I already said that I likely would not be willing to enter into any bet that would get even close to the 90/10 proclamation that I had made.. but yeah, there could be ways to frame a bet in terms of an amount that each side would end up having to pay that would be an attempt to reflect the odds.. and from my own perspective, in order to make a point about the claims being made, I doubt that there would be any need to create bets that would require the losing side to pay any more than 0.002 BTC or perhaps 0.003 BTC.. yet of course, folks are able to enter into whatever bet that they like in terms of amounts.. but I doubt that I am going to play any of the larger amount bets in order to make whatever point(s) that I might be wanting to make through any possible agreed-to bet. Also, there may need to be some escrow involved depending upon how any such bet might be framed.. .. but like for example, even with a bet that is attempting to describe 10/1 odds, for one side might be as high as 0.003 BTC, and then the other side might end up being 0.0003 BTC.. and such low amounts, might end up having to be locked into being a lightning network bet rather than locking into on-chain transactions.. unless we agree to onchain transactions that might end up having some high fee risks.. .based on some of the latest happenings (meaning high fees) with onchain fees.
Surely the odds seem to be against, you even with a changing of the odds, yet surely you are seeming to be a bit disingenuine by moving the odds further away from the direction that I said that I would be willing to bet, even if I were to be wiling to enter into a bet.. in other words, I don't know why you need to express desires to be greedy rather than actually accounting for my already assertion that I may well not even be willing to give 10/1 odds. .. actually, I said that I would not be willing to enter any such bet, which surely showing that I would not get any surplus value out of such a bet, so why would I be willing to enter any bet that is at the very edge of my proclamation, which it seems that I already described the existence of that kind of a dynamic with my own thinking about what I had already proposed to be odds for the number of days in which November 9, 2021 could be removed from the top 100 list.
I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your probabilities estimation, given that even in the post you made it you moved away from standing behind it.
If you think not in terms of "probabilities" but in terms of "betting odds" (recognising that although these are technically the same they are emotionally different) - what odds would you need to be getting to be willing to back the underdog like this?
Remember, to win the bet you would need to see the next 81 consecutive days ABOVE $67,483, and just one day below will lose the bet. Given that in the six days of this month alone there have already been 3 days below the target you'd really need some pretty extraordinary odds to take it on - hence my 1000:1 suggestion.
I suspect even 1,000:1 is in no way near what a bookmaker would actually be pricing that at ... in fact the more I think about it the more I believe that only a completely irredeemable gambler would take it on ...
