How's That Delegate Strategy Looking for You Now?

By -
In yesterday's primary result, Romney beat Paul in delegates won 83-0. All bound delegates.

I wonder why no one has taken my bet yet?

Comments

  1. traumerei4:06 PM

    Probably because the betting man gets vastly better odds from Intrade.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah4:28 PM

    I don't believe offers a bet such as the one I am offering. That guest author over at Murphy's site claims Paul is really even with Romney in delegates. I'm saying, "OK, I'll spot you 500, and bet he is still not even!"

    If he really believes what he says, why would he not take this bet?

    ReplyDelete
  3. traumerei2:59 AM

    Intrade does offer a "Ron Paul to be GOP nominee" market. An even bet for $1,000 - albeit with a 500 delegate handicap - looks downright stingy given the 100 to 1 odds Intrade is giving.

    I'm sure if you sweetened the deal to 50 to 1, you'd have some takers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah8:44 AM

      I'm not sure how you can translate a bet with odds into a bet with points like that. But, in any case, given that the people I was offering the bet to thought Paul was even with Romney, being given 500 delegates should have been a pretty good deal.

      Delete
    2. traumerei9:13 AM

      It is good, but not as good as available from Intrade. Not even close.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more