[seanhunter]

It's not free money on the ground, it's a bet on the outcome of some event.

You're presupposing that the only possible rational reason they might have to not bet might be that they are not confident but that's obviously not the case.

Just to pick one possible rational reason, maybe they or a loved one have been touched by the negative consequences of gambling so they don't believe in betting?

[Dylan16807]

> It's not free money on the ground, it's a bet on the outcome of some event.

If you have convincing enough evidence for it, a bet is more likely than something that looks like money on the ground. Imagine betting the sun will rise tomorrow.

> You're presupposing that the only possible rational reason they might have to not bet might be that they are not confident but that's obviously not the case.

They didn't say it's the only reason, just that refusing to bet weakens their claim of confidence. Plausible but unconfirmed reasons are why it's only a weakening rather than disproof, but it's still a weakening.

[seanhunter]

It may weaken their claim for you. To me, refusing to take an ego bet with some random on the internet suggests they're not 9 years old.

And no I wouldn't bet that the sun will rise tomorrow. For a number of reasons. Firstly I don't care that much about money (shocking but true), so there is little to no upside if I was to win the bet other than the general benefit I would derive from the sun rising and I get that whether I bet or not.

Secondly I think betting about facts is an incredibly foolish thing to do in general. If anyone offers you a bet about some fact, you are the sucker and you just haven't figured out how yet. Your best move is not to play.

Finally betting with some random that I have no reason to think would make good on their side of the bet if I was to win. idk man that just seems like a really dumb idea. I don't understand why people think it makes them smart to think otherwise.

[Dylan16807]

It's only an ego bet if you don't care about money. Most people would significantly enjoy an extra hundred or thousand dollars. It's a big upside.

> If anyone offers you a bet about some fact, you are the sucker and you just haven't figured out how yet. Your best move is not to play.

I think it's pretty clear in this case that's it's a genuine disagreement about the fate of the company.

> Finally betting with some random that I have no reason to think would make good on their side of the bet if I was to win. idk man that just seems like a really dumb idea. I don't understand why people think it makes them smart to think otherwise.

There are plenty of trustworthy arbiters/platforms available. For most people spending a couple hours looking into it is easily worth the money... if they're right.

[comp_throw7]

> Secondly I think betting about facts is an incredibly foolish thing to do in general. If anyone offers you a bet about some fact, you are the sucker and you just haven't figured out how yet. Your best move is not to play.

Well, that sure sounds like a claim about how confident one should be about their understanding of reality. One most people disagree with, incidentally - do you own any equities?

Counterparty risk is a valid reason to avoid certain bets (or bet structures), but a totally separate objection from "betting is a weird thing that only weirdos do".