Re: the proof is in the pudding
[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree that it's just an e-peen thing. The regulars in this forum enjoy betting and always have their eyes open for +EV bets. If someone comes in making outlandish statements, then we have no problem trying to make some money off them if the opportunity arises. Supporting your argument by being willing to place money on it strengthens your case and forces the troll to put up or shut up, basically. It also helps to educate the new folks reading the threads; they will be less inclined to believe the trolls who are spouting incorrect (and often harmful) ideas if they see respected regulars willing to make high-stakes bets against them.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with this. First off the troll has been identified BEFORE the bet is wagered, meaning the odds of the bet being taken are next to zero from that point already. So what is the purpose of offering the bet? The malicious troller will just continue to stir up controvery saying something like "10K isn't enough, I'll only do it if you want to bet 100 million" or "I don't trust you, prove your worth" etc to keep the controversy going. To me it still boils down to a e-peen thing, but I'm not opposed to being convinced otherwise.
Maybe this is a strawman argument, but offering to bet when you know no bet will be placed is a e-peen thing. To me the EV of offering to bet with a troll is less than betting obviously errant lines @ books or begging on the street. The bet is almost never gonna happen.
|