I am planning to trade as follows: I will initially nudge new options (including options added by others) towards my perceived likelihood. Afterwards, I will only buy YES or sell NO to motivate myself.
Newly added options will only resolve to YES if the event they describe occurs after they are added.
I will attempt to answer your questions in the comments and provide updates on life developments that significantly affect the odds for any option, both within reasonable limits.
Inspired by: https://manifold.markets/TheAllMemeingEye/add-options-theallmemeingeye-love-l
Update 2025-04-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Resolution Criteria Update:
Original Meeting Requirement: The option will resolve to YES only if the person was originally met in real life (IRL), not through online dating.
Method of Initiation: Although the date was initiated online, the requirement focuses solely on having met the person IRL; an in-person ask is not necessary.
@traders So far, I assumed "met IRL" means "originally met IRL", so if I originally know someone from online dating, have since met them IRL, and then ask them on a date, would that count or not? Depending on your feedback, I might clarify the option one way or another for future traders. @MingCat @SeanOylerMusicVideos
@traders Would anyone like to share or take the remaining mana on "date" before I resolve it to YES? Before you get your hopes up for further YES resolutions: I already know there won't be a second date with this person. 😅
I already know there won't be a second date with this person. 😅
Sorry to hear, I'm sure you'll succeed if you keep looking though
@4fa wait a second, was this date initiated via you asking in person, and thus resolves the other option too, or was it asked online and/or by the other person?
@TheAllMemeingEye Oh, didn't see your edit. Online, by me. But your question adds another possible interpretation to that IRL option, i. e. whether I have to ask IRL. I'm going with my original interpretation: It has to be someone I originally met IRL, as opposed to having met them through online dating, but I don't have to ask them IRL – it's unlikely enough as it is. 😆
@traders Would someone like to share or take the remaining mana on "Schrödinger's date" before I resolve it to YES? @TheAllMemeingEye @MingCat @SaviorofPlant
@traders I'm meeting someone on Monday. Previous outings with her have all been "Schrödinger's dates", so unless it suddenly turns either clearly platonic or clearly romantic/sexual, I think I will resolve "Schrödinger's date" to YES on Thursday. I‘m planning to give an update on Monday.
@4fa hmm, I'm not experienced with relationships and I'm very neurodivergent, but my intuitive expectation is that repeated "Schrödinger's dates" are significantly likely (though not guaranteed) to lead to a situation where one of you is reasonably convinced you're romantically involved while the other has been assuming it's completely platonic, and if the realisation of the truth happens suddenly and in-person then it's likely to cause intense sadness and embarrassment in the one who thought it was romantic and intense creeped-out-ness in the one who thought it was platonic, in turn likely leading to immediate breakdown and loss of the existing friendship
@TheAllMemeingEye I see! Currently, I am not convinced of either option and am okay with both. Should that change, I will ask for clarification.
I remember being in the described situation years ago, though. Let's hope I've learnt something. 😅