Then you can get rich by betting against it, so most people seem to disagree with you. And in a democracy most people decide who the next leader will be.
Why would you assume that the parent (1) has a gambling addiction, (2) has enough side money they can lock into a far-away bet and (3) wants to place a bet that will more than probably never pay anyway because it won't be insured nor escrowed by a trusted third party?
Buying or selling stocks of companies owned by MAGA henchmen is probably much safer.
> Buying or selling stocks of companies owned by MAGA henchmen is probably much safer.
Not if you are 100% sure, which the poster seemed to be. Its not gambling if its a sure case. So you saying this is a risky bet means you disagree with the person.
> wants to place a bet that will more than probably never pay anyway because it won't be insured nor escrowed by a trusted third party?
Betting sites are trusted third parties.
Anyway, I wasn't telling him to bet on it. My point is that it is weird to say those for sure wont be the next president when most bettors are betting on those being the next president. You saying this is a risky bet means you disagree with him as well.
Then you can get rich by betting against it, so most people seem to disagree with you. And in a democracy most people decide who the next leader will be.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics
If I interpret the odds correctly the site is saying Newsom has 22% chance and Vance has 20% chance. These odds seem rather low.
Still above 50% chance one of the 3 people I mentioned will become next president according to the betting odds.
betting markets aren't "most people"
Why would you assume that the parent (1) has a gambling addiction, (2) has enough side money they can lock into a far-away bet and (3) wants to place a bet that will more than probably never pay anyway because it won't be insured nor escrowed by a trusted third party?
Buying or selling stocks of companies owned by MAGA henchmen is probably much safer.
> Buying or selling stocks of companies owned by MAGA henchmen is probably much safer.
Not if you are 100% sure, which the poster seemed to be. Its not gambling if its a sure case. So you saying this is a risky bet means you disagree with the person.
> wants to place a bet that will more than probably never pay anyway because it won't be insured nor escrowed by a trusted third party?
Betting sites are trusted third parties.
Anyway, I wasn't telling him to bet on it. My point is that it is weird to say those for sure wont be the next president when most bettors are betting on those being the next president. You saying this is a risky bet means you disagree with him as well.
1 reply →