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

How will the NFL punish the New England Patriots surrounding the "Deflategate" scandal?




Coach Bill Belichick is fined/suspended


Predicted: 1.60%

Actual: 1.60%

Locker room attendants are fired


Predicted: 51.00%

Actual: 51.00%

Loss of draft pick(s)


Predicted: 99.41%

Actual: 99.41%

Patriots team records are altered


Predicted: 6.52%

Actual: 6.52%

Team is fined


Predicted: 99.57%

Actual: 99.57%

Tom Brady is fined


Predicted: 24.61%

Actual: 24.61%

Tom Brady is suspended more than 4 games


Predicted: 15.24%

Actual: 15.24%

Tom Brady is suspended up to 4 games


Predicted: 49.01%

Actual: 49.01%

  • refunded

Question ends

September 10, 2015 @ 04:52pm PDT



Predictions Made


Most by: SneakyPete (13 predictions)


Sort by: Down Date

benthinkin (ADMIN)   •   Thu May 14 2015 at 08:19am PDT

I’ve contacted the question creator shaunjenn to ask whether he refunded the question. As far as I can tell, it wasn’t done by an admin.

wstritt   •   Wed May 13 2015 at 11:05am PDT

Why were all stocks in this market refunded? Aside from the Brady suspension stocks, the other stocks were OK and did not overlap any other market.

foobar   •   Wed May 13 2015 at 04:25pm PDT

What the? Hmmm, I don’t know why all the stocks were refunded… Think of this issue another way – do you really want to anger the heavy users of this site who appear to have issues with the refunding this market?

wstritt   •   Thu May 14 2015 at 07:42am PDT

Putting aside heavy usage, basic question is why would this question be refunded after ANYONE traded in good faith in stocks that were/are (if waiting for final answer after appeals) perfectly valid?

chelseaboys   •   Wed May 13 2015 at 12:10pm PDT


benthinkin (ADMIN)   •   Fri May 08 2015 at 09:39am PDT

Quick appeal to sanity here: the Inkling team has been talking for some time about ways to improve the quality of questions on the site. We all appreciate users’ effort in crafting questions, and certainly don’t want to discourage question creation creation or forecasting.

While jds’s concerns about this market are generally agreed upon by the Inkling Team, he probably could have addressed the situation more diplomatically, and for that reason he’s been fired. (Just kidding).

It’s clear there’s a larger concern here, which is establishing site-wide rules and enforcing them fairly and consistently. To that end, we’re going to implement the following changes:

  1. Admin users will be clearly labeled in the comments. It seems like this is adding to the confusion.
  2. We’re developing guidelines for how to write questions, and will publish these to the site shortly. The Inkling team will enforce these guidelines more rigorously at the time of publication.
  3. In some cases admins may revise, close, resolve, or refund questions, but only for reasons spelled out in the published guidelines.
  4. jds will be fired. (again kidding)

I hope this clears up some of the confusion. We want all our users to have a positive experience, and are open to constructive feedback.

chelseaboys   •   Fri May 08 2015 at 11:26am PDT


My guess is that while well-intentioned, your efforts at rule-making will never be exhaustive and you’ll find that the rules will constantly need revision because some smart aleck, like me, will find a way around them…like Tommy Brady has been doing for years! Wow, how about that for circling back?

benthinkin (ADMIN)   •   Fri May 08 2015 at 11:33am PDT

Our goal is to publish questions that are clearly defined, and that generate high-quality, measurable forecasts. I suspect that question authors who share these goals will find it easy to have their questions published, and authors who don’t will find their questions being adjusted by moderators.

sflicht   •   Sat May 09 2015 at 11:46am PDT

Why not adopt a reputation / points system to encourage good questions without active moderation? A first approximation might be: the more forecasts (or perhaps more distinct participants) a question attracts, the more reputation it earns for its author. In case of substantial controversy or delay around resolution, moderators (at the request of some minimum threshold of forecasters who lodge a complaint by clicking a button) can revoke this reputation award. Questions authored by those with higher reputation can be displayed more prominently on the homepage. Reputation could also earn those who have it the right to serve as (or vote for) community-elected moderators. Basically, I’m of the belief (which I’ve expressed on Scicast forums as well) that in the absence of currency (real or play money) incentives surrounding the question creation and resolution mechanisms, prediction markets can learn a lot from the quantified reputation system for building emergent community norms that has been deployed most successfully by the Stackexchange family of websites. In contrast, Reddit seems like a good example where the combination of active moderation (by community members), active admin intervention, and ill-designed reputation quantification all combine to form a cesspool of suspicion and hatred.

chelseaboys   •   Fri May 08 2015 at 11:38am PDT

You may well be correct. My experience with stiffer regulation of the previously loosely regulated points otherwise. And potentially, you and your staff will essentially be writing all the questions.

jds (ADMIN)   •   Thu May 07 2015 at 01:52pm PDT

Basically, this is a non-exclusive market. Having these two correlated stocks in a market isn’t good practice. If the stock was “Tom Brady is suspended”, then it would be great.

An exclusive market with stocks:

Not Suspended
Suspended 1-3 games
Suspended 4 or more games

is appropriate in this case. It wasn’t that it overlapped with another market, though limiting overlapping markets is something we’d like to work on. If we had caught this before it was published, those closed stocks would have been removed.

The main point here is that we’re working on updating the guidelines about what constitutes good prediction market questions, and are planning on being more strict with what gets published here. This should lead to better, clearer questions and a better environment, but also one where everyone knows the rules as well. The last thing we want to do is discourage question creation or forecasting, but we do want to improve the overall quality of questions.

chelseaboys   •   Thu May 07 2015 at 02:04pm PDT

“Says who” is my answer to that pretentiousness. A market that allows multiple answers to be correct need not be “exclusive”. If only one answer is correct, then exclusivity is necessary.

Even if you just limit your erroneous analysis to the two Brady suspension stocks, they ARE exclusive. One is 0-4, the other is >4. What else is there? Not suspended is included in his “up to 4 games” stock.

If he wanted to go year-by-year, he could have done so. BUT, that was his call, not yours.



truckasaurus   •   Fri May 08 2015 at 09:29am PDT

You’re halfway right. Those Brady stocks can’t both resolve as correct, so they should be exclusive. Also, the ‘up to 4’ stock is 1-4, not 0-4.

If there were simply one stock, something like “Tom Brady is suspended”, then that would be hunky dory, but as it stands it presents a pretty clear opportunity for arbitrage.

chelseaboys   •   Fri May 08 2015 at 11:22am PDT

Mea culpa. I could swear that when I first read the information about “up to four” it din’t say 1-4. However, the way it is written, I agree.

But, in a market that can have multiple correct answers, I still believe non-exclusivity is ok. Both of the suspension markets could be shorted to 0 by a player believing no suspension will occur. What’s wrong with that scenario?

truckasaurus   •   Fri May 08 2015 at 11:40am PDT

Sure, that’s the point. In this market, Brady can get fined AND suspended AND the Pats can get fined. But obviously, Tommy Boy can’t get suspended for 2 and 5 games.

I’d also take issue with that stock being a 0-4 game suspension, if only because that’s not a great categorization – those two outcomes are extremely different in terms of the NFL.

If I understand you right, then yeah – you can absolutely spend your money in whatever manner you prefer. You shouldn’t, however, be able to bet both of the suspension stocks in this market down, because one precludes the other. If one goes down, the other by its very nature should go up.

Goose   •   Thu May 07 2015 at 05:01pm PDT

Deal with it. You didn’t build that.

chelseaboys   •   Thu May 07 2015 at 06:11pm PDT

Build what?

Goose   •   Fri May 08 2015 at 08:45am PDT

Anything as far as I know but specifically the business that is Inkling. Your distaste for regulation is pathological. It is also boorish and uninformed.

Markets that are poorly constructed benefit the lucky person that discovers the flaw first and combined with the rule that allows market makers to play in their own games provides an incentive to submit bad markets. Inkling and jds want to correct that flaw by disincentivizing markets that do not require skill or knowledge to win. Why are you opposed to improving game play to favor skill over luck?

chelseaboys   •   Fri May 08 2015 at 08:49am PDT

Your socialist tendencies are showing….

The marketmaker made a market. The site approved it. Play occurred. Then the game was changed “in the guise of improving the site”. Complete BS which you seem to endorse.

So, keep your offensive, insulting and patronizing comments to yourself.

Goose   •   Fri May 08 2015 at 04:03pm PDT

I will speak when I wish. I don’t need your permission.

You realize don’t you that your response is the exact response of the Republican Party to Obama’s statement “You didn’t build that.” The market maker requires the infrastructure provided by Inkling to ask his question. Without it, the market doesn’t exist just as without the interstate highway system to provide inexpensive transportation of goods and the public education system to provide educated employees the so called independent businessman cannot succeed. For that reason the federal government is justified in regulating business to ensure a level playing field and Inkling is justified in setting standards to promote fair play.

chelseaboys   •   Sat May 09 2015 at 08:23am PDT

Thanks for the leftist civics lesson. I’m very certain that you and I should not get into a political discussion here because I can’t imagine even a scintilla of commonality in our perspectives.

By the way, I think your “screen name” is perfect for you.

chelseaboys   •   Thu May 07 2015 at 02:10pm PDT

And Shaunjenn has only been in the game a few months. If you wanted to edit his question, how about SENDING him a private email with your concerns. You could even, if you thought the matter eggregious enough, suspend all trading in the market until you resolved it with the marketmaker. BUT, it’s still HIS market, albeit in YOUR game.

This is how you lose newbies, I’m afriad.

jds (ADMIN)   •   Thu May 07 2015 at 11:21am PDT

I’m refunding the Tom Brady suspension stocks. Those should be in an exclusive market. For predictions about that, see here:

chelseaboys   •   Thu May 07 2015 at 12:06pm PDT

Yeah, wth? I made early trades there that are no longer viable. That’s BS.


"Did Brady really know???????"

SneakyPete sold Tom Brady is fined at 66.38%
May 07, 2015 @ 10:10am PDT

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

Coach Bill Belichick is fined/suspended

Locker room attendants are fired

Loss of draft pick(s)

Patriots team records are altered

Team is fined

Tom Brady is fined

Tom Brady is suspended more than 4 games

Tom Brady is suspended up to 4 games