The UFC 207 Betting Odds are in.

[Bend NvR Break]

Keep hoping and keep gambling (rather than investing), and maybe your dreams will come true.

Some people win the lottery and when they do they think it's because they're smart. You sound like that kind of guy.

Investing is gambling. There's risk and choice and no way to know the outcome unless you have insider information which is illegal. There's no such thing as a sure thing in both arenas but one thing that investing has that straight up gambling didn't have is different tools to keep from losing all your money.


How many financial wizards have gone broke after years of extreme success at the stock exchange? More than a few.

Gambling and investing both go off trends. Is something trending up or down?

But I'll keep doing what I'm doing. You keep doing what you do.

 

[Cold Front]

Investing is gambling. There's risk and choice and no way to know the outcome unless you have insider information which is illegal.

No, the economy grows over time. So you're better off investing than not. Because over the long run, the stock market is a reflection of the economy's growth.

Consistently apply a buy-and-hold strategy to a handful of funds that mirror the market and you will have far more money than if you never put a cent in the market. That's been true of every period of American financial history and of every other developed country's stock market. Even Japan's.

Period. End of lesson.

 

[Bend NvR Break]

No, the economy grows over time. So you're better off investing than not. Because over the long run, the stock market is a reflection of the economy's growth.

Consistently apply a buy-and-hold strategy to a handful of funds that mirror the market and you will have far more money than if you never put a cent in the market. That's been true of every period of American financial history and of every other developed country's stock market. Even Japan's.

Period. End of lesson.

I wish I could actually talk to you because you what you said is entirely wrong.

The economy grows and shrinks. This is called volatility. The eonomy is shrinking right now. You can't equate the amount of money someone had with growth because you're not taking into account inflation and actually spending power.

Yeah you might have 100k in 2016 but 30k in 1989 might be more because of inflation and actual spending power.

The economy could have 3 trillion dollars in it but if everyone is in debt and can't but anything that the economy is shrinking.

But if the economy had 3 billion in it and everyone was buying things than the economy would be growing.

So yes in 2016 the US economy is dealing with more money than ever but the economy is shrinking because people are in debt and not buying anything thus people's spending power is receding thus the economy is shrinking.

 

[Vegesus44]

Why people care about betting odds are beyond me. Betting is dumb, betters are idiots.

B..b..but I won some money...once...

 

[Obsidian Fracture]

Why people care about betting odds are beyond me. Betting is dumb, betters are idiots.

So many people willing to talk shit but not put their money where their mouth is in MMA.

What right do you have to judge what people spend their money on?

 

[Obsidian Fracture]

Somebody smash some cash on dhk please

I see it going his way pretty easy

Best bet on the card IMO. Saffiedine is tough as nails though!

 

[Arm Barbarian]

-1200 means you'd have to bet $1200 to make a $100 profit. That's terrible odds.

+1200 means if you bet $100, you make $1200 profit. Those are great odds - if you win.

You guys can see how much I gamble. lol!

 

[Cold Front]

The economy grows and shrinks. This is called volatility.

No, it doesn't. You're mistaking short-term volatility for long-term trends.

The U.S. economy is bigger today than it has ever been. This is true in both per capita terms and in overall output.

In the short-term, a Great Depression or the financial crisis of 2008 can heavily impact growth over many years before the long-term trend reasserts itself, but it always has reasserted itself.

The average growth for the U.S. economy over the last two hundred years has been about two to three percent. Most of the time when Americans complain about economic growth, they're complaining about slow growth, not actually shrinkage. The majority of recessions, which by definition is a shrinkage in economic output, don't last more than a year-and-a-half. The exceptions are those major events like the Great Depression and the recent Financial Crisis, which sometimes last several years. But even those major disruptions to economic growth always give way to the long-term trend.

The economy is shrinking right now.

No, we're not in recession.

You can't equate the amount of money someone had with growth because you're not taking into account inflation and actually spending power.

I take that into account. Real economic growth has been continuous since the dawn of the Republic.

Yeah you might have 100k in 2016 but 30k in 1989 might be more because of inflation and actual spending power.

Well, your hypothetical is not close to being true. Any person who wasn't insane would much rather have $100,000 today than $30,000 in 1989.

And it's not just your hypothetical which is wrong. Real GDP per capita is up since 1989. See my last hyperlink above.

The economy could have 3 trillion dollars in it but if everyone is in debt and can't but anything that the economy is shrinking.

I guess that's why you would much rather be you than be Donald Trump. Because he has so much more debt than you.

If you can service your debt with your income (i.e., GDP), then your debt is not a problem. For a developed country, the U.S. debt is large right now (and growing), but manageable. Why do you think interest rates are so low? That's the market's way of saying that it accepts our debt by continuing to buy more of it with the promise of a low return.

Now that could change someday, but it doesn't appear likely to change anytime soon.

So yes in 2016 the US economy is dealing with more money than ever but the economy is shrinking because people are in debt and not buying anything thus people's spending power is receding thus the economy is shrinking.

You're wrong on every particular. You're spectacularly wrong.

 

[WinZip]

Even money? That's bad.

If you feel confident in your pick, even money can be great odds. Double your money for something you (think you) know will happen? Not a bad deal.

Of course it's never actually guarantee.

 

[lesnarsneedle]

Why people care about betting odds are beyond me. Betting is dumb, betters are idiots.

Except when you bet on holm

Some guy wagered like 15 or 20k and ended up with well over a quarter of a million

 

[lesnarsneedle]

No, it doesn't. You're mistaking short-term volatility for long-term trends.

The U.S. economy is bigger today than it has ever been. This is true in both per capita terms and in overall output.

In the short-term, a Great Depression or the financial crisis of 2008 can heavily impact growth over many years before the long-term trend reasserts itself, but it always has reasserted itself.

The average growth for the U.S. economy over the last two hundred years has been about two to three percent. Most of the time when Americans complain about economic growth, they're complaining about slow growth, not actually shrinkage. The majority of recessions, which by definition is a shrinkage in economic output, don't last more than a year-and-a-half. The exceptions are those major events like the Great Depression and the recent Financial Crisis, which sometimes last several years. But even those major disruptions to economic growth always give way to the long-term trend.



No, we're not in recession.



I take that into account. Real economic growth has been continuous since the dawn of the Republic.



Well, your hypothetical is not close to being true. Any person who wasn't insane would much rather have $100,000 today than $30,000 in 1989.

And it's not just your hypothetical which is wrong. Real GDP per capita is up since 1989. See my last hyperlink above.



I guess that's why you would much rather be you than be Donald Trump. Because he has so much more debt than you.

If you can service your debt with your income (i.e., GDP), then your debt is not a problem. For a developed country, the U.S. debt is large right now (and growing), but manageable. Why do you think interest rates are so low? That's the market's way of saying that it accepts our debt by continuing to buy more of it with the promise of a low return.

Now that could change someday, but it doesn't appear likely to change anytime soon.



You're wrong on every particular. You're spectacularly wrong.

The US dollar has plummeted consistently since the federal reserve and has never come back up.

Our dollar is worth nothing.

The economy sucks dick year after year because we just keep printing money like water with no precious metal to back it up.

I guarantee you we have no gold in the reserve.

Your theory only works if you relate the "size of the economy" to our population because retards and whores keep squirting out babies.

Your economy cannot grow if you just keep printing more money with nothing to back it up.

Our debt is not anywhere near manageable, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

I pray the other countries of the world don't get tired of us not paying up and making good on our debts and say fuck it and just invade us all at once.

The greatest and most powerful empires in the history of the world fell and were conquered because they conducted themselves with the exact, EXACT, same behavior America has been for the longest time.

A 100 dollar bill will be toilet paper. A cigarette will be worth more than a wheelbarrow full of hundreds. A gold necklace will be worth more than a box of marlboros. A sandwich will be worth more than that necklace. And a pistol will be worth more than all of them together.





History repeats itself.

 

[Cold Front]

The US dollar has plummeted consistently since the federal reserve and has never come back up.

Our dollar is worth nothing.

Then why do so many foreigners keep buying it? And for basically an interest rate that doesn't even keep up with inflation?

The economy sucks dick year after year because we just keep printing money like nothing with no precious metal to back it up.

Complete hogwash. Gold has nothing to do with the value of a currency. You're one of those silly goldbugs who's infatuated with shiny metals for no other reason than they're scarce.

The value of a dollar comes from the productive resources of an economy that deal in it. If U.S. businesses continue to produce more with less, then we Americans get richer. Gold has nothing to do with that.

I guarantee you we have no gold in the reserve.

I don't care if we do or not. I care about the productivity of our businesses because that's where real economic wealth comes from. From the ability to produce more with less.

The Federal Reserve was founded over a century ago, you numbskull, before the widespread use of automobiles and airplanes, movies and commercial radio, computers and nuclear technology. We didn't stop growing because of the Federal Reserve, and you'd have to be a moron to believe we did.

Your theory only works if you relate the "size of the economy" to our population because retards keep squirting out babies.

That must be why India and China have always been wealthier than the U.S. Oh, wait...

No, population growth is not per capita economic growth, which has been going up for Americans since the beginning of the Republic - both before the founding of the Federal Reserve and after its founding.

Your economy cannot grow if you just keep printing more money with nothing to back it up.

What backs up the growth in the money supply is the growth in the productivity of American businesses. Not some shiny metal that any stupid Saudi prince can hold.

Our debt is not manageable, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

You should read your own posts.

Low interest rates mean the financial markets accept U.S. debt levels. If you don't like that, then tell the Japanese, Chinese and other buyers of that debt to stop buying it on the cheap.

The greatest and most powerful empires in the history of the world fell because they conducted themselves with the exact, EXACT, same behavior America has been for the longest time.

You don't have a clue how any of the great empires worked. How could you? You don't even know how the American empire works.

History repeats itself.

Only people who don't know any history say that.

 

[Davemeddlehed]

Why people care about betting odds are beyond me. Betting is dumb, betters are idiots.

Bettors*

 

[The guest]

Gambling is fine. As long as you don't bet money you can't afford to lose. Grocery money, rent money, etc.

Some ppl spend alot of money every month on entertainment, and dining out. Even drinking or using drugs. There's not much difference between that, or using the money to gamble.

You are entertained, or dined. Drunk, or high...But the money is gone. With nothing much tangible to show for it. If you gamble and lose it's also gone. With nothing to show for it.

If you win money gambling...You have money you never started with.

Gambling itself is not stupid. Its generally the gambler that is stupid.

That said, I expect very even closing odds on this fight. And I don't feel confident enough in Ronda, or Amanda to bet money on a pickem. Half the people that bet on this fight are going to lose.

 

[lesnarsneedle]

Then why do so many foreigners keep buying it? And for basically an interest rate that doesn't even keep up with inflation?



Complete hogwash. Gold has nothing to do with the value of a currency. You're one of those silly goldbugs who's infatuated with shiny metals for no other reason than they're scarce.

The value of a dollar comes from the productive resources of an economy that deal in it. If U.S. businesses continue to produce more with less, then we Americans get richer. Gold has nothing to do with that.



I don't care if we do or not. I care about the productivity of our businesses because that's where real economic wealth comes from. From the ability to produce more with less.

The Federal Reserve was founded over a century ago, you numbskull, before the widespread use of automobiles and airplanes, movies and commercial radio, computers and nuclear technology. We didn't stop growing because of the Federal Reserve, and you'd have to be a moron to believe we did.



That must be why India and China have always been wealthier than the U.S. Oh, wait...

No, population growth is not per capita economic growth, which has been going up for Americans since the beginning of the Republic - both before the founding of the Federal Reserve and after its founding.



What backs up the growth in the money supply is the growth in the productivity of American businesses. Not some shiny metal that any stupid Saudi prince can hold.



You should read your own posts.

Low interest rates mean the financial markets accept U.S. debt levels. If you don't like that, then tell the Japanese, Chinese and other buyers of that debt to stop buying it on the cheap.



You don't have a clue how any of the great empires worked. How could you? You don't even know how the American empire works.



Only people who don't know any history say that.

You're a moron.

They buy it so if we tank with trump again, and he gives then another national park, their investment will explode.

Productivity? We aren't productive. We ship all of our jobs overseas.

But even if we were, you act as if paper currency represents the productivity or work it can buy.

Incorrect.

Gold has everything to do with it. It keeps the paper currency in check.

You desperately attempt to sound smart but your entire argument throws key things to the wind -

Paper currency is a fantasy. A mirage. It merely represents a physical for of currency that could be exchanged.

Gold is valuable because it's scarce.

Something is more valuable when it's rare.

This is day one economics.

If there were only 100 grains of rice in the entire world, they'd be extremely valuable.

But because there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grains of rice in existence, they are cheap.

Same thing with money.

When we just print money all day with nothing to back it up, we are putting more money into circulation, thus making it less valuable.

Money is only valuable when it represents a physical currency.

America has been living off of ghost currency for years and years, and look what it has gotten us. More debt than our top 5 previous debts put together, and our dollar is worth 1/100th of its original value.

Now that I've educated you -

although you purport to be Ben Stein, but riddle me this batman:

1. Why are we 20 trillion in debt?

2. Why is our paper currency worth complete ass compared to what it used to be?


I'll wait.

 

[Cold Front]

You're a moron.

They buy it so if we tank with trump again, and he gives then another national park, their investment will explode.

They've been buying it for decades, you dufus. It has nothing do with Trump. It has to do with keeping their own currency exchange rates favorable for their businesses.

Productivity? We aren't productive. We ship all of our jobs overseas.

Most jobs are lost to automation, not trade. And automation is the definition of doing more with less. You ever hear of the Luddites? Because you're arguing like one.

But even if we were, you act as if paper currency represents the productivity or work it can buy.

I never said any such thing. I said that the productivity of the economy should govern the money supply. If growth happens because of productivity increases, why should the amount of gold limit growth? That's just stupid. Only old farts believe that shit because they don't know how to think.

Read Krugman's The Gold Big Variations: The Gold Standard - and the Men Who Love It. He explains things in such simple terms that even an economic ignoramus like yourself can understand them.

Very few economists think this would be a good idea. The argument against it is one of pragmatism, not principle. First, a gold standard would have all the disadvantages of any system of rigidly fixed exchange rates--and even economists who are enthusiastic about a common European currency generally think that fixing the European currency to the dollar or yen would be going too far. Second, and crucially, gold is not a stable standard when measured in terms of other goods and services. On the contrary, it is a commodity whose price is constantly buffeted by shifts in supply and demand that have nothing to do with the needs of the world economy--by changes, for example, in dentistry.

The United States abandoned its policy of stabilizing gold prices back in 1971. Since then the price of gold has increased roughly tenfold, while consumer prices have increased about 250 percent. If we had tried to keep the price of gold from rising, this would have required a massive decline in the prices of practically everything else--deflation on a scale not seen since the Depression. This doesn't sound like a particularly good idea.

See how idiotic you are? No? Well, you are.

Gold has everything to do with it. It keeps the paper currency in check.

It also keeps economic growth in check, by using a nonsensical standard to govern how much money is in circulation.

Why not just use seashells or slow-growing tulip bulbs instead?

Paper currency is a fantasy. A mirage. It merely represents a physical for of currency that could be exchanged.

A fantasy, huh? Hand over all your cash and I'll give you a few gold trinkets of equivalent value. You hold those trinkets and I'll invest that cash, and we'll see who has more money in the end.

Hint: It won't be you.

Gold is valuable because it's scarce.

Something is more valuable when it's rare.

A lot of things are rare. Gold is still just a commodity. Palladium and Platinum are much scarcer than gold, but no one is suggesting we tie the economy to those metals.

Here's the unavoidable fact for you that kills your argument. It's 1971 and we both have a million dollars. You worry about the delinking of the dollar from the gold standard and so you spend your million on gold bullion. You know, because for you that's real wealth.

I, on the other hand, spend my million on the stock market in the form of index funds.

Gold cost you 44 dollars an ounce in 1971 and you can sell it for 1,060 an ounce today. Today you would have $24,090,000 dollars.

The S&P 500 went up 8,561 percent (with dividends reinvested) since 1971. I would now have $85,610,000.

Who has more money? You and gold? Or me and my investment in American businesses?

Looks like gold has been a bad investment for you.

although you purport to be Ben Stein, but riddle me this batman:

1. Why are we 20 trillion in debt?

2. Why is our paper currency worth complete ass compared to what it used to be?


I'll wait.

1) Because investors like buying our dollar-denominated debt for next to nothing. Basically, when an investor buys your debt for almost nothing, he's saying he would rather give you his money for free than hold onto it himself.

Who wouldn't take that deal? I mean, besides you, of course. But any sane person would take that deal. You're being given money for free. If the banks ever gave away that kind of deal, there would be a run of people taking out debt from the banks. And it wouldn't be the people who suffered; it would be the banks.

2) Currency of any sort, whether it's gold or paper, is only as good as what it can buy. And in those terms, the value of what people earn and what they invest has only gone up.

You're too dumb to do more than one side of the equation. Inflation is not the only thing that goes up. So do incomes and salaries. So do investments. What's more, the latter have increased more than inflation, which is really all that matters.

 

[lesnarsneedle]

They've been buying it for decades, you dufus. It has nothing do with Trump. It has to do with keeping their own currency exchange rates favorable for their businesses.



Most jobs are lost to automation, not trade. And automation is the definition of doing more with less. You ever hear of the Luddites? Because you're arguing like one.



I never said any such thing. I said that the productivity of the economy should govern the money supply. If growth happens because of productivity increases, why should the amount of gold limit growth? That's just stupid. Only old farts believe that shit because they don't know how to think.

Read Krugman's The Gold Big Variations: The Gold Standard - and the Men Who Love It. He explains things in such simple terms that even an economic ignoramus like yourself can understand them.



See how idiotic you are? No? Well, you are.



It also keeps economic growth in check, by using a nonsensical standard to govern how much money is in circulation.

Why not just use seashells or slow-growing tulip bulbs instead?



A fantasy, huh? Hand over all your cash and I'll give you a few gold trinkets of equivalent value. You hold those trinkets and I'll invest that cash, and we'll see who has more money in the end.

Hint: It won't be you.



A lot of things are rare. Gold is still just a commodity. Palladium and Platinum are much scarcer than gold, but no one is suggesting we tie the economy to those metals.

Here's the unavoidable fact for you that kills your argument. It's 1971 and we both have a million dollars. You worry about the delinking of the dollar from the gold standard and so you spend your million on gold bullion. You know, because for you that's real wealth.

I, on the other hand, spend my million on the stock market in the form of index funds.

Gold cost you 44 dollars an ounce in 1971 and you can sell it for 1,060 an ounce today. Today you would have $24,090,000 dollars.

The S&P 500 went up 8,561 percent (with dividends reinvested) since 1971. I would now have $85,610,000.

Who has more money? You and gold? Or me and my investment in American businesses?

Looks like gold has been a bad investment for you.



1) Because investors like buying our dollar-denominated debt for next to nothing. Basically, when an investor buys your debt for almost nothing, he's saying he would rather give you his money for free than hold onto it himself.

Who wouldn't take that deal? I mean, besides you, of course. But any sane person would take that deal. You're being given money for free. If the banks ever gave away that kind of deal, there would be a run of people taking out debt from the banks. And it wouldn't be the people who suffered; it would be the banks.

2) Currency of any sort, whether it's gold or paper, is only as good as what it can buy. And in those terms, the value of what people earn and what they invest has only gone up.

You're too dumb to do more than one side of the equation. Inflation is not the only thing that goes up. So do incomes and salaries. So do investments. What's more, the latter have increased more than inflation, which is really all that matters.

You're just another sherdog cockboy using examples that play into his argument

Gold is way more bountiful than platinum.

There is a finite source of gold but we haven't reached it yet.

You act like there's only so much gold, you're an idiot.

Jobs are not lost to automation, they are lost overseas.

The stock market is way more volatile than gold and you're quoting one perticualr stock market that isn't even a stock, it's a plethora of stocks.

You're the one attempting to only discuss one side of the equation and one that doesn't exist at that.

Income does go up, and you should be able to buy more with it. You cant. Because as the incomes go up the value of the dollar goes down. That's why a job in NC that pays 30k is a 75k job in NYC. But a pack of smokes in NC is 3.50, and rent is 800 whereas in new York a pack is 12 dollars and rent is 1700.

I'm not going to keep schooling you.

You're just going to keep quoting examples that play into your argument even though they don't work.

Go ahead keep writing me books of your bullshit.

 

[Kanes]

You're a moron.

They buy it so if we tank with trump again, and he gives then another national park, their investment will explode.

Productivity? We aren't productive. We ship all of our jobs overseas.

But even if we were, you act as if paper currency represents the productivity or work it can buy.

Incorrect.

Gold has everything to do with it. It keeps the paper currency in check.

You desperately attempt to sound smart but your entire argument throws key things to the wind -

Paper currency is a fantasy. A mirage. It merely represents a physical for of currency that could be exchanged.

Gold is valuable because it's scarce.

Something is more valuable when it's rare.

This is day one economics.

If there were only 100 grains of rice in the entire world, they'd be extremely valuable.

But because there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grains of rice in existence, they are cheap.

Same thing with money.

When we just print money all day with nothing to back it up, we are putting more money into circulation, thus making it less valuable.

Money is only valuable when it represents a physical currency.

America has been living off of ghost currency for years and years, and look what it has gotten us. More debt than our top 5 previous debts put together, and our dollar is worth 1/100th of its original value.

Now that I've educated you -

although you purport to be Ben Stein, but riddle me this batman:

1. Why are we 20 trillion in debt?

2. Why is our paper currency worth complete ass compared to what it used to be?


I'll wait.

Enough of this dribble, let's get to an important issue. How are Anthony Pettis' testicles today? I know this is a subject that is near and dear to you, and if it's still too soon since Max's viscous act of testicular terrorism, I understand. They say time heals all wounds, God willing.

 

[Cold Front]

You're just another sherdog cockboy using examples that play into his argument

Gold is way more bountiful than platinum.

And it's less bountiful than silver. Who cares? You still assume that nature's provision of gold (and only gold !), as well as the level at which we find gold in the mines of the world, is somehow equivalent to what we should expect in the growth of the economy.

Why should anyone, even an idiot, assume that?

There is a finite source of gold but we haven't reached it yet.

But it is finite. What's more, there's no relationship between the manner in which we find gold and the way we increase productivity in the economy.

None ! But like an idiot, you force a relationship where none should exist.

You act like there's only so much gold, you're an idiot.

There is only so much gold, but that's not the chief problem with Gold Bugs.

Jobs are not lost to automation, they are lost overseas.

No, they are lost to automation. And many more will be in the future. Look at Uber's headless cars, for example. Or drones delivering packages.

It took many more American workers to build a much lower number of automobiles in 1950 than it does today to build a larger number of cars.

The stock market is way more volatile than gold and you're quoting one perticualr stock market that isn't even a stock, it's a plethora of stocks.

It's an index - a common investment tool for people who want to invest in ALL businesses in a particular market. I wouldn't invest any other way.

I'm not going to keep schooling you.

You should be paying me for the education I'm giving you. It's an education you would have gotten in a good school if you had ever attended one.

 

[Metal_Daze]

I'm pretty green. My biggest and easiest win so far was very lately. Prop bet, Gall by submission round 2. Easy money. Crazy thing, I picked him by sub rnd 1 on tapology...