Steve feels confident enough that Arnold will veto the Gay Marriage bill, that he unilaterally altered the terms of his bet (see comment under Derek's Post, "Why Bob Should Buy Some Lattes in Bulk") to 2:1 -- he buys me two if I win, while I buy him one if he wins, pointing out that in nearly all previous bets I've lost to him in the past 2 years (and it's been nearly all the bets) taking the cynical side has been a big win for him.
So, how about it, Derek, Robin, Patrick, Erica? Anybody else feeling confident enough to join Steve in the 2-for-1 odds level? I'll mention again that I conceded in the comment below that I had not known that the California Legislature went out of session Sept 9th (pointed out by Derek), after which they would have had to call an emergency session to revive the bill, but could have brought it back up to try to override his veto if he had vetoed it before then, a seemingly very strong argument to explain Arnie's several days delay (now, 5 days, and 2 days past Sept 9th)
in vetoing the Bill after announcing his intention to do so.
Like I said, any other 2-for-1 takers?
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Bob, the usual approach in such circumstances (latte deficit mounting fast) is to propose a "double or nothing" to the rest of us - for instance, "double or nothing Arnold fails to veto the bill before Sept 25", something like that. The revised wager you propose sounds more like a "double for nothing", which, I confess, I have not encountered before.
-Derek
I have indeed proposed a "double for nothing" for Bob. When I explained to him that it was not an intelligent bet to offer the 50:50 odds when the odds were heavily stacked against him, he admitted that in retrospect it wasn't a great offer.
I was feeling generous (and extremely confident) that I would win, that I changed the bet to correctly reflect his odds.
I'm not quite sure why he would ask everyone else to do the same, other than to highlight how cocky I'm getting.
Post a Comment