I think it would be fun to bet on events in the 2016 Presidential election. I propose specifically a Karachi auction on the 2016 GOP nominee. (Don’t Google “Karachi auction” – I just invented the term.) There would be three points of interest:
[ul][li] Developing the rules of a new type of auction.[/li][li] Exploring the rules with an actual auction in the Thread Games forum.[/li][li] Thinking about the betting outcome: the 2016 nomination.[/li][/ul]
Of course the most important aspect of a Karachi auction would be missing: gambling with real money. Here we’d just play for “pretend money.”
In a Karachi auction, there is a fixed sum of money, $1000 or rather 1000 pretendollars, awarded to the highest bidder on the eventual winner, e.g. GOP nominee. (Once $1000 of bids accumulate the auction would close, but there could be an “aftermarket” where bets are traded. And of course as the months of the campaign drag on and odds change, additional auctions could be held.)
The Karachi auction is vaguely akin to a Calcutta auction, but there are several important differences. In a Karachi auction:
[ul][li] Bidding on contenders is concurrent, not serial.[/li][li] The total pot ($1000) is defined in advance.[/li][li] Players who commit to playing would be under certain obligations to ensure that the total pool ($1000, or in our case, 1000 pretendollars) is achieved.[/li][/ul]
Perhaps there is already an auction framework that achieves the same goals as a Karachi auction. If not, I’ve already constructed a detailed set of rules which I will post if there’s interest. I think 5 to 10 players would be about right. Any Dopers willing to commit to playing? (Since only pretend dollars will be at stake it doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask for commitment before posting details.) If there’s interest, I’ll post the rules here and, after discussion, start a thread in Thread Games titled Who will be the 2016 GOP nominee? – Karachi Auction
The 2016 GOP presidential nomination seems like an interesting event to bet on, but the Karachi auction can be adapted to bet on any well-defined future outcome.
(Mods: This is a Game about an Election. It might get more attention if moved to Elections forum.)
The idea is to determine fair odds on the candidates using a market involving only ourselves. Suppose that Elendil’s Heir has bid $200 each for Bush, Rubio, and Paul; and that septimus has bid $50 each for Ryan, Huckabee, and Fiorina; and that Doper X bid $100 for “The Field” (everyone else). These bids add up to only $850 so the bidding must continue. In this simple example, Elendil’s Heir could bid $51 for Ryan and increase his bid on Bush to $349. This makes the total pool $1000 so the auction’s over; we’d await the 2016 convention to see how to split the money. If Bush, Rubio, Paul or Ryan is the nominee I’ll owe Elendil’s Heir $100 (the total of my bids – my bid on Ryan is negated by Elendil’s Heir’s overbid) and Doper X would owe him $100. OTOH, if Huckabee or Fiorina is the nominee, I get $800 from Elendil’s Heir and $100 from Doper X. Finally if none of the six named candidates is the nominee, then Doper X wins with his Field bet, getting $800 and $100 from the other two players.
A player can bet on a hitherto-unbet candidate, subtracting him from the Field – details in the detailed rules. Any player can overbid at any time, but to keep the game moving at pace toward the $1000 pool, a low-participation player would eventually be obligated to make a bid.
Sounds interesting. I’ll play if it doesn’t require reading the boards more often than 5 times a week (my usual schedule), and only a rudimentary knowledge of US politics is required. If you’d rather exclude me on either ground, no problem - I’ll just follow the thread in that case.
I think I’ll start the Karachi Auction game thread if five players indicate they’ll join. New players will be allowed to join the game after it begins in the Game thread, say up to ten total.
[QUOTE=Karachi Rules, version 2015]
…
Rule 4 - Obligatory bids
(a) To join a game in progress, a player must make a sufficient bid (see Rule 3). His name is then entered at the bottom of the list of players; as other players make sufficient bids their names are moved to the bottom. When a player migrates back to the top of the list he must make another sufficient bid, and so on. (If his sufficent bid brings the pool total to $1000, the game ends.)
(b) The player at the top of the player list is called the obliged bidder; his sufficient bid is called an obligatory bid.
(c) When a Player becomes the obliged bidder, other players are allowed to bid if either of two conditions is met:
(c1) the total pool after their bid is still less than 75% of the target.
(c2) the obliged bidder has not acted within the first 30 hours of becoming obliged.
If such an out-of-turn bid is sufficient, the bidder will move to the bottom of the player list as usual.
(d) If 60 hours pass without any bid from any player, the moderator will make a bid on the obliged bidder’s behalf, either following instructions the player has left in-thread(*), e.g. “Make a minimum sufficient bid on Sarah Palin”, or in the absence of such instructions making a minimum sufficent bid on the frontrunner.
[/QUOTE]
Do the 30- and 60-hour waits seem good enough, Dead Cat ? Maybe even make them smaller? In a 10-person game you’d only be the obliged bidder in 10% of the states and even if you miss the 60-hour deadline Rule 7(d) should work well. Moreover note that you can make sufficient bids whenever it’s convenient for you, moving your name to the bottom and thereby never become the obliged bidder!
Remember please: this is the rule discussion thread.
That sounds fine to me. Do you want to start the game thread and we’ll see if that gets enough traction? Maybe a quick thread in the elections forum (if the mods allow it) might attract more players?
I’m afraid the tedious detail of the Rule 4 I posted may have put off potential players, making them think the game is complicated. Blame the old computer programmer in me, insisting that any corner cases be handled! In fact the opposite is the case; the game is very simple: we’d just be odds-makers agreeing on the best odds for the candidates in a slightly structured way. The rules about sufficient and obligatory bids would never even come into play except in the unlikely(?) case that bidding stalls before the $1000 target is met. When I start the Thread Game thread, I’ll go to the opposite extreme and post no rules at all until/unless necessary.
(If the game catches on, more Auctions could be held; we could auction off the same candidates every 2nd month until the GOP convenes in 2016. Six auctions, for a $6000 total of play money. And an after-market could develop: “I paid $250 for this Jeb ticket; I’ll sell it to you for $200.” – “Sure I think he’s still got at least 1 chance in five.”)
As few as three initial players would be plenty, especially since other Dopers would join in when they see how simple and fun the game is. But I’m not going to embarrass myself further by starting the game with only two:
septimus
Dead Cat
The auction has already started in the Thread Games forum.
Don’t worry about the rules. Just bid and try to get the best price(s) for any candidates that you think are undervalued. I’ve started out with low bids, but have already bid $80 for Marco Rubio. Is that an overbid? Is he really 8% or better to be the nominee?
In fact the opposite is the case; the game is very simple: we’d just be odds-makers agreeing on the best odds for the candidates in a slightly structured way. The rules about sufficient and obligatory bids would never even come into play except in the unlikely(?) case that bidding stalls before the $1000 target is met. When I start the Thread Game thread, I’ll go to the opposite extreme and post no rules at all until/unless necessary.