Inkling Public Site

Make a prediction

Spend money (inkles) to express what you think will happen.


Wisdom of the crowd

Everyone's predictions are combined in to a single prediction.


Judgment time

Were you right or were you wrong about your prediction?

Don't show this again

MLB: How many fewer RUNS are scored in the American League than in the National League in the 2012 regular season?






Predicted: 726.00

Actual: 726.00

  • refunded

Question ends

September 22, 2012 @ 09:29pm PDT



Predictions Made


Most by: MFWinAlford (4 predictions)


Sort by: Down Date

chelseaboys   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 10:15am PDT

Asan aside, has anyone beta tested the iphone app? I registered a couple weeks ago but have heard nothing since. So either I was excluded or Admin has been too busy with the “paying” clientel as was so unelequently referenced earlier.

amsiegel (ADMIN)   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 10:23am PDT

Oh no – I’m doing a great job today offending everyone. Running this public site is far more fun and interesting than most other stuff we do, I was just trying to make a point, ineloquence notwithstanding.

We’re still tying up some loose ends with the iPhone stuff so no one has received anything yet. Should be this week hopefully. I think you’re going to be a little underwhelmed CB – it’s been a surprisingly hard project to get finished but it’s something we’ll be focusing on for awhile so it should get more features pretty quickly.

MFWinAlford   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 10:37am PDT

Adam, you’ve not offended me yet. Keep trying. ;)

Actually, despite our occasional tiffs like this, I know we all enjoy playing the game — o/w we wouldn’t be here. And, if we weren’t fiercely competitive we couldn’t have turned 5,000 inkles into the bundles we have now.

As for the comments about making things more fun, I agree. I’ll see if I can come up with something creative, but unfortunately I also have a real life to pay attention to…

job   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 09:14am PDT

I have no good feelings about this question. Don’t like to see this question on my scoreboard again. Sorry CB, I will refund this question!

chelseaboys   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 10:08am PDT

Ha. I have less good feelings about it than you! But sometimes things are too goid to be true.

amsiegel (ADMIN)   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 06:30am PDT

There is no hard rule about starting prices Job, we just trust that people will start their markets with prices that make sense. Frankly we can’t spend the time double checking starting prices because we’re busy doing other stuff for our clients who use this software internally and actually pay us for it. if we did check everything, there’d probably be a 2-3 day delay in publishing markets or more, which would suck. we have this public site out here purely for fun. but when we publish a market and then it immediately almost doubles in price within 10 minutes, that’s going to attract some attention.

it seems pretty simple to agree that if you have “reference” data, that should be used as the starting price. last year’s results would have been perfectly legit. the trend line for this year would have been perfectly legit.

i appreciate your honesty when you say you often start the prices artificially low to make it more fun. frankly, that’s a concern i’ve had for a long time – when you have a bunch of very rich players, how do you keep things fun for them? hey, rich people in real life have this same problem, they’re often bored. :) that said, that’s a problem of the application that needs to be addressed. it shouldn’t be addressed with artificially low starting prices.

job   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 08:06am PDT

I seriously thought that was the right thing to do seeing a lot of questions with underestimated values. But if I’am wrong I will change it in the future. I don’t see a hard reason to refund this question and let all the others untouched! (changed my mind, have enough of being accused of unfair play!)

MFWinAlford   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 10:46am PDT

Job, just to be clear, in case you’re talking about me — I never accused you of unfair play — only that the price you set was unfair. As you pointed out, CB stood to gain more than you, and I probably would have made a good profit, too. That said, I enjoy playing the game and outsmarting others (or at least making lucky guesses), and not by being given free inkles. That’s why it’s important to have fair opening prices. Players may want to bet them up or down, but it shouldn’t be obvious to everyone which way it should go. Your AAPL markets seem fair to me, for example. You usually set them so that the current price is somewhere in the middle of the ranges you give.

job   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 01:40am PDT

If the criterion is that there is no trade margin between the starting price in the possible price in the future, it should reflect all questions and not only this one. So if this is the new rule, I can refund more than half of my questions (and a lot of other questions should be refunded).

MFWinAlford   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 04:36am PDT

Job, at one time (I think before you joined Inkling), the market creator was not allowed to trade in their own market. This discouraged the kind of price discrepancy we see here, but it also discouraged trading and market creation, because people obviously make markets in things they are interested in. So it’s hard to know what is the right compromise.

Are you saying that you intentionally set an unrealistic price in more than half of your markets? Why do you do that?

job   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 05:33am PDT

My target was last years outcome around 570, because with 60% of the games not been played yet it’s hard to say what it will be this year. With 3 months to go and a perspective of 10% gain in a month leads to a starting price some less than 450. My thought is that these kind of mid- and long term markets have to compete with short term questions where you can win a lot more. With no trade margin between the starting price and the expected price in the FUTERE, these questions would not be very interesting to invest. That also explains the popularity of the recent NBA and NATO-Summit markets. My point is that:
1. I gave every information needed for a good review, and after having accepted the question the admin want to turn it back and….
2. Almost all long term questions are based on the same principle (only think of all the date questions) and if you set a rule it must be applicable to all questions.

MFWinAlford   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 06:32am PDT

Your logic is seriously flawed. If you put out a question that is underpriced by 80% it is not going to take several months to reach fair value; it will happen as soon as anyone notices. Take this market as a perfect example.

The prices that were set in the NBA points market were in fact what Tom thought were the best estimate of what each team would score. Obviously, not every team that is favored to win does so, and so there are surprises both up and down, but on average his prices were fair. Your price here was never fair.

chelseaboys   •   Sat Jun 23 2012 at 06:08pm PDT

Hey. I’ll admit I got in first, by pure luck. I was at work catching up and saw the new market pop up. However, my first thought was to short, based upon last year’s totals. And, what’s unfair about the scale? Each earns as they can afford to play?

Now that the hoops and hockey markets are done, I am sitting on 8 figures of unused inkles. Without markets like this, the game is becoming kind of boring.

MFWinAlford   •   Sat Jun 23 2012 at 08:25pm PDT

CB, I feel your pain. I have a pile of uninvested inkles as well. I was thinking of submitting a runs market for the MLB playoffs that could be started now. Let me give that some thought.

As to this market, here is my thinking: Job is correct that last year the answer was 574. So, a starting price of 450 is just wrong. It favors anyone who gets in early. The price should be set, in my opinion, so that it is not obvious whether to go long or short. The flaw here may simply be that it’s too simple a question. That’s why a multiple-team question would be more interesting, imho.

Alternatively, the price could have been set by using results so far this year. Referring to his links, and projecting out to 162 games, the difference would be 735. So, 450 is even more ridiculous. Maybe 650 could be justified. Big difference! But even that is probably too low.

amsiegel (ADMIN)   •   Sat Jun 23 2012 at 02:27pm PDT

This market should be refunded and should start at a more realistic starting price so as not to make the artificial gains possible right from the start by its publisher and those monitoring new markets quite so obvious. Want to try again or should I do it?

chelseaboys   •   Sat Jun 23 2012 at 03:24pm PDT

What the heck? You guys get a chance to review the market BEFORE it goes live, not after. It’s a legit market now. Let it go.

Your comment is also insulting in its not so subtle inference of collusion. I am offended by such a comment. Why would I collude with job? We are fighting against each other for every inkle in this race.

Again, let it play.

job   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 04:02am PDT

Refunding would disadvantage CB most of us all and it will increase the lead I just reached. I don’t want to be suspected of disadvantaging CB by refunding this question. That fact alone is reason enough for me to no refunding.

MFWinAlford   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 05:04am PDT

This is total nonsense. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Can you please provide the numbers to back up your statement?

job   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 05:40am PDT

CB an I have both 1000 shares, CB just payed a lower price, so his virtual profit is much higher!

MFWinAlford   •   Sun Jun 24 2012 at 06:27am PDT

Pikers! I have 3520 shares.

MFWinAlford   •   Sat Jun 23 2012 at 05:30pm PDT

Hold the phone, guys! If I follow Job’s logic; the current answer is 326 with ~40% of the season gone — dividing the first number by the 2nd gives 815 — fully 80% more than the starting price of 450. But it’s not just the pricing, it’s also the scaling. Right now, to move the price by just 10 runs, I would have to spend almost 300K inkles. That implies a huge profit for those who got in early (no names will be mentioned). So, this market is not about being smart, it’s about getting there first, and I think that is wrong.

job   •   Sat Jun 23 2012 at 02:59pm PDT

Sorry, but I don’t agree with your comment. The starting price of 450, is some less then the 574 of last year but not unrealistic. If the outcome is the same as last year you can make a profit of 27% in the coming three months. As usual the publisher did not trade until others started trading. I noticed that the last months more markets are priced to high (arrests Nato Top, total points NBA finals) by the players and maybe is the current 730 in this market also to high. But …..if you want to restart this question at a higher price go ahead !

Best4Lowell   •   Sat Jun 23 2012 at 12:15pm PDT

Glad to see you are learning about American sports. Your terminology is a bit confusing because you seem to be talking about total runs scored. Home runs are “hit” — runs are scored. So, based on the numbers below, I assume this question relates to runs scored?

job   •   Sat Jun 23 2012 at 02:15pm PDT

Thanks, I changed the formulation of the question.

historical trend

Click on possible answers in the right column to hide/show them on the graph. You can also hover over any line to see current value at that time. Graphs will begin to show data one hour after the question has been open. The Historical Trend chart does not display all prices ever reached since it is only updated at discrete time intervals, (hourly/daily/weekly, depending on the date range).

More information about the possible answers