From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Apr 27 23:36:17 2015 Received: from ideosphere.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3S3aH9N022628 for <email@example.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 23:36:17 -0400 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id t3S3aHaY022627 for fx-propose-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 23:36:17 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com (mail-lb0-f175.google.com [22.214.171.124]) by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3S3aGUD022623 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 23:36:17 -0400 Received: by lbbuc2 with SMTP id uc2so97204139lbb.2 for <email@example.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:36:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=7AzWYzeQ266KMJp5a9qFFxEJfHObxs3FlUZW+SzCuJg=; b=MN6ISU5nvrZTQ3Qx6b7biTvdiw8nsdiAHkVK+n+gIgzRc6vGYPlGktcCONElaeAHEr Z6sq8Qgxt2H4NXeJZ/+ljrC/mjLoZ4lHcglIrQSUHFWJNFoA8NFkEQ5ks0lIGOsDPccz VU5TKkrYWcQUj28j7ZPUG3rCHo9mIbP2nTKnVWQbgZtx1DuUwXccqxWJo6BYlDUalJlq fTRDoh+9cscXdMavbI1qprHwUJhxaEOPxfKY2D68plHwTXiPso/b1PjLS4YAzfU0dheb H+QB2HTA4avoEBAIaRPLE2La7TLQoXgYVtVmvMFitA3TvpIR05TS6l8dfJk3+2nIdygQ 6ZWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlOJlwTlYuVvv9EDdYqp8kiikuGSpo2TNHQYXFQ0en5zl6gtx4K4ps4z1c+p2Fl73BzVBX1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.37.201 with SMTP id a9mr11362977lak.120.1430192175358; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.20.134 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:36:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201504271307.t3RD72l1029873@ideosphere.com> References: <201504271307.t3RD72l1029873@ideosphere.com> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:36:15 -0700 Message-ID: <CAP2eGiveXhVYO3gPccrZyZG_qZ7vajuheHMikBmhQy2aFXozUw@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: fx-propose: Revision of Proposal: 'SSCBSA' From: David Klempner <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d170692be150514c09076 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:07 AM, FX <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > 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 in Philippon's favour then the claim will pay 4/6*100 = > $0.67 after rounding to the nearest cent. > bad format given for 'due date': TBD > To be clear, the focus of the claim as you have structured it is the Supreme Court split rather than the actual outcome of the case itself, which I find kind of weird and discontinuous. If you care more about the outcome of the case, you're better off with a claim that drops all this Supreme Court stuff and simply pays out based on the ultimate outcome of the case after appeals are settled. At that point the value of the claim has a reasonably clear interpretation -- a probability that he will win his case. (but what exactly does "win" mean? Are there weird loopholes?) Once you include this Supreme Court stuff, suddenly there's a split interpretation. If I think he's absolutely going to lose his appeal 2-7 if they hear it, that's worth 22 -- unless they don't hear it, in which case it is worth 0. Is a low value because FX participants believe the SC is not going to hear his case, or because they don't think many justices will support it? There's an additional issue: what if the Supreme Court makes multiple decisions related to the case? (Is this possible? I'm ignorant of the Canadian system.) Could there be scenarios where, for example, a Supreme Court ruling results in a retrial which ultimately results in another appeal to the Supreme Court and a second ruling? For that matter, are there situations where there, for example, may be a majority ruling in his favor, and a minority dissenting position which is also in his favor but with a less broad interpretation of the law? Is the "vote in his favor" actually well defined?
Back to regular message display
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL