On 24 April 2011 00:03, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > Walker wrote: > >> To be valid, a Bet must > [snip] >> c) be known only to the Better and the vote collector, > > Dicey. Suggest "not be sent to anyone other than the Better and the > vote collector", and let Collusion cover situations where a Better > illegally tells someone else that e has placed / plans to place a Bet.
Ok. On 24 April 2011 00:13, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Charles Walker > <charles.w.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> c) at least one of the Bets was for the correct outcome. > > So if everyone bets for the wrong outcome, nobody loses points? Yes, that was intentional. Not sure whether to change that, but I'm open to suggestions. >> (or in the same message) > > Not necessary to state. Ok. On 24 April 2011 02:30, Eric Stucky <turiski.no...@gmail.com> wrote: > (a) [...] a number of Points less than the number of Points the > Better owns, > > Less than or equal to? Sure. > the previous vote collector SHALL inform the new collector of these > Bets and their contents privately. > > As soon as possible? Before the decision is resolved? Since the new vote > collector must publish ASAP, I support the latter; though practically it > probably doesn't matter. Ok. > The resolution of a betting market reveals the outcome betted on by > each Better, and the number of Points they staked. > > Work "valid" in here somewhere, otherwise you would have to report all of > them and that could be a very tiresome job if somebody decides to make work > for the collector. Will do. > If (c) is true, the player(s) involved should get their original points back > (up to fungibility), regardless of whether a betting market exists. The Points don't get taken away in the first place. -- Charles Walker
