Quote from: rpietila on April 28, 2014, 10:05:51 AM

Quote from: octaft on April 28, 2014, 09:06:39 AM

Quote from: chessnut on April 28, 2014, 07:52:00 AM

7:1 odds are a bargain, very reasonable indeed to even the slightest bear. you should have taken the bet.

He never offered him 7:1 odds, for one thing. He only mentioned that is what he would be willing to accept after the fact.

If you're talking shit that it's NEVER going to break 435 again, putting your money where your mouth is would be taking pretty much any bet for any odds that came your way, assuming you weren't bullshitting, which he obviously was. Not taking an even money bet on something you perceive to be a lock is ridiculous, so his mouth said "never below 435" but his money said "eh, like 20% chance of not under 435." See the difference?

Which part of the Call to Bet was difficult to understand? Grin

Quote from: rpietila on April 26, 2014, 10:14:30 AM

Based on my research, I don't believe we will see 435 ever again (Bitstamp). If someone is willing to bet (I naturally expect much better than 1:1 for me), PM please.

Chart1 & Chart2.

This is just the 2013-7-18 again. No looking back (when you least expect it).

Perhaps you fit in the description in my Lamentation... Cheesy

Quote from: rpietila on April 28, 2014, 07:07:18 AM

EPILOGUE

It is difficult to read the thread because of so many posts, especially if you are of the type that never checks the sources and relies on people. But then you will also get the objectively wrong idea of what is happening. Here I wanted to have a nice private bet with anyone who thinks that breaking 435 is imminent and is willing to give me great odds for defending it.

Have you noticed that not a single person with high standing has criticized me? It is the same trolls over and over, twisting simple and clear words, or teens with fingers hard-wired to bypass the brain.

But why would anybody offer you 7:1 if you run up to them screaming that your bet is a guaranteed winner? You didn't ask for 7:1, you asked for "significantly better than 1:1." Well, what does that mean? I would call 4:1 significantly better, but according to your own assumptions that you admitted to later (20%), that would have been a break-even bet for you.

If you wanted a real bet, you completely played it wrong. You could have come up all sheepish about your opinion, and probably gotten decent odds. Some arrogant bear might have given you as high as 10:1 if you had been smart about it. If, however, you just wanted to bullshit about to da moon and rock bottom, with no real bet, then you played it precisely right. I have no idea what your intention was, so I won't speculate, all I am saying is if you actually wanted a bet, you went about it very wrong.

As for the standing and trolls stuff, eh whatever, I take all that with a grain of salt. Human nature makes social standing a popularity contest. Of course nobody in high standing is going to disagree with you. To make an absolutely sweeping generalization without consideration for any individual it may include, most of them are permabulls, and even the bears in high standing have their "cold storage" that has been plummeting in value. You are saying things those people want to hear. Why would they criticize you?

I am much more strict with the term troll than most on this forum. I don't consider most posters on here to be trolls. I consider a number of "trolls" to simply be people saying things the people who call them trolls don't want to hear. People talking their book is about the heaviest trolling you'll usually see around here, barring the obvious "single digits incoming" or "100k in 3 months" nonsense.

EDIT: Oh and I honestly have no clue whatsoever what you mean by fitting the description in your lamentation.