[chernevik]

The bet is a punctuation point on a discussion. Sam is already taking risk on current valuations, another $100K here or there isn't going to move the needle. The real stakes are reputation for prognostication. And the point to me is getting VCs on the other side of the debate to put a public stake in the ground, and hopefully give their arguments for why.

So I don't find this taker particularly interesting. In the context of an industry wide debate, the opinion of someone who doesn't have an audience similar to Sam's doesn't really mean much. Not that they aren't smart, just that they aren't someone influencing the discussion. Which is what this is mostly about.

And to say "I take the bet" without any discussion of why really misses the whole point.

Of course Sam should take this bet. But I'd suggest that he amend his proposal: Find people with enough audience to change the discussion, who are talking about bubble valuations, and ask them specifically to put a stake in the ground on this.

[sama]

a fair point. i didn't define "VC" well enough.

if another VC from a top-tier fund with at least $500MM under management would like to take the bet, i will make the same bet once more.

[howsta]

The bet also serves as an interesting hedge for anyone whose net worth is already heavily correlated with the success of the tech sector (which certainly includes VCs). 100k is not enough to really matter to a GP at a 500MM fund, especially if it goes to charity either way. But there are plenty of smaller VCs or even startup founders (including myself) who would do that deal not because they're skeptical of tech's fundamentals, but as a way to counteract exposure to an overall macro/tech downfall.

[myblake]

Not sure I see why this is the case since the money's going to charity.

[ryanx435]

moving the goal posts? poor tactical decision, sam. you've just undermined your whole position.

before, with the open definition of VC, it expressed a high confidence in your bet.

now, by limiting the pool of potential bet takers, you are weakening your overall goal of maintaining public perception that there is no bubble.

the analogy is boxing. before, you were putting a huge bet that you were the best boxer in the world and you challenged any other boxer to challenge you so you could prove it. now that someone has, it's like saying that you are the best boxer in the world, and anyone can challenge you to prove it, except this challenger because reasons. it sounds like an excuse not to fight and makes you look scared.

lol.

it sounds like your confidence in your position concerning bubbles has been weakened, but you are trying to convince yourself it is as strong as ever by saying no REAL venture capitalist has taken your bet, so you must still be right.

it's cool though, I'm sure nobody will notice.

[jaredklewis]

I imagine he's interested in a bet with a big VC because they are the ones complaining about high, "bubble" valuations. I doubt Sam really cares one way or another if some random guy/the American public/whoever thinks we are in a bubble.

[rowofpixels]

I think he means an additional bet.

[ryanx435]

I know. sorry, I probably wasn't clear: it doesn't matter if he takes another bet or not, what matters is that he wishes that he would have had more restrictive requirements for who is able to accept his bet.

the logic being that, the more restrictive requirements, the less people who meet them, which means less probability that someone would take his bet, which implies that he never really wanted anyone to take the bet in the first place.

the subtext is that sam is not as confident in his position as he would like you to believe.

[6d0debc071]

If I understand correctly, his original offer was just to take one bet?

'This bet is open to the first VC who would like to take it' http://blog.samaltman.com/bubble-talk

Any bets taken beyond that would be a relaxation of the 'you weren't here in time' criteria which would have excluded all other gamblers.

[ryanx435]

trye, but the importance of the two criteria aren't weighted the same.

plus he isn't doubling down on the same bet: he's changing the new bet to be more in his favor, so the additional 100,000 is actually worth less than the original 100,000. (not monetary value, but rather the money's value as representation of the strength of his belief that the bubble won't pop before 2020).