Foster

@alch3my101 @Kalshi UFC was still one where it was just kinda subjective on where the start of the round was, and I can see a reason for both sides of the argument. The NBA one we experienced feels very objective and strictly laid out in the contract and NBA rulebook :/

There are levels to the rules game and rulecucks. Never thought I’d see one on a huge market like this. Of course the UFC one a few weeks ago too. A lot of this is @Kalshi team either being lazy or incompetent. In order to make an idea clear you have to address the counter. Kalshi rules almost never do that so there are voids of understanding that we affectionately call “rulecucks.” In short, more often than not rulecucks are Kalshi’s fault for not writing clear rules.

This one got me too, a full reading of the rules seems very solid that 2H includes overtime per contract and NBA's official rules. Market obviously was confusing to people so it sucks to see losses but really feel like the that should be asking for a refund shouldn't be the ones that read the contract vs the market maker who didn't and got paid out fully😢

My point is simply that per rules, 2h is q3, q4, and overtime. Not asking for additional points that fall outside that clarification to magically count. Nothing here is contradictory. But yeah, the market is confusing enough if good traders are coming to it with different interpretations but I agree back and forth is pointless. Only thing that annoys me is that as a result of my trades they changed the rule variables going forward which feels like thats at least a time they could consider cost refunds

@Foster anyways I'm open to the idea you can read it your way, but many of the rules seem to argue directly against each other and we can agree that's bad. No point in more back and forth probably. GL GL.

@Squee451 Time period is always specified, thats just reiterating the rules that its only points in that period and not the state of the game during that period. Additionally the argument is the nba and contract both imply overtime is and and should be considered part of the 2nd half

@Foster The top seems to specify that points outside specified time period don't count for teams totals unless explicitly marked to be cumulative. What do you read the top clause as?

I don't think that has anything to do with this to be honest, I think you are misinterpreting that statement or I am confused what point you are trying to get across. That's just explaining how to calculate spread and specifying it uses points in the time period only and not the spread at that point in the game. IE, a q2 spread is the spread in points scored only in q2, not the spread at the end of q2. And if both teams scored 5 points in a time period, it's a tied period which can happen regardless if Kalshi decides to include overtime in a period or not

@Foster also think this bottom clarification is meant to imply they specified time period and points scored outside like overtime don't count, but get why the earlier rules read would make that seem not necessarily true.

There have been many markets where weird rule instances have slipped through the cracks. I dont think it would hold up in court for Kalshi to say "Well 2 weeks ago we resolved against the ruleset so we can do it here" The discussion is if the rules aligned with resolution or not, precedent is for subjective situations. And precedent only would matter if Kalshi was aware of all the circumstances (like nba rulebook and the difference in the contract) at time of resolution. Which I would wager they didnt have people like myself or mentions crew arguing, and instead had a lot of the same people who buy 2h moneyline thinking its the same as regular moneyline

@Foster I would bet if they knew two exactly similar markets had resolved the opposite way including one the day before it would be trading where it traded?

You cant act like the price mattered there man, the game was 4% chance to go to OT. After it went to OT the market had no other traders besides the group of yes buyers and the no bonder. Those markets are among the most niche for each event and many of them closed with a few hundred shares of OI. Most traders being people who reviewed the contract and situation after the fact and thus realized the issue. Price should not be the determining factor. Others only became aware after the market closed, and I would side bet any amount of money that if the entire Kalshi discord was trading that market after knowing the ruleset, it would trade >75c

@Foster What do you mean most traders? Most traders priced it at 0, very few traders priced it at above 0, you can look at volume over time and what traded. The people complaining on twitter all read it your way for sure, but the price didn't flip to 99c and stay there.

@Squee451 Just feels like the clause is completely unneeded with your interpretation. But yes its a bit concerning, additionally having it be a big enough issue to warrant rule changes but hearing absolutely nothing back when a large chunk of people consider this an egregious misresolve

@Foster I'm glad they are clearly specifying it now. Does seem dumb to me that they had people like you and me read the rules and come to opposite conclusions.

The 2h markets came about like a month ago, looks like its happened 3 times maybe? Just cause the incorrectly resolved a market previously doesn't mean they should continue going forward when the issue is presented to them. The markets were previously pretty damn small and the 2h moneyline was the only one with action and had proper rules. Its probably why the rule variables all are now "2nd Half (excluding overtime)" I don't see the need to continue to discuss it if your takeaway from "Overtime points are included unless explicitly excluded." means to you the exact opposite meaning from what most traders take away from it. Especially with source agency rules also saying OT = 2nd half

@Foster Because this exact argument happened in that category of sports and they didn't fix it, despite all the precedent of them not counting second half in NBA ever.

@Squee451 No, first half is first half, nba does not say overtime is an extension of the first half... They regularly use 2nd half of *regulation time* in their terms for markets, why do they even need to specify that if you believe 2nd half isnt inclusive?

@Foster If you take where not specified otherwise time period should be understood to refer to the sum of the regulation time and overtime literally like you want it, it counts in first half spreads/points and totals cause first half doesn't exclude it?

Those sub segments are just examples they can list, but right before those example time periods it states "Overtime points are included unless explicitly excluded." NBA considers overtime to be 2nd half. So the source agency is literally reporting those overtime points to have taken place in the 2nd half. I think you are assuming the exact opposite of what is true in the contract. Im very confused how you can see those clauses and think they mean nothing?

@Foster It lists a bunch of the sub specified sections like Q1 and Q1 and Q2 and half, and what not. If it's sub specified it's not including overtime unless explicit.

@Squee451 And in multiple other markets they regularly use "2nd half of regulation time"

@Foster That overtime counts only when specified, or subsegment isn't specified. A subsegment is clearly specified in first half/second half.

I cant find anywhere that specifies a half to be omly q3 and q4. Only the contrary with all the overtime included clauses, the norm in the industry, and the nba/espn rules (the source). 2nd half can easily and often means everything after halftime. And one of the examples lists "each half across the *entire game*" implying that both halves encompass the whole game. If the market was "Q3 and Q4" then absolutely no argument about it, which is an option they can even list! What portion are you ever reading in the contract and rules that implies OT shouldn't count?

@Foster Also, think a clear reading of rules is half is specified, quarters are specified, 2nd half, is specified, I read it as being only second half points specifically. Weird how you got the other read.

I disagree with the ufc market, but thats a case of where you read the rules, and technically there is a clause that says revisions dont count and I can see a path they go to get their resolution - but I think they shoulda just ate it and refunded effected sides. But in this market it seems abundantly clear how overtime is considered :/

@Foster Honestly the ufc one was way crazier cause 2 weeks prior they DID reresolve the market when the results got changed, but then didn’t 2 weeks later because one of their partners clearly had heavy exposure

I mean when it comes to 1 cent markets Im a bit slimy but I appreciate the kind words <3 To be honest, I always try to understand both sides' interpretations, this one just felt more clear than most markets I end up in, but often its just us mentions people getting each other, not mentions traders vs a sports MM

@Foster @Mr_Nick13 @KalshiSports @Kalshi and the thing is i think you and nickare actually really respectable genuine guys unlike some people who go out of there way to genuinely scum people out of their money, so i’m not happy you guys lost money but you know

Pretty frustrated with @KalshiSports handling of a contract issue on last nights 2H NBA Cavs vs Knicks game. This is a specific discussion over @Kalshi 's contract and rule variable language differences among props, leading traders to believe they are trading different outcomes.

I lost betting on 2nd half overs in the CLE-NY game last night. Kalshi argued that 2nd half only includes regulation time, even though their full rules state overtime points are included unless explicitly excluded, and every sportsbook I know includes OT in 2H lines. Seem fair?

yeah its weird, the rules change a lot and contracts get amended without many people catching it. I always try to double check them when I do bigger trades. Even recently Kalshi amended the mention contract and most didnt notice. The market was confusing in general, just sucks to get completely ghosted even from refunds when arguably our interpretation is the correct one

@Foster @Mr_Nick13 @KalshiSports @Kalshi I was wrong, for whatever reason i remember ot not counting, but you’re right on that aspect. I guess my issue is the fact that we have had gaps in the rules and they have either ruled on a rule that will be implemented from there on out, or just ignored the rules previously

Most sportsbooks have it so that 2nd half includes overtime from what I looked into. And it makes sense that kalshi would want to continue the norm from those platforms. I think that we should be upset every time a market goes against rules, but a big thing to me is that often times in rule arguments, the markets are somewhat ambiguous and subjective, and they resolve against how some interpret the rules while still being somewhat understandable in terms of how they interpreted the rules for a resolution. This resolution feels like once you read the contract and rules, then see how they handle the same clauses in other markets (specifying regulation time only), there is no sane argument for why OT should not be included in the 2h market - other than "they usually do that for other markets with other contracts and other rule variables"

@Mr_Nick13 @KalshiSports @Kalshi plus logic would dictate that 2H ends at regulation, most sportsbooks have that in their rules, i guess kalshi didn’t, but that hasn’t stopped them in the past from going against their rules for what’s most logical

@cambo_ranch @QbertTrades

@QbertTrades The market was determined in accordance with the full market rules 👍👍👍