As many of you know, I am engaged in two high-stakes bets this election season, and at this point I am surely to win them. So whatever last statements LVNHACK and sportsshrink need to say here in DC, please say them, because your time is short.
But it is too frequently the case here in DC that somebody can just spout off bullshit and never have to be accountable for it.
That's why I really like betting. It proves to you folks that I'm always genuinely sincere in my statements, and it exposes people like patteeu who just say shit as frauds due to his complete resilience from ever entering into a bet that give his words consequences.
So allow this thread's purpose to be twofold: (1.) all hail the forced intellectual honesty of a bet, and (2.) to put Pete's ass on the line for his hilarious prediction
that Romney will win Ohio.
Pete: if you think Romney is going to win Ohio, then enter into a bet with me.
I'll let you pick the terms, so long as they aren't unequal.
I'll let you decide the consequences, so long as they aren't unequal.
But it has to be hinged on one idea: that if Obama wins Ohio, you lose, and I win.
Time to pay your taxes, Pete.
A Bet is a Tax on Bullshit
by Alex Tabarrok
on November 2, 2012 at 7:35 am
Nate Silver, whose models give Obama a high probability of winning reelection, has offered one of his critics a bet. “Putting your money where your mouth is,” is a time-honored principle of integrity in my view but the NYTimes Public Editor is very upset
. Margaret Sullivan, however, never offers an argument against betting instead treating it as unseemly.
[Betting is] inappropriate for a Times journalist, which is how Mr. Silver is seen by the public even though he’s not a regular staff member.
“I wouldn’t want to see it become newsroom practice,” said the associate managing editor for standards, Philip B. Corbett. He described Mr. Silver’s status as a blogger — something like a columnist — as a mitigating factor…
…When he came to work at The Times, Mr. Silver gained a lot more visibility and the credibility associated with a prominent institution. But he lost something, too: the right to act like a free agent with responsibilities to nobody’s standards but his own.
The closest to an argument against betting is this:
…whatever the motivation behind it, the wager offer is a bad idea – giving ammunition to the critics who want to paint Mr. Silver as a partisan who is trying to sway the outcome.
My best parse of the argument is that by betting Silver has given himself an interest in the election and this hurts his credibility. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.
A properly structured bet is the most credible guarantor of rigorous disinterest. In order to prove his point, Silver is not required to take the Obama side of the bet! At the odds implied by his model (currently between 3 and 4 to 1) Silver should be willing to take either side of a modest bet. Indeed, we could hold a coin toss, heads Silver takes the Obama side, tails he takes Romney.
In fact, the NYTimes should require
that Silver, and other pundits, bet their beliefs
. Furthermore, to remove any possibility of manipulation, the NYTimes should escrow a portion of Silver’s salary in a blind trust bet
. In other words, the NYTimes should bet a portion of Silver’s salary, at the odds implied by Silver’s model, randomly choosing which side of the bet to take, only revealing to Silver the bet and its outcome after the election is over. A blind trust bet creates incentives for Silver to be disinterested in the outcome but very interested in the accuracy of the forecast.
Overall, I am for betting because I am against bullshit. Bullshit is polluting our discourse and drowning the facts. A bet costs the bullshitter more than the non-bullshitter so the willingness to bet signals honest belief. A bet is a tax
on bullshit; and it is a just tax, tribute paid by the bullshitters to those with genuine knowledge.