I like this idea, I'm trying to think about how I would make something that would satisfy this. Let me know what you think of these ideas:

• Two users who have positions in a market have an "agreement score" in that market which is calculated by taking the product of their positions, made negative if they are opposed.

  • For example, if you have a position of M$10 YES, and I have a position of M$10 NO, our agreement score is -100. If I sold half my position, our score would become -50.

  • This emphasizes markets where both parties hold large positions, not just one.

  • Note this does not take into account limit orders. Maybe include limit orders if they are within X% of the current probability?

• You can get the total agreement score between yourself and another user by summing your agreement score on every market you both have positions in.

  • Using this method you can find users you commonly agree with, and those you commonly disagree with.

  • Worried that a simple summing here would just inflate users that bet a lot, rather than those with large differences. Maybe square (keeping the sign) then sum?

• You can get your largest individual agreements/disagreements by searching for the highest/lowest agreement score within open markets. This would return a single market-user combination where you are aligned/opposed very significantly.

  • Using this method you can find a potential place to create a large limit order and encourage the other side to match it.

  • You could filter these by users who have current balance or net worth over a certain amount to ensure they have enough mana to trade against.

  • You could also prioritize users you commonly bet against (total agreement score below 0).

This sounds like the basis for subject matter calibration of a bot trader.

This sounds like it could be a nice addition to the platform (i.e., an option somewhere that allows you to see this for specific markets or groups of markets that you have made a lot of bets for, for example)

/sub