>"There are 9 supreme court justices, so for example if the outcome is 4-3 in his favour (ie he wins by 1 vote, with 2
abstentions), it will pay out 4/9*100% = 45 (rounded up in case of a
This seems odd to me, 4-3 is significantly better than 4-5 conferring a
different overall result, yet the payout is the same.
I would suggest:
In the case that either Philippon wins or loses his case, but the Supreme
court hears the case,this claim will be judged on a scale based on how many
supreme court justices vote in favour of Philippon, divided evenly among
those Supreme Court Justices that heard the case and delivered a verdict
one way or the other.
If for example of the nine Justices, one did not hear the case or died
before delivering a verdict, two abstained and the remainder voter 4-2
favour then the claim will pay 4/6*100 = $0.67 after rounding to the
At least this way successful outcomes for Philippon will pay more than 50
cents. Winning the case with 1-0 and 8 abstentions yielding a payout of 12
cents looks decidedly too low. OTOH $1.00 payout looks too high so maybe
abstentions should count as a half vote so 1-0 7 abstentions and one not
hearing case pays out (1+7/2)/8 = $0.56 This payout would more properly
reflect a narrow win?
I am not familiar with supreme court so my examples may be addressing
things that are extremely unlikely.