Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 pm
It's a good summary but do you think this article support the suggestion that 3 to 1 is good odds or bad odds?
Well, in theory you take a 3 to 1 bet if you think the probability is higher than 25% chance, so yeah.
By the article I would say it's more than a 50% chance he will be the nominee of probably means anything.
Personally I'd go as high to say 75% unless he's impeached or eats a baby (which is about what it'd take for the Republicans to abandon him, they're loyal to their tribe beyond reason).
Impeachment looks unlikely if the Democrats haven't moved on that by now... what are they waiting for?
Maybe they want to let him burn things down rather than give Pence a good chance to lead things (and a better chance of winning).
Unless they're waiting until the last minute so the Republicans have to scramble for a nominee. Or maybe they want to run against Trump? Too many variables. If they're waiting for that then Trump has no chance but I have no means to divine the psychology of the Democrats. Inside knowledge here would be very useful.
They're not offering a huge margin over what I'd guess. It's good odds, but not great odds.
Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 pm
That must suck. I mean to believe that an event is unlikely ( presumably a lot less than 50 percent) while having the option to triple your money on it if you only had the money.
Even if I had that money, I'd put it into other things that are more sure, like infrastructure investment that's also good for the environment.
There are a lot of things in your home or long term rental that you can do to save more money than that.
Think solar water heating, greywater system, vegetable garden with automatic irrigation... Things that will pay back in a year or two and give you multiple times what you spent over their lifetimes.
Also, a few of the meat alternatives look like they're gearing up for IPOs, and investing in those is good for veganism and a pretty good bet too.
Investing in small vegan businesses is also a good call ethically, although payoff is less likely.
Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 pm"Gambling, " and I hate to use that term since it should be reserved for luck casino style games, is a negative sum game for most people. It is a positive sum game for people who understand statistics, mathematics, probabilities, who are self-disciplined and who do their home-work.
No, I mean a "negative sum game" in the sense that there's no value added, but net value lost. One person has to lose and then some for another person to win even less than that person lost.
Even if you reliably win, somebody else has to be losing.
Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 pm
Good point. However, these days the odds of some bookmakers are very close (and often better) to those of betting exchanges. Would you have a problem winning money from a big bookmaking company?
As I'm not a gambler, I don't know well enough how that works.
My understanding is that odds are generated based on the ratio of wagers people make minus a cut for the house, and the company running it never loses its own money nor participates in actual wagering. I could be wrong.
If you're really just taking money from an evil bookmaking company that's putting up its own cash, maybe that would be OK.
Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 pmWould you at least concede that 3 to 1 on Trump not being the Republican nominee is a damn good odds for someone who has some money to invest? Personally I think it is and might put some money on it.
If you have spare money and nothing else to put it into, I suppose so.
But I'd really look into what you can invest in at home first.
Do you have a greywater system? Solar water heating? Irrigation system and vegetable garden?
Payoff for investment at home is likely to be better than gambling, and more sure of a thing... plus a lot better for the environment.