The War Room Bet Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
HendoRuaGOAT said:
Elections are sucking all the oxygen out the news cycle right now, nothing else can breathe long enough to sustain itself.

Well accept for race/sjw, but I don't know how you would bet on that, maybe average estrogen level for a SJW, or when the south will actually rise again, over/under.
Click to expand...

Brexit would've been good timing too.
 
Space said:
Betting is for fools.

Besides, I don't think Quipling wants to use a cuck av after Hillary inevitably loses.
Click to expand...

But if he did okay the AV you propose and you are certain Hillary is inevitably going to lose, wouldn't it be foolish not to?
 
Lead Salad said:
But if he did okay the AV you propose and you are certain Hillary is inevitably going to lose, wouldn't it be foolish not to?
Click to expand...

No it would not. Creating risk for no reason is not the smart move, ever.

Fun, sure, but not smart.

What I find interesting is how much risk people seem to attach for their sig.

I can see why people value the av, as it is a visual representation that is attached to each post, but the sig, I would bet my sig for 3 months, on a bet I thought was probable to lose.
 
HendoRuaGOAT said:
No it would not. Creating risk for no reason is not the smart move, ever.

Fun, sure, but not smart.
Click to expand...

There is no risk from what he's saying and the result is giving out an AV of his choosing.
 
Lead Salad said:
Yea I suppose the election isn't something bet worthy at this point. I'd think people would find other things to wager from though. You even could do electoral votes margin or who wins a state.

Really wish this was made during the primaries. There were tons of things to do it with then
Click to expand...
You can do individual things, like an overunder % of the black vote trump will get - I know @TheComebackKid has expressed opinions on that which I believed to be wrong, and he's certainly not alone.

Or whether a state will flip, as some people were claiming pennsylvania or georgia.

As far as other things, there's not much with a clear outcome. How Scotus will decide a case, maybe. But most people don't care about it, don't know, or believe dismissive cynicism is a substitute for comprehension and research.
 
@IDL when do you suppose we will have a one world government

@ripskater , when do you suppose the rapture will occur. Well I guess that bet wouldn't work.

@TheComebackKid , got any wager ideas?
 
Quipling said:
You can do individual things, like an overunder % of the black vote trump will get - I know @TheComebackKid has expressed opinions on that which I believed to be wrong, and he's certainly not alone.

Or whether a state will flip, as some people were claiming pennsylvania or georgia.

As far as other things, there's not much with a clear outcome. How Scotus will decide a case, maybe. But most people don't care about it, don't know, or believe dismissive cynicism is a substitute for comprehension and research.
Click to expand...

I remember someone saying Texas turns blue also but I can't remember. Georgia definitely would be a good one. Florida even more so as the poll on that shows a complete split.
 
Lead Salad said:
There is no risk from what he's saying and the result is giving out an AV of his choosing.
Click to expand...

This is partly the argument I took jack to task for.

You are right that if a person is certain, there is no risk, but the problem with this idea, is in ignoring the value of feigning surety in a debate.

If one does not feign surity, he leaves himself open to attack of not really believing what they say, when no one but stupid people would be sure. Where actual surety is impossible without a crystal ball.

So rather then engaging in what amounts to a circle jerk, I would prefer to view betting as creating risk where there is no need for it to exist.

Betting is a want for amusement.
 
HendoRuaGOAT said:
This is partly the argument I took jack to task for.

You are right that if a person is certain, there is no risk, but the problem with this idea, is in ignoring the value of feigning surety in a debate.

If one does not feign surity, he leaves himself open to attack of not really believing what they say, when no one but stupid people would be sure. Where actual surety is impossible without a crystal ball.

So rather then engaging in what amounts to a circle jerk, I would prefer to view betting as creating risk where there is no need for it to exist.

Betting is a want for amusement.
Click to expand...

Agreed. People should just admit more often they arent 100% sure on these things when they aren't. Obviously a bet wouldn't make sense it were so. The whole point is risk and reward. I'm just playing with some to either admit to some honest uncertainty or back the claims they are making. Space just tried to do both and it doesn't work
 
Here is everyone satisfied and voting trumpIronMan374The brawler COTUR1@43 HeLLMuTT Space Veedski lilianjie DragRacer Thunderflash500 ZackZed Jin Akutsu jarj

And everyone satisfied and voting clintonFRANKIE 総統 Soul_of_Rage ncordless BryanIam saugeye killah Quipling SidJustice Shadface Killa InvestigatorIL Handsomebwonderfull

Disatisfied Trump GearSolidMetal LogicalInsanity TheStruggle Hans Gruber ShadowRun uncommon Dalarna3 fonzob1

Dissatisfied clinton Turtle Up KILL KILL Mainez ucunc156 Hitmandn MeatheadMike m52nickerson samhain222000 JosephDredd 7437 Rational Poster Fawlty deise69 AznTrojan ThinkGreen VulcanNervPinch FootstompShonie Diamond Jim Strange Shadows Limbo Pete mattandbenny

Im sure there are enough people sure of their candidate's chances on each sides to generate some action.

Incidentally, this is why I believe trump is going to get beat. Trump has an edge in devout followers, but Clinton has a substantial lead in people who are at least willing to vote for her - which is what matters more. (That, and the devout followers she does have she is leveraging well).
 
Lead Salad said:
Agreed. People should just admit more often they are 100% sure on these things when they aren't. Obviously a bet wouldn't make sense it were so. The whole point is risk and reward. I'm just playing with some to either admit to some honest uncertainty or back the claims they are making. Space just tried to do both and it doesn't work
Click to expand...

For sure, and there isnt the risk here of admitting to not being sure, as it is not tied to a current debate. In fact a person could admit to being unsure, while couching the statement in a way that would allow for claims of surety in the future if debate demanded it.

In other of words "of course I don't know, I have no crystal ball, but I am as sure as a reasonable person could be".
 
There's an interesting play between the two of you. Both agree on the effect of a bet mechanism - forcing people to admit to uncertainty - but you appear to disagree on whether that is a good or bad thing. @Lead Salad seems to believe that shutting down that bluster is a good thing, but @HendoRuaGOAT seems to think that bluster helps a debate, and by trying to force people to back it up, we're removing an important element of debate.
I could be misreading Hendo's argument here, but that seems to be what he is saying.
 
HendoRuaGOAT said:
For sure, and there isnt the risk here of admitting to not being sure, as it is not tied to a current debate. In fact a person could admit to being unsure, while couching the statement in a way that would allow for claims of surety in the future if debate demanded it.

In other of words "of course I don't know, I have no crystal ball, but I am as sure as a reasonable person could be".
Click to expand...

Well Space is easily there and then some, at least until this moment just came up. Actually surprised. I was sure as a reasonable person could be that he was sure as a reasonable person could be and then some that Trump was going to win.
 
Quipling said:
There's an interesting play between the two of you. Both agree on the effect of a bet mechanism - forcing people to admit to uncertainty - but you appear to disagree on whether that is a good or bad thing. @Lead Salad seems to believe that shutting down that bluster is a good thing, but @HendoRuaGOAT seems to think that bluster helps a debate, and by trying to force people to back it up, we're removing an important element of debate.
I could be misreading Hendo's argument here, but that seems to be what he is saying.
Click to expand...

There can be good in arguing from an absolute position at times for the sake of the conversation and what is explored from it but I would think with something more simple like who wins an election that isn't the case. People are obviously less sure than they admit to in the other threads which they are claiming absolute certainty, especially the polling thread.
 
HendoRuaGOAT said:
Agreed, we will get to a fever pitch as the debates close in, and the campaigning kicks into high gear. Polls will close as long as Trump is capable of not being controversial for 2 months, kind of a big if at this point however, but if polling does close we will see betting pick up.

I will take a bet with anyone who wants it, that 3rd party candidates combined will take 10% minimum in the general, for the first time since Perot.

Funny how the Clintons bring out the 3rd party vote in this country.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it Bush who brought out the third party when Perot ran? I was only 13 at the time, but I'm pretty sure I remember there being a big debate over NAFTA and the right feeling disenfranchised.

Don't mean to derail, if there's substantive discussion to be had we can move it elsewhere
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LMP
  • Locked
  • Poll
Social WAR ROOM 2023 AWARDS.
35 36 37
Replies
734
Views
31K
LMP
LMP

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,864
Messages
55,450,962
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top