Accuracy Contest: First round questions

The first round of questions has been selected for the new accuracy contest. Forecasts on these questions from November 7, 2014, through December 6, 2014, have their market scores calculated and added to a person’s “portfolio.” The best portfolios at a time shortly after March 7, 2015, will win big prizes.

Here is the list of questions’ identification numbers:

44, 45, 48, 76 103, 123, 128, 129, 138, 140, 144, 154, 158, 173, 175, 179, 184, 191, 193, 195, 197, 201, 204, 208, 216, 224, 229, 230, 253, 309, 314, 316, 321, 326, 328, 333, 338, 345, 347, 355, 357, 358, 369, 374, 376, 377, 378, 384, 386, 403, 409, 416, 418, 419, 420, 425, 428, 438, 447, 448, 451, 452, 454, 467, 468, 529, 553, 561, 565, 581, 583, 588, 607, 609, 620, 622, 625, 633, 635, 644, 647, 654, 663, 665, 670, 679, 684, 693, 702, 704, 706, 710, 715, 719, 720, 724, 726, 741, 745, 774, 786, 791, 793, 801, 816, 818, 819, 822, 839, 842, 847, 851, 853, 856, 858, 863, 875, 876, 895, 897, 900, 905, 910, 918, 920, 922, 923, 925, 926, 927, 929, 931, 933, 936, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 957, 958, 959, 961, 962, 963, 964, 966, 977, 978, 979, 981, 987, 988, 989, 991, 1004, 1007, 1010, 1011, 1014, 1016, 1026, 1030, 1034, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1044

You can reach a particular question by typing “!/questions/<NUMBER>/trades” into your browser while replacing <NUMBER> with the identification number for the question that you care about.

To see all the questions in one place on, filter the questions. You can most easily find the prize questions for the first round by logging in and clicking on “QUESTIONS.” On the left side under “TOPICS” check “Prize-Eligible Nov & Jan.

EDIT (2014-11-13):

We selected questions for the competition that are most likely resolve before the contest ends. There will only be two sets of questions, and we’ve tried to make them very similar. Question sets will alternate for prize eligibility each month over four months, so we’ll reveal the next set of questions a few days before December 7. Those questions will be eligible again on February 7, and the questions in this first month will be eligible again on January 7.

We reserve the right to spontaneously add short-term questions to the sets as the contest continues so that the volume of eligible questions is somewhat stable.  We also might randomly change the exact time that eligibility of forecasts begins and ends so that someone can’t profit by making a trade at 23:59:59 at the end of one month and reversing it seconds later at 00:00:01 the next month.  Although this could disqualify someone under the contest rules verbiage about “purposefully losing behavior” and attempts to create artificial trends, we would rather not provide the temptation.


4 thoughts on “Accuracy Contest: First round questions

  1. Phoenix

    Please elaborate on the vague “purposefully losing behavior” rule. I am currently backing out of positions on many non-Contest questions in order to free up liquidity to participate in Contest questions. It is entirely likely that I will forecast very differently next month if any of these questions become Contest-eligible. I assume that this is completely OK (how can it not be?) but it is very murky as to where the line might be drawn. If there is a chance that you will disqualify participants who shift liquidity from month to month, would you please elaborate on the thresholds you would find “out of bounds?” Also, will it be clearly indicated in some way when the Contest-eligible questions change?

    1. ctwardy

      @phoenix: Right, that’s OK. We expect forecasters to reallocate assets towards the Contest. For contrast, here’s a clear violation: right before the monthly change, you trade all next month’s questions, then as soon as the change happens you reverse the trades.

      Fortunately this exploit is self limiting. The bigger the potential for illicit contest profit (late and large trades), the easier it is to detect and disqualify. Legitimate reallocation will tend to happen earlier and less drastically, and substantial mispricings will get tend to get corrected by those with sufficient liquidity.

      1. Phoenix

        Thanks for replying, but that really just echos what was already stated on the other thread. You have given an example of obviously legitimate behavior, and an obvious egregious violation. I was hoping for an effort at stipulating thresholds, but now understand why you are not going there. Back in the (former) USSR my family was expert living in the “gray area,” and I see that this is how this contest will work.
        I am a semi-active participant and will never win the “real” Leaderboard but I think I can win contest with limited assets and no bot. Only @jkomminek scares me but he is “good sport” and not competitive. I don’t want to “cheat” but want to maximize advantage. With good American rules that would be easier, but would also open you up to stuff that would probably undermine your greater research objectives. So some Russian/Chinese vagueness suits your purposes here. I say that with the utmost respect and admiration under the cloak of Internet anonymity; probably wouldn’t say it if I were in Moscow with position known.

        Now that I “get it,” I think I can stay “within acceptable parameters,” and will be loud voice if anyone else pushes too far. It will be during the window that you make next question set known, but not-yet-eligible. I really don’t understand why you do that, but I see that as the period of “maximum grayness.”

        Also, how will we know exactly when you switch questions from Eligible to Ineligible? (I really hope that you aren’t keeping that gray.)

  2. Pingback: Accounts Disabled for Blatant Gaming Behavior | The Official SciCast Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>