $5 (and has less room for growth), which creates a disincentive to buy these more expensive starting price stocks.

3) Stocks can move up or down without ANY investment in them. This makes no sense. Most of the biggest movers on the board today had double-digit percent increases or decreases, but not a single share of them was bought or sold. This is because the prices are based on relative amounts of stock purchased among the stocks in the index. So, if stocks are sold and then the money reinvested in a stocks in other indexes. All other stocks in the first index rise. Stocks also fall when new money is invested in competing stocks despite, no sales of that stock.

I suggest abandoning the all indexes total to 100 rule, so the system doesn't automatically move stocks up and down that have no investors in them.]]>
The current system, though it has "fixed" these former problems, has a number of other strange problems with it.

First, it is now essentially now a zero-sum game. All stocks in each index always total to 100. There are several problems with this:
1) Indexes will never grew above 100 & overall index will never grow above 3700 (unless more indexes are added) - this makes all the charts and graphs essentially useless now.

2) Starting prices of stocks are not realistic. They are based only on how many stocks are in that index, NOT realively likelihood, nor anything meaningful. There is one stock that is the only one in that index so its value is $100 (and can never move up or down). Other stocks start at $50 (because there are just two choices), but that stock may be less likely to occur than other stocks that start at just $5 (and has less room for growth), which creates a disincentive to buy these more expensive starting price stocks.

3) Stocks can move up or down without ANY investment in them. This makes no sense. Most of the biggest movers on the board today had double-digit percent increases or decreases, but not a single share of them was bought or sold. This is because the prices are based on relative amounts of stock purchased among the stocks in the index. So, if stocks are sold and then the money reinvested in a stocks in other indexes. All other stocks in the first index rise. Stocks also fall when new money is invested in competing stocks despite, no sales of that stock.

I suggest abandoning the all indexes total to 100 rule, so the system doesn't automatically move stocks up and down that have no investors in them.]]> http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=147 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 05:54:15 -0700 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=147 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=146 Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:16:47 -0700 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=146 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=145 Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:29:50 -0700 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=145
but maybe you could add the gold price to the stocks

regards]]>
but maybe you could add the gold price to the stocks

regards]]> http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=143 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:17:22 -0600 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=143 &
Boston Red Sox AL Pennant

Thanks.

:cool:

P.S. Why can't positions be condensed anymore?]]> &
Boston Red Sox AL Pennant

Thanks.

:cool:

P.S. Why can't positions be condensed anymore?]]> http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=142 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:36:37 -0600 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=142
shit needs fixed!!!!!!!!!!!!!]]>
shit needs fixed!!!!!!!!!!!!!]]> http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=141 Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:40:10 -0600 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=141 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=140 Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:09:59 -0600 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=140 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=139 Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:10:06 -0600 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=139
I think RM should be included on their list of prediction markets they survey each week.

Check out the details here:
http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/

Maybe you could contact them and request to be included.

Being listed there might help improve RealityMarket membership.

Just a thought...]]>
I think RM should be included on their list of prediction markets they survey each week.

Check out the details here:
http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/

Maybe you could contact them and request to be included.

Being listed there might help improve RealityMarket membership.

Just a thought...]]> http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=138 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:05:05 -0600 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=138
1 Tiger Woods 15 $8,347,052
2 Phil Mickelson 20 $5,685,588
3 Vijay Singh 26 $4,482,537
4 K.J. Choi 24 $4,429,658
5 Rory Sabbatini 22 $4,174,640
6 Steve Stricker 22 $4,043,077
7 Jim Furyk 23 $3,863,121
8 Zach Johnson 22 $3,274,837
9 Sergio Garcia 18 $3,179,184
10 Adam Scott 18 $2,956,284
11 Geoff Ogilvy 21 $2,788,012
12 Woody Austin 25 $2,683,602
13 Charles Howell III 24 $2,632,031
14 Brandt Snedeker 28 $2,600,319
15 Scott Verplank 20 $2,568,400
16 Aaron Baddeley 21 $2,561,919
17 Hunter Mahan 26 $2,552,307
18 Ernie Els 15 $2,503,555
19 Padraig Harrington 17 $2,490,982
20 Mark Calcavecchia 23 $2,291,132

rank name tournements entered money earned]]>
1 Tiger Woods 15 $8,347,052
2 Phil Mickelson 20 $5,685,588
3 Vijay Singh 26 $4,482,537
4 K.J. Choi 24 $4,429,658
5 Rory Sabbatini 22 $4,174,640
6 Steve Stricker 22 $4,043,077
7 Jim Furyk 23 $3,863,121
8 Zach Johnson 22 $3,274,837
9 Sergio Garcia 18 $3,179,184
10 Adam Scott 18 $2,956,284
11 Geoff Ogilvy 21 $2,788,012
12 Woody Austin 25 $2,683,602
13 Charles Howell III 24 $2,632,031
14 Brandt Snedeker 28 $2,600,319
15 Scott Verplank 20 $2,568,400
16 Aaron Baddeley 21 $2,561,919
17 Hunter Mahan 26 $2,552,307
18 Ernie Els 15 $2,503,555
19 Padraig Harrington 17 $2,490,982
20 Mark Calcavecchia 23 $2,291,132

rank name tournements entered money earned]]> http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=137 Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:42:49 -0600 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=137 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=136 Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:29:12 -0600 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=136 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=133 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:29:43 -0600 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=133 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=132 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:42:47 -0600 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=132 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=129 Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:16:50 -0600 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=129
E.g.
Today
  
-----Stock-------------Last--------Today's Change--Vol---------High---Low
Bush Approval 20s 1,147.79 1,072.48 (1,424.17%) 622.5M 1,000,000.00  0.00
Tiger Woods 2007 Top $ 490.37 407.26 (490.01%) 300M 18,108.06  2.25

Value of Bush Approval 20s fluctuated today between 0 and 1 million!!!

A thought... Maybe you should cap daily growth of stocks at ~300%, of the start price to keep stock prices from shooting off to infinity?

Or, perhaps, better yet, beyond a certain value you could make stocks just grow linearly by an incremental amount, rather than exponentially as they seem to be moving now for very large purchases. That way there would no firm capped value, but stocks would never grow tenfold in value, even if someone bought a $100 Billion worth.]]>
E.g.
Today
  
-----Stock-------------Last--------Today's Change--Vol---------High---Low
Bush Approval 20s 1,147.79 1,072.48 (1,424.17%) 622.5M 1,000,000.00  0.00
Tiger Woods 2007 Top $ 490.37 407.26 (490.01%) 300M 18,108.06  2.25

Value of Bush Approval 20s fluctuated today between 0 and 1 million!!!

A thought... Maybe you should cap daily growth of stocks at ~300%, of the start price to keep stock prices from shooting off to infinity?

Or, perhaps, better yet, beyond a certain value you could make stocks just grow linearly by an incremental amount, rather than exponentially as they seem to be moving now for very large purchases. That way there would no firm capped value, but stocks would never grow tenfold in value, even if someone bought a $100 Billion worth.]]> http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=128 Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:07:36 -0600 http://www.realitymarkets.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=128