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).
I had estimated that probability for 435 holding should be 10% in general public's eyes, but I thought it was 20%. So I would have taken 7:1 odds for me, and lost almost straight away.
This whole controversy boils down to
-people assuming that all bets are done at 1:1 odds (most person to person bets are done this way, but not all)
-the large gap between "better than 1:1" and "7:1"
Making fun and/or insulting someone into taking a bet doesn't work. Trying to have the bet setup in a way that grossly favors your side and then insulting the other party for refusing to take the bet is the classic, but ineffective tactic.
In general it is unlikely that you will be able to organize a bet online with someone you haven't met nor trust (the bet against Bitcoin Savings and Trust was a big exception - but it had value for both the better who was going to win, and Trendon who was hoping to prop-up his ponzi).
It seems that a lot of people are missing the point, and that is Rpietila proposed to bet.
Rpietila weasled out of making any bet by making the matter more complicated than it needed to be. If he truly wanted odds, then he should have clearly and unambiguously reiterated that point and made his proposed odds clear, but he did NOT.
His talk about odds was ambiguous at best b/c he spoke out of two sides of his mouth by saying out of one side of his mouth that the price would never reach $435.. and then saying out of the other side of his mouth that he wants odds in his favor. These two statements are ambiguous and seem to be contradictory and it was up to him to clarify them.. and he failed/refused to clarify until afterwards.. and even afterwards it remains unclear what bet and what odds he would have taken in such hypothetical circumstances.