Hi, I see the issue I posted above now on this machine currently using: WinXP Pro SP2 (Fully patched except not SP3) IE7 Screen = 1024 x 768 Please note that the OP has not responded to my post, so I can't be sure if he is talking about the same issue. HTH, Alan.by Alan3285 - Bug Report
I mean the IPredict trading system. Pointless post by me really - they would *have* to go through there of course. I was really just acknowledging that having a forum doesn't do any harm. alan.by Alan3285 - General
I'm not sure whether this is the same issue, but I sometimes get the 'trade' and 'watch' buttons on a different row. Could it be due to particularly long contract names? For example: NAT.ACT.PMB has a description of: "Any ACT MP Private Members Bill to pass first reading in the remainder of this Parliamentary term." which, if I counted correctly, is 98 characters and iby Alan3285 - Bug Report
Hi Hidn, I have to agree that there is no harm to having a forum to advertise big offers / bids - as long as they are still transacted 'on market' through the main board once the book is built, then I see no issue with that as it cannot exclude anyone who wants to participate (at a given price) even if they don't want to check Twitter or these forums. Alan.by Alan3285 - General
iTeam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi, > The 'sticky' trading preference is fixed. > > @Alan3285, I don't actually have that data > available right now, but I would like to, it would > be pretty interesting to find out. It's something > that we have talked about from time to time, but > there always seems to be something elseby Alan3285 - Bug Report
Cool. I can't get my head around the 'simple' trading screen - for some reason I find its just too difficult - the advanced 'board' is so much easier to understand in terms of the marketplace and what is going on! I would be interested to know what proportion of the trades on the site use each interface, and how they breakdown in terms of the number of trades the people have made. Thanksby Alan3285 - Bug Report
Hi All, In the last few days, when I return to IPredict, I have to switch from the basic trading screen to the Advanced Trading Screen the first time I trade in each session. I don't have to re-login (I chose the option to keep a cookie that authenticates me each time I return), so I don't think it is a cookie issue? Has something changed? Is anyone else having the same problem? Thby Alan3285 - Bug Report
Artist Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think a basic metric indicating the amount of > orders placed next to the stock info would > suffice. > > So if there are 0 human orders obviously the stock > has little room to play with. If it has 10,000 > human orders placed you know there the possibility > of some cash to be made. Thisby Alan3285 - General
2irons Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why should it be mandatory? > Else we are excluding the (possibly) majority of traders who don't participate in the forums, and creating a secondary market, along with the fragmentation that it will entail. Also, if, as seems likely from the above posts, people want to 'advertise' stocks for sale or purchase aby Alan3285 - General
This is fine I suppose, but I think it should be mandatory to post your offer on the relavent board too, else it creates a 'privelaged' market for those that read the forums - probably a small subset of all members. Alan.by Alan3285 - General
{Scrub this - ECrampton has just got me totally confused with the reply above!}by Alan3285 - General
ECrampton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Alan3285: I'd expect the programming side would > be a bit tough on that: you'd have all kinds of > conditional bids and asks floating around against > which margin would need to be held... > ECrampton, To what were you replying? Thanks, Alan. {Edit - ECrampton edited his post above, soby Alan3285 - General
Dibbo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alan3285...duh, hadn't caught up with this option. > Thx! > YW!by Alan3285 - General
admin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Will the excise on pre-mixed spirits increase by > 20% or more in 2010? > > > ail&contract=ALC.RTD.EXCISEUP > > Note: this contract applies to excise on drinks of > more than 6% alcohol by volume and not more than > 14%. Some (many) alcopops are less than 6% lacohol > by volume:by Alan3285 - Active Stocks
Dibbo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it would be better still if we > could set things up so that I could receive an > email when posts are made to threads that I > subscribe to. > We already get that - is it not working for you when you tick the box? Alan.by Alan3285 - General
admin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good point re: multiple leaders. > > We need to close the contract at some point - 1 > Jan 2013 hopefully doesn't introduce bias. > I agree it has to close sometime, but the wording seems to be self-contradictory: "This contract pays $1 if x if the next leader of the UK Labour party after Gordoby Alan3285 - Draft Stock Definitions
See - I told you I got all the answers right - it was just pure, unadulterated, bad luck! Alan.by Alan3285 - Announcements
hidn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree that Blair is not top 5. Prob is small > enough to be in OTHER. > > Alan3285, that's not technically feasible. For a > good discussion see the Overcoming Capital > Constraints thread under General. > If I read that thread correctly, the final conclusion was that it is technically feasiblby Alan3285 - New Stock Ideas
I agree. Your idea has more legs I think - I didn't mean to shoot it down at all - I just couldn't see how you would make it work, but something related to the level of bids seems more interesting that just a binary 'failure' contract. How about a slight variation on what you said, something like: 1c per % point of bids received over, say, 90% of the offer. I just made up the 90%, soby Alan3285 - Draft Stock Definitions
It is pretty much unheard of for the total bids received on a given auction to be less than the amount offered, so I'm not sure how an index stock would work? Did you have something specific in mind? Alan.by Alan3285 - Draft Stock Definitions
Completely agree with Andrew - the $1/x is possible, however unlikely, but it does no harm to have it in there. All bundles should have the 'other' (or equivalent) defined as being $1 minus the sum of the other parts of the bundle in all cases. Alan.by Alan3285 - Draft Stock Definitions
Economist Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can we have a 2011 running as well - given that a > collapse of the coalition within seven months > would seem to me to be incredibly unlikely? > Do you mean in addition to the 2011 one Admin proposed? If so, what would it cover? Alan.by Alan3285 - Draft Stock Definitions
Rather than the 'three mainstream media sources' (which seems a bit subjective to me), why not just take it on a formal announcement from the Labour Party? To do this requires they follow a well set-out process in line with their constitution, so it should not be in any way ambiguous. Also, why based on the leader on 1 Jan 2013? Why not the next leader as formally appointed by the party?by Alan3285 - Draft Stock Definitions
Hi mrh, I have been looking at this too, thinking there is an opportunity here. By my way of thinking, the one that seems to be out of kilter is MP.Anderton.2010? It looks like that is way too high at 77c (or thereabouts), if you compare with Mayor.Parker. Looks to me like it makes sense to short MP.Anderton.2010 at 77c, and short Mayor.Parker but somewhat less for now? How far?by Alan3285 - Active Stocks
This report seems to say that a formal agreement has been reached, and that the LibDems have now ratified it according to their party constitution: The Lib Dem parliamentary party and its federal executive endorsed the coalition agreement by the required three-quarters majority shortly after midnight I'd say close it - there is no way this is not happening now. Alan.by Alan3285 - Active Stocks
Seems too long to me. I suggest a top four or five, plus an 'other'. If someone in the 'other' starts to look reasonably likely, we can always so a stock-split on the other and issue everyone holding it two new shares (which added together will have exactly the same value). Of course, that might be technically challenging for IPredict! Alan.by Alan3285 - New Stock Ideas
I suggest we close this when (if) the LibDem ministers are sworn in. Up to that point, it is (technically) a minority cabinet, but once they swear in Nick Clegg (and the other four LibDems) then it immediately becomes a coalition cabinet. Even if it only lasts a few days, it was still a coalition at the time, and to my mind, meets the criteria of the contract. Alan. PS: I'm still chiby Alan3285 - Active Stocks
admin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cameron will be PM, but it isn't yet clear if it > will be in coalition or a minority government. If > a minority, then he must survive a the first > confidence vote to close the contract. > What do you mean by 'clear'? He did explicitly say it would be a coalition in his speech I think? If a coalitby Alan3285 - Active Stocks