Opinion The War Room Bet Thread V7

[Rob Battisti]

It's not even going to be close, most likely.

I agree. Going to blow it out if the water

 

[Rob Battisti]

The idea that BTC can’t do a 2x within 9 months of a halving from todays prices is just silly.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The idea that BTC can’t do a 2x within 9 months of a halving from todays prices is just silly.

"Can't" isn't a word I'd use. Anything can happen, but that's spectacularly unlikely.

I'm going to be 15-1 when tmy currently active bets settle.

 

[Rob Battisti]

"Can't" isn't a word I'd use. Anything can happen, but that's spectacularly unlikely.

I'm going to be 15-1 when tmy currently active bets settle.

13-3 when it’s all said and done.

Why would it be spectacularly unlikely considering all the historical evidence of the previous halving?

 

[Rob Battisti]

The only thing that would prevent it is a major recession. Obviously @Jack V Savage thinks that not in the cards so why in an amazing economy, with large institutional investments incoming and historical repeating trends would a 2x be spectacularly unlikely?

Unless this credit crunch continues and Powell screws us all, QE is incoming and then it’s off to the races.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The only thing that would prevent it is a major recession. Obviously @Jack V Savage thinks that not in the cards so why in an amazing economy, with large institutional investments incoming and historical repeating trends would a 2x be spectacularly unlikely?

Unless this credit crunch continues and Powell screws us all, QE is incoming and then it’s off to the races.

"The only thing"?! Really?

Also, when did I say a recession is not in the cards? I've said multiple times that while we're in a tightening cycle, recession risk is elevated. I've pushed back against people who were saying that it was guaranteed or trolls who were saying we were already in a recession. I continue to think that the risk is above average (which is about 20%--so even in a normal year with no signs of immediate trouble, it's not that unlikely), but not above 50/50 for any one year.

And your model is just way off. If there were good reason to think that the price would be twice what it currently is in a year, people would already be bidding it up much higher (with some discount). That's true regardless of what you think is going on in the broader economy (discount rates are going to be different depending on strength, but that's a rounding error compared to the kind of moves you're predicting).

I would say that your arrogance is really mind-blowing, but I don't think you actually realize the implications of your claims.

 

[Rob Battisti]

"The only thing"?! Really?

Also, when did I say a recession is not in the cards? I've said multiple times that while we're in a tightening cycle, recession risk is elevated. I've pushed back against people who were saying that it was guaranteed or trolls who were saying we were already in a recession. I continue to think that the risk is above average (which is about 20%--so even in a normal year with no signs of immediate trouble, it's not that unlikely), but not below 50/50 for any one year.

And your model is just way off. If there were good reason to think that the price would be twice what it currently is in a year, people would already be bidding it up much higher (with some discount). That's true regardless of what you think is going on in the broader economy (discount rates are going to be different depending on strength, but that's a rounding error compared to the kind of moves you're predicting).

I would say that your arrogance is really mind-blowing, but I don't think you actually realize the implications of your claims.

The proof will be in the pudding. It will dog you to know I would have defeated you 3 times.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The proof will be in the pudding. It will dog you to know I would have defeated you 3 times.

Well, we have the bets so we'll see. I'm going to be 15-1, and you'll be 1-4.

 

[Lead]

Popcorn gif

 

[Rob Battisti]

I lost 2 times? To my knowledge I only have ever bet twice.

 

[LMP]

I lost 2 times? To my knowledge I only have ever bet twice.

You have three bets out on Bitcoin. After you lose all three, you will be 1-4.

 

[Rob Battisti]

You have three bets out on Bitcoin. After you lose all three, you will be 1-4.

I guess I’m an idiot in multiple ways!

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Lead:

Sure here’s a sig bet for a signature I don’t have or give a shit about.

Six months, let's say. On whether there is a smoking gun tying Joe Biden to the receipt of a bribe that comes from an investigation of his financial records. Or an actual impeachment (I'll give you a win for either one). I say the House GOP will neither find evidence nor impeach. What's a good deadline @Terry Noonan?

 

[Terry Noonan]

@Lead:



Six months, let's say. On whether there is a smoking gun tying Joe Biden to the receipt of a bribe that comes from an investigation of his financial records. Or an actual impeachment (I'll give you a win for either one). I say the House GOP will neither find evidence nor impeach. What's a good deadline @Terry Noonan?

Now I found this thread. Sure. What’s the definition of a smoking gun? A check to Joe Biden from Hunter titled “10%for big guy” or “bribes”? He won’t be impeached. He certainly won’t be held accountable pretty much a forgone conclusion. Will he have received some monetary value from Hunter (home renovations paid by Hunter, a car, bills, etc?) if that’s what you’re willing to bet didn’t happen I’ll take that action.

Is the money going to his wife? Is it cash? Idk how sophisticated the BIDENS were at concealing the benefit to Joe directly. Given 50 years in office, he’s probably pretty good at it. His crack addict son though ideally left some evidence.
https://guide.iacrc.org/potential-scheme-bribes-and-kickbacks/

 

[Jack V Savage]

Now I found this thread. Sure. What’s the definition of a smoking gun? A check to Joe Biden from Hunter titled “10%for big guy” or “bribes”? He won’t be impeached. He certainly won’t be held accountable pretty much a forgone conclusion. Will he have received some monetary value from Hunter (home renovations paid by Hunter, a car, bills, etc?) if that’s what you’re willing to bet didn’t happen I’ll take that action.

First, why would you think House Republicans would fail to impeach him if they actually had evidence of bribery? That's unfathomable to me. Second, any unaccounted-for addition to his account that can be tied to Hunter would be a smoking gun, wouldn't it? We can have a third party judge that if we don't have a clear definition. And, yeah, Hunter paying for something that isn't like a son-to-father gift (say over $10K) would work. @Lead, can you finalize this for the purposes of the record-keeping?

 

[Terry Noonan]

First, why would you think House Republicans would fail to impeach him if they actually had evidence of bribery? That's unfathomable to me. Second, any unaccounted-for addition to his account that can be tied to Hunter would be a smoking gun, wouldn't it? We can have a third party judge that if we don't have a clear definition. And, yeah, Hunter paying for something that isn't like a son-to-father gift (say over $10K) would work. @Lead, can you finalize this for the purposes of the record-keeping?

If the bar is set at this, it’s a reasonable landing point.

 

[Lead]

@Lead:



Six months, let's say. On whether there is a smoking gun tying Joe Biden to the receipt of a bribe that comes from an investigation of his financial records. Or an actual impeachment (I'll give you a win for either one). I say the House GOP will neither find evidence nor impeach. What's a good deadline @Terry Noonan?

Now I found this thread. Sure. What’s the definition of a smoking gun? A check to Joe Biden from Hunter titled “10%for big guy” or “bribes”? He won’t be impeached. He certainly won’t be held accountable pretty much a forgone conclusion. Will he have received some monetary value from Hunter (home renovations paid by Hunter, a car, bills, etc?) if that’s what you’re willing to bet didn’t happen I’ll take that action.

Is the money going to his wife? Is it cash? Idk how sophisticated the BIDENS were at concealing the benefit to Joe directly. Given 50 years in office, he’s probably pretty good at it. His crack addict son though ideally left some evidence.
https://guide.iacrc.org/potential-scheme-bribes-and-kickbacks/

First, why would you think House Republicans would fail to impeach him if they actually had evidence of bribery? That's unfathomable to me. Second, any unaccounted-for addition to his account that can be tied to Hunter would be a smoking gun, wouldn't it? We can have a third party judge that if we don't have a clear definition. And, yeah, Hunter paying for something that isn't like a son-to-father gift (say over $10K) would work. @Lead, can you finalize this for the purposes of the record-keeping?

If the bar is set at this, it’s a reasonable landing point.

I’m unsure on how to proceed with this one. I worry it leaves enough room for argument afterwards of either what counts as evidence and if the interpretation won’t be agreed upon. I like an amount was established but then it gets into if it isn’t cash, a valuation is subjective and could be embellished by one group and downplayed by another. I’d need to think about this or hear more on a clear line. We can do some type of arbiter if it comes down to it but I try to steer away from situations where the bet result will be questioned and then the entire process is challenged even though nearly all the bets called thus far have been pretty clear (and we still had some protests)

 

[Lead]

Impeachment could’ve worked. During the Russia collusion, most bets stuck to some objective like being indicted by the government or a trials results. These investigations don’t always have as clear a picture as they aren’t a court.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I’m unsure on how to proceed with this one. I worry it leaves enough room for argument afterwards of either what counts as evidence and if the interpretation won’t be agreed upon. I like an amount was established but then it gets into if it isn’t cash, a valuation is subjective and could be embellished by one group and downplayed by another. I’d need to think about this or hear more on a clear line. We can do some type of arbiter if it comes down to it but I try to steer away from situations where the bet result will be questioned and then the entire process is challenged even though nearly all the bets called thus far have been pretty clear (and we still had some protests)

I think by its nature "smoking gun" doesn't leave much room for argument. I'm fine with a third-party arbiter (either another poster here--say nominated by one of us and accepted by the other--or a public figure).

 

[Rob Battisti]

Idk who will win that bet but either way they will have to wait until I win all of mine’