You entire evaluation of what I am saying is merely because for you "rational" means "establishment shill" and being anything else makes you crazy or stupid.
Actually, my entire evaluation of what you are saying is because your assesment is not supported by reason or understanding.
The bet in question is one where, if someone had a lot of confidence in Ron Paul's chances to win but was worried about the chance of losing in the scenario you describe, they could easily hedge the bet by trading off a certain amount of their contracts for a profit when the price increases.
For example, Ron Paul is trading at about 2.2 (which translates to 22 cents) right now. If he wins the election, it will be worth 100 (which is $10) per "share". Let's say one bets $11 on Ron Paul at 2.2 a share. Then they have 50 shares. If they held each one until Ron Paul wins the election, this would be worth $500. $489 profit on an investment of $11, which ain't too shabby.
But since you are worried about the unlikely scenario you describe occuring, let's say that you are smart about it and decide to trade off a portion of your shares in order to hedge your bet. Since the current rate is 2.2, a smart time to sell would be when you can sell for 11, or $1.10 per share. Then you can sell off 10 shares of that initial 50 in oredr to recoup your initial investment price of $11 while still holding onto 40 shares which would be worth $400 if Ron Paul won the election.
Since the
unlikely scenario of assasination before he could have his chance at winning the election would
only occur if there
was a legitimate chance of him winning, the price would
certainly exceed 11.0 (or $1.10)
well before the theoretical assasination would happen.
Ergo, your position on this bet is an irrational one. It
definitely does not take reason and understanding into account.
So, like I said, if you
were a betting man, you would
not be worried about the statistically unlikley event of an assasination.
However, you would
have to consider the statistically
greater likelihood of death by natural causes at his age, since that is the
only thing that would actually prevent the bet from reaching the point of recapturing the initial investment if he really
does have a legitimate shot at winning the election.
Now, the post that triggered this particular exchange is one that implies that you are not a betting man since you said
if you were a betting man. Your reasoning for avoiding the bet actually
proves that you aren't a betting man.
The problem with that statement was that if you
were a betting man, you
wouldn't be thinking about the bet like you have. You would be thinking about it like I have described above. And you'd be making a profit if your theories are actually correct,
even the one about assasination because
then you'd sell off
all of the shares early in order to get out
before the assasination occured.
See, you were so interested in
pretending that I'm arguing from the position of an "establishment shill", you
completely missed the fact that I
am a betting man and I was
actually arguing from the position of a person who is a betting man. If I believed everything that you claim to believe, I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. It would be a smart bet if your beliefs are actually true..
Do you even acknowledge that the establishment media has a concerted agenda against Ron Paul?
Concerted? Not really. I think they are biased towards the partisan dichotmy in this country though, which doesn't bode well for people like Ron Paul.
