"Why I don't think OMG ABC believes his own bullshit"

The BBQ Pit
41

Personally I think that Romney has a ~33% chance of victory. That’s not a sufficient margin for me to make a 50:50 bet under these circumstances.

But if a poster claims they are absolutely positive that Romney will win, I think it’s fair to ask them to put something tangible where their mouth is. I asked Bricker once to give me 3:1[?] odds on this election. He replied that he wasn’t 3:1 confident: he was even money confident. I thought his answer was honorable.

OMG hems and haws. I think he’s full of horse pucky – but so are most people when asked to back their opinions with something tangible, even if it’s of rather symbolic importance. In other words, most bold pronouncements in real life and on political television are BS. Not all though. Nate Silver pointed out that the predictions on the McLaughlin Group are equivalent to coin tossing. And some pundits (Dick Morris, IIRC) are worse (though a few are better - Clarence Page, for example).

I’ll add that the OP is ignoring transactions costs. Personally, I’d be reluctant to bet with prr as I don’t trust his character and I wouldn’t want to negotiate a friendly wager with him. Furthermore, bringing up the betting subject is a method of deflating blowhards. Once they turn you down, the job is over: there’s no need for a pit thread: they’ve already demonstrated their phoniness.

42

FTR, I offered OMG even money for $100 on the election. I didn’t hear any response. That said, I don’t take that as any sort of evidence that he doesn’t believe Romney will win. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. Why should I? I’m perfectly happy to accept his initial response in this thread.

43

No, they call him "Pseudointillectual Retard Retard. Of course, to be fair, what they call OMG is a bit worse. And it doesn’t end with ‘Conservative’.

44

$100 might be a lot of money to OMG, you never know. Besides there are problems (and I should know) in trying to collect money from an on-line entity, which why I suggested making a bet affecting only one’s on-line appearance for a few months.

45

I’ve offered small bets many time to elucidator, and he has always declined. Same thing with Der Trihs.

What doest hat tell you?

46

I’ve already stated what I thought declining money bets could mean. Were these money bets? Link me to a few of your offers, and I’ll see if I can find a reason for turning you down.

47

They were open ended bets where they could offer whatever stakes they wished. Always declined.

48

Here’s a two-fer for you.. An explicitly non-monetary bet offered to both of those guys.

49

I can’t speak for them, but it’s possible that they saw the probability of war as something like 20%, while you saw it as zero – and then offered them 50:50 odds. In other words, you offered a semi-sucker bet. At any rate I didn’t think it was specified in a sufficiently enlightening manner.

That said, elucidator and Der don’t strike me as the type who align rhetoric with carefully considered position too well. Most do not, which is why most demur from betting. I find offering a wager a useful method of highlighting this phenomenon. The funny part is that some people say they don’t gamble on such things proudly, even if the stakes are low and largely symbolic.

ETA: prr: It’s rare for a blowhard to take up an offer of a bet. So why are you singling out poor OMG?
ETA2: I offer a Romney predictor this: I’ll choose this as my sig for a month: “I gave Obama 2:1 odds on Oct 28, 2012. Sigh.” That’s my initial offer anyway, subject to negotiation…

50

OK, I’ll do one better, then. I’m pro-Obama. I’ll take $100 on Romney to the first taker. At least, that way, I can console myself with $100 worth of scotch if Obama loses. Serious bet, and you can post far and wide if I fail to pay on it. I’m good for it.

51

So if I offered to bet you ‘something significant’ on the outcome of a poll: “Do you think PRR is full of shit in this instance?” and over 50% endorse that proposition, would you let it go, already?

52

If I were prr, I’d request that the language be tightened, bargain for an 80% cutoff, settle for 2/3.

One reason why I like these wagers is that they demand precision about the underlying disagreement. The downside is that they are hard to specify in a mutually agreeable manner, even when both parties operate in good faith. In other words it is challenging to state the implications of beliefs in an observable and verifiable manner.

53

For someone how slings more BS than 90% of the posters here, the OP has set himself up for a slew of bets to prove the he believes his own.

54

Really? Let me know what I sling that you think is BS. Or is your 90% itself BS?

55

In fairness, she has really sharp fingernails.

… and prr will still be full of shit.

56

Cite?

57

… or as a result of a childhood lobotomy in your case, one presumes.

58

How am I full of shit, exactly? Are you claiming that I WOULDN’T bet OMG ABC on the election? That betting isn’t evidence of one’s beliefs?

What exactly are you saying here?

59

Whats wrong with thinking Romney will win the election?

I have serious misgivings about Obama’s chances suddenly myself. I’m not sure what kind of gotcha an incorrect prognostication is supposed to be.

60

Nothing wrong with it. I’m just saying that OMG ABC is boasting that “Obama is toast,” which is more confidence in Romney than I have in Obama, although I have more reason to have confidence than he does. I’m willing to bet on my candidate, yet he continues to run his mouth but refuses to bet on it.