Woah...Warren rockets into lead

[BillB]

This woman is like the Energizer Bunny. She just keeps going and going. Warren now has a solid lead over Biden on the PredictIt market. She's getting a lot of traction in NH and Iowa, and the media is noticing.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination

Harris rounds out the top three, but with a lot of ground to make up to catch the leaders.

In the latest polling news, Fox News has Biden, Warren, Harris or Sanders all beating Trump in a head to head match-up.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/457645-fox-news-poll-shows-trump-losing-to-biden-warren-sanders-and-harris


I'm still having problems envisioning Warren as the nominee, and Biden is on a bit of a slide. According to The Hill, Biden's campaign team is considering limiting his public appearances because of his frequent verbal gaffes. For those reason, I'm officially declaring Harris.... STILL IN IT!

[risky biz]

🤣

'Online Exchange [Predictit] Shows Jeb Bush as the GOP’s 2016 Favorite'
[Public opinion polls were solidly Trump]
https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/08/21/online-exchange-shows-jeb-bush-as-the-gops-2016-favorite/

[BillB]

iirc, the confidence in Jeb was fairly short-lived, but that's just an example of the betting public not being able to wrap their heads around the absurdity of Donald Trump being elected president. Nothing that stupid had ever happened before.

It's not like the betting favorite wins every contest. Long-shots do come in from time to time. That's what makes it fun.

[BillB]

By the way, the best bet on there right now is betting *against* Yang to win the nomination. You get a 10% return on your money for an absolute LOCK.

Warren now *3 cents* ahead of Biden. She's making an impression.

[irishra...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 4:16:00 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> This woman is like the Energizer Bunny. She just keeps going and going. Warren now has a solid lead over Biden on the PredictIt market. She's getting a lot of traction in NH and Iowa, and the media is noticing.

Well Boyo, you can add me to the list of people rooting for Pocahontas to win the
Democrat nomination. I absolutely want her to be the Democrat running against
President Trump in 2020. And, I'd love to see old Bernie as her VP candidate.

The new Green deal, open borders, eliminate ICE, free health care for Illegals, free
college for illegals, wipe out all student loans, guarantee government jobs for every
one and tax the middle class right out of existence. And drive all those
evil rich people, and their money, companies and jobs out of America and into
those foreign countries. Who are going to welcome them with open arms.

And then, when President Trump wins in 2020, just like he did in 2016, you and
your left wing pals can stumble around, scratch your heads and try to
figure out how this could have happened - again!

Irish Mike

[Clave]

On 8/16/2019 10:05 PM, irishra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 4:16:00 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
>> This woman is like the Energizer Bunny. She just keeps going and going. Warren now has a solid lead over Biden on the PredictIt market. She's getting a lot of traction in NH and Iowa, and the media is noticing.
>
> Well Boyo,

Shut the fuck up, you politically ignorant dipshit.

[risky biz]

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 4:37:15 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 10:28:57 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 1:16:00 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > This woman is like the Energizer Bunny. She just keeps going and going. Warren now has a solid lead over Biden on the PredictIt market. She's getting a lot of traction in NH and Iowa, and the media is noticing.
> > >
> > > https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination
> > >
> > > Harris rounds out the top three, but with a lot of ground to make up to catch the leaders.
> > >
> > > In the latest polling news, Fox News has Biden, Warren, Harris or Sanders all beating Trump in a head to head match-up.
> > >
> > > https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/457645-fox-news-poll-shows-trump-losing-to-biden-warren-sanders-and-harris
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm still having problems envisioning Warren as the nominee, and Biden is on a bit of a slide. According to The Hill, Biden's campaign team is considering limiting his public appearances because of his frequent verbal gaffes. For those reason, I'm officially declaring Harris.... STILL IN IT!
> >
> >
> > 🤣
> >
> > 'Online Exchange [Predictit] Shows Jeb Bush as the GOP’s 2016 Favorite'
> > [Public opinion polls were solidly Trump]
> > https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/08/21/online-exchange-shows-jeb-bush-as-the-gops-2016-favorite/
>

~ iirc, the confidence in Jeb was fairly short-lived, but that's just an example of the betting public not being able to wrap their heads around the absurdity of Donald Trump being elected president.

Even though the general public at the time figured it out as evidenced by public opinion polls.

[BillB]

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 3:32:33 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:


> Even though the general public at the time figured it out as evidenced by public opinion polls.
>

The public opinion polls generally ask people who they are going to vote for, not who they think is going to win. Those are two different things. No "figuring" involved.

The betting markets are different than polls. Few people will bet on the outcome of a race without being aware of what the polls are suggesting will happen, but in the case of Jeb Bush, many people flatly disregarded the polls, incorrectly assuming they couldn't possibly be right or stable. A lot of them probably thought the polls were just reflecting celebrity and name recognition at that point in time, and that Trump's buffoonery would eventually sink his initial support.

[risky biz]

Jeb Bush wasn't any kind of significant celebrity. And his recognition as G.W. Bush's brother- being the third person from the same immediate family to seek the White House would have been a negative rather than a positive even among Republicans.

The 'predict' market was utterly wrong. Any of it's discounting of Trump's Republican primary support in public opinion polls is just further illustration of 'predicrit's' unreliability.

[risky biz]

According to a comic book the Trump campaign sold you?

[BillB]

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 10:45:42 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 7:00:56 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 3:32:33 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Even though the general public at the time figured it out as evidenced by public opinion polls.
> > >
> >
> > The public opinion polls generally ask people who they are going to vote for, not who they think is going to win. Those are two different things. No "figuring" involved.
> >
> > The betting markets are different than polls. Few people will bet on the outcome of a race without being aware of what the polls are suggesting will happen, but in the case of Jeb Bush, many people flatly disregarded the polls, incorrectly assuming they couldn't possibly be right or stable. A lot of them probably thought the polls were just reflecting celebrity and name recognition at that point in time, and that Trump's buffoonery would eventually sink his initial support.
>
> Jeb Bush wasn't any kind of significant celebrity. And his recognition as G.W. Bush's brother- being the third person from the same immediate family to seek the White House would have been a negative rather than a positive even among Republicans.
>

Reading comprehension fail.

> The 'predict' market was utterly wrong. Any of it's discounting of Trump's Republican primary support in public opinion polls is just further illustration >of 'predicrit's' unreliability.

Predictit doesn't have any inherent reliability or unreliability. It is simply a reflection of current public opinion of an uncertain future event. If you think it's so inaccurate, why the hell don't you swoop in there and make a shitload of money off the public's ignorance?? DUH You realize you can take either side of any bet on there, right??

[BillB]

By the way, as I already explained to you, any time a long-shot comes in to win in any event, it means the betting public's collective opinion was wrong. It happens all the time, just not nearly as often as the collective public opinion being right.

[risky biz]

Two-post response fail.

[BillB]

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 2:16:17 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

> Two-post response fail.

What part didn't you understand?

You are asserting that a betting market's odds are way out of whack with reality. I'm asking you why in the world you are hesitant to turn your observation into cold hard cash. Do you have a rational answer?

[risky biz]

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 5:10:39 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 2:16:17 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
>
> > Two-post response fail.
>
> What part didn't you understand?

I don't understand why you're so defensive about the accuracy of that crummy predictit.com thing.


~ You are asserting that a betting market's odds are way out of whack with reality.

I haven't said anything about anything other than predictit.com. And all I did was enlighten you about their previous massive miss. Jesus. Kill the messenger much?


~I'm asking you why in the world you are hesitant to turn your observation into cold hard cash. Do you have a rational answer?

Did you turn your observation into cold hard cash? If not, please do so, provide the proof of doing so and keep us updated on the killing you made.

To answer your question:
1. the limit is $850 per question
2. they impose a 10% fee on gains
3. they impose an additional 5% withdrawal fee

And then you pay taxes on what's left.

In short- it's a shit market. Yes, I already looked into it before you asked. The short side on Kamala Harris looks juicy.

But if someone wants to incur all the above for the priceless ability to brag that they called it right and that predictit.com is more accurate than polls then the world is theirs. I'm looking forward to watching you put your money where your mouth is. Kamala Harris shares are dirt cheap. Bet a little, win a lot.

[BillB]

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 11:27:49 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > What part didn't you understand?
>
> I don't understand why you're so defensive about the accuracy of that crummy predictit.com thing.
>

I've already explained to you, there is no inherent accuracy or inaccuracy with predictit or any other prediction market. They just reflect the betting public's sentiment at any given moment in time.

> ~ You are asserting that a betting market's odds are way out of whack with reality.
>
> I haven't said anything about anything other than predictit.com.

Which is a betting market.

>And all I did was enlighten you about their previous massive miss. Jesus. Kill >the messenger much?

Jesus Christ...we all know the public is not right every time. You aren't enlightening anything. Did you really think I, or anyone else, thinks the favorite wins every time??

>
> ~I'm asking you why in the world you are hesitant to turn your observation into cold hard cash. Do you have a rational answer?
>
> Did you turn your observation into cold hard cash? If not, please do so, provide the proof of doing so and keep us updated on the killing you made.
>
> To answer your question:
> 1. the limit is $850 per question
> 2. they impose a 10% fee on gains
> 3. they impose an additional 5% withdrawal fee
>
> And then you pay taxes on what's left.

So? You don't like free money? The $850 limit is easy enough to get around, but it hardly seems relevant for someone like you who spends his life playing nickel slots. You're a high roller all of a sudden?

If the markets are as inaccurate as you say, you can certainly overcome the (non-profit) service fees on your winnings, can't you? As for income tax, you have to pay that on just about any form of income, don't you? Gambling winnings are not taxed in Canada, so I wouldn't need to worry about that.

> In short- it's a shit market. Yes, I already looked into it before you asked. The short side on Kamala Harris looks juicy.
>

So bet it!

> But if someone wants to incur all the above for the priceless ability to brag that they called it right and that predictit.com is more accurate than polls >then the world is theirs.

Who said it was more accurate than polls? The research I've seen say their predictive value is about equal.

> I'm looking forward to watching you put your money where your mouth is. Kamala >Harris shares are dirt cheap. Bet a little, win a lot.

Did I ever say the odds offered on Harris were way out of wack with reality? No, I did not. I did say I don't think Yang has a 10% chance to win the nomination. Taking a 10% return on my money (8.5% after fees) betting against him seems like a good bet to me.

[BillB]

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 5:14:08 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

> Warren now *3 cents* ahead of Biden. She's making an impression.

4 cents now. Gathering steam.

[risky biz]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 12:07:45 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 11:27:49 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > > What part didn't you understand?
> >
> > I don't understand why you're so defensive about the accuracy of that crummy predictit.com thing.
> >
>
> I've already explained to you, there is no inherent accuracy or inaccuracy with predictit or any other prediction market. They just reflect the betting public's sentiment at any given moment in time.

After waving it around and yelling about it. 'Woah' (sic)

> > ~ You are asserting that a betting market's odds are way out of whack with reality.
> >
> > I haven't said anything about anything other than predictit.com.
>
> Which is a betting market.
>
> >And all I did was enlighten you about their previous massive miss. Jesus. Kill >the messenger much?
>
> Jesus Christ...we all know the public is not right every time. You aren't enlightening anything. Did you really think I, or anyone else, thinks the favorite wins every time??

'Woah' (sic)

> > ~I'm asking you why in the world you are hesitant to turn your observation into cold hard cash. Do you have a rational answer?
> >
> > Did you turn your observation into cold hard cash? If not, please do so, provide the proof of doing so and keep us updated on the killing you made.
> >
> > To answer your question:
> > 1. the limit is $850 per question
> > 2. they impose a 10% fee on gains
> > 3. they impose an additional 5% withdrawal fee
> >
> > And then you pay taxes on what's left.
>

~ So? You don't like free money? The $850 limit is easy enough to get around, but it hardly seems relevant for someone like you who spends his life playing nickel slots. You're a high roller all of a sudden?

I don't recall ever claiming to be a high roller but I bet 2 or 3 times that much in 4 hours, not an election cycle.

> If the markets are as inaccurate as you say, you can certainly overcome the (non-profit) service fees on your winnings, can't you? As for income tax, you have to pay that on just about any form of income, don't you? Gambling winnings are not taxed in Canada, so I wouldn't need to worry about that.
>
>
> > In short- it's a shit market. Yes, I already looked into it before you asked. The short side on Kamala Harris looks juicy.
> >
>
> So bet it!

> > But if someone wants to incur all the above for the priceless ability to brag that they called it right and that predictit.com is more accurate than polls >then the world is theirs.
>

~ Who said it was more accurate than polls? The research I've seen say their predictive value is about equal.

You change tune fast enough to give yourself whiplash.

'in the case of Jeb Bush, many people flatly disregarded the polls, incorrectly assuming they couldn't possibly be right or stable..'

> > I'm looking forward to watching you put your money where your mouth is. Kamala >Harris shares are dirt cheap. Bet a little, win a lot.
>

~ Did I ever say the odds offered on Harris were way out of wack with reality? No, I did not.

I did. I didn't say you did.


~ I did say I don't think Yang has a 10% chance to win the nomination. Taking a 10% return on my money (8.5% after fees) betting against him seems like a good bet to me.

What happened to Warren's 'solid lead'? You're the one who's so excited about it. Why aren't you betting your massive $850?

[BillB]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 2:32:40 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:


> > I've already explained to you, there is no inherent accuracy or inaccuracy with predictit or any other prediction market. They just reflect the betting public's sentiment at any given moment in time.
>
> After waving it around and yelling about it.

I yelled about it?? No, I did not. I posted that Elizabeth Warren had made a dramatic move to overtake Biden on the leading prediction market. Is there a problem with that? It triggered you....why?

>'Woah' (sic)

Using (sic) in informal communications such as these is always a dick move, but using it incorrectly just makes you look like a bloody fool. To quote Grammarly:

"A note of caution: when you use sic to mark a mistake, make sure it’s really a mistake. Just think of all the spelling differences between British and American English. Even if a spelling seems unfamiliar to you, double-check it before you sic it."


> 'Woah' (sic)

lol @ risky making a fool of himself again.

> I don't recall ever claiming to be a high roller but I bet 2 or 3 times that much in 4 hours, not an election cycle.
>

And what would your expected ROI be on that $850 you put through that machine? Could it be as high as 1%? Did you ever consider getting a job at McDonald's?

> ~ Who said it was more accurate than polls? The research I've seen say their predictive value is about equal.
>
> You change tune fast enough to give yourself whiplash.
>
> 'in the case of Jeb Bush, many people flatly disregarded the polls, incorrectly assuming they couldn't possibly be right or stable..'
>

That doesn't contradict anything I said.

> > > I'm looking forward to watching you put your money where your mouth is. Kamala >Harris shares are dirt cheap. Bet a little, win a lot.
> >
> ~ Did I ever say the odds offered on Harris were way out of wack with reality? No, I did not.
>
> I did. I didn't say you did.

You said you look forward to me putting my money where my mouth is. Why would I bet on Harris unless I thought her shares were priced too low? You aren't making any sense at all.

> ~ I did say I don't think Yang has a 10% chance to win the nomination. Taking a 10% return on my money (8.5% after fees) betting against him seems like a good bet to me.
>
> What happened to Warren's 'solid lead'? You're the one who's so excited about it. Why aren't you betting your massive $850?

I never gave any indication that I thought Warren's shares were underpriced. I merely reported that she had overtaken Biden (along with the exclamation "Woah"). If anything, that implies I think her shares are overpriced.

It's pretty clear you don't really understand the concept of advantage wagering.

[risky biz]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 4:30:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 2:32:40 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
>
>
> > > I've already explained to you, there is no inherent accuracy or inaccuracy with predictit or any other prediction market. They just reflect the betting public's sentiment at any given moment in time.
> >
> > After waving it around and yelling about it.
>
> I yelled about it?? No, I did not. I posted that Elizabeth Warren had made a dramatic move to overtake Biden on the leading prediction market. Is there a problem with that? It triggered you....why?
>
> >'Woah' (sic)
>
> Using (sic) in informal communications such as these is always a dick move, but using it incorrectly just makes you look like a bloody fool. To quote Grammarly:
>
> "A note of caution: when you use sic to mark a mistake, make sure it’s really a mistake. Just think of all the spelling differences between British and American English. Even if a spelling seems unfamiliar to you, double-check it before you sic it."

'woah' is only a variant spelling of 'whoa' for people who don't know how to spell 'whoa'.

' History and Etymology for whoa
Middle English whoo, who'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whoa

Not 'wooah' or 'woh'.

> > 'Woah' (sic)
>
> lol @ risky making a fool of himself again.
>
> > I don't recall ever claiming to be a high roller but I bet 2 or 3 times that much in 4 hours, not an election cycle.
> >
>
>
> And what would your expected ROI be on that $850 you put through that machine? Could it be as high as 1%? Did you ever consider getting a job at McDonald's?

Try 50-200% in 4 hours or less, numbskull. You know as little about video poker as you do about live poker.

> > ~ Who said it was more accurate than polls? The research I've seen say their predictive value is about equal.
> >
> > You change tune fast enough to give yourself whiplash.
> >
> > 'in the case of Jeb Bush, many people flatly disregarded the polls, incorrectly assuming they couldn't possibly be right or stable..'
> >
>
> That doesn't contradict anything I said.
>
>
> > > > I'm looking forward to watching you put your money where your mouth is. Kamala >Harris shares are dirt cheap. Bet a little, win a lot.
> > >
> > ~ Did I ever say the odds offered on Harris were way out of wack with reality? No, I did not.
> >
> > I did. I didn't say you did.
>
> You said you look forward to me putting my money where my mouth is. Why would I bet on Harris unless I thought her shares were priced too low? You aren't making any sense at all.

Oh, it makes perfect sense as an intelligent person who has read your posts about Kamala Harris can attest.

> > ~ I did say I don't think Yang has a 10% chance to win the nomination. Taking a 10% return on my money (8.5% after fees) betting against him seems like a good bet to me.
> >
> > What happened to Warren's 'solid lead'? You're the one who's so excited about it. Why aren't you betting your massive $850?
>
> I never gave any indication that I thought Warren's shares were underpriced. I merely reported that she had overtaken Biden (along with the exclamation "Woah"). If anything, that implies I think her shares are overpriced.
>
> It's pretty clear you don't really understand the concept of advantage wagering.

It's pretty clear you don't really think predictit.com prices are the least bit meaningful. NOW.

[BillB]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:38:40 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

> > "A note of caution: when you use sic to mark a mistake, make sure it’s really a mistake. Just think of all the spelling differences between British and American English. Even if a spelling seems unfamiliar to you, double-check it before you sic it."
>
> 'woah' is only a variant spelling of 'whoa' for people who don't know how to spell 'whoa'.

Stop making a fool of yourself. A variant spelling is not an error and is not an appropriate time to use sic. How far did you make it in school? lol

From Oxford English Dictionary:

woa, int.
(wəʊ)

Also woah.

[Variant of whoa.]

> > And what would your expected ROI be on that $850 you put through that machine? Could it be as high as 1%? Did you ever consider getting a job at McDonald's?
>
> Try 50-200% in 4 hours or less, numbskull. You know as little about video poker as you do about live poker.
>

LOL!!! OMFG...I'm laughing so hard at you my eyes are watering.

Did you hear that, folks? Risky puts $850 through in a video poker machine and four hours later he *expects* to have $1,275-$2,550. That's why he's a multi-millionaire. It's amazing the casinos haven't barred him!

> > You said you look forward to me putting my money where my mouth is. Why would I bet on Harris unless I thought her shares were priced too low? You aren't making any sense at all.
>
> Oh, it makes perfect sense as an intelligent person who has read your posts about Kamala Harris can attest.
>

Actually, it makes no sense at all. You are just making shit up. It makes about as much sense as your claimed 50-200% expected ROI in video poker. I have not said Harris's chances are any better (or worse) than that which are reflected by her predictit share price. In fact, I said several times she is a "longshot" but "still in it."

> > > ~ I did say I don't think Yang has a 10% chance to win the nomination. Taking a 10% return on my money (8.5% after fees) betting against him seems like a good bet to me.
> > >
> > > What happened to Warren's 'solid lead'? You're the one who's so excited about it. Why aren't you betting your massive $850?
> >
> > I never gave any indication that I thought Warren's shares were underpriced. I merely reported that she had overtaken Biden (along with the exclamation "Woah"). If anything, that implies I think her shares are overpriced.
> >
> > It's pretty clear you don't really understand the concept of advantage wagering.
>
> It's pretty clear you don't really think predictit.com prices are the least bit meaningful. NOW.

I haven't said anything that could lead anyone to that logical conclusion. I gave my opinion that I thought one candidate's shares were way overpriced, but it wasn't Biden, Harris or Warren. You are just making things up out of thin air.

Also, even if my initial impression is that someone's shares are overpriced (inviting a short) that doesn't mean I'm going to jump on that bet. It's a strong indication to me that it's possible the public knows something I don't. Further investigation is necessary. Even someone as intelligent as me can't possibly know everything.

[risky biz]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 1:05:10 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:38:40 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
>
> > > "A note of caution: when you use sic to mark a mistake, make sure it’s really a mistake. Just think of all the spelling differences between British and American English. Even if a spelling seems unfamiliar to you, double-check it before you sic it."
> >
> > 'woah' is only a variant spelling of 'whoa' for people who don't know how to spell 'whoa'.
>
> Stop making a fool of yourself. A variant spelling is not an error and is not an appropriate time to use sic. How far did you make it in school? lol
>
> From Oxford English Dictionary:
>
> woa, int.
> (wəʊ)
>
> Also woah.
>
> [Variant of whoa.]
>
> > > And what would your expected ROI be on that $850 you put through that machine? Could it be as high as 1%? Did you ever consider getting a job at McDonald's?
> >
> > Try 50-200% in 4 hours or less, numbskull. You know as little about video poker as you do about live poker.
> >
>
> LOL!!! OMFG...I'm laughing so hard at you my eyes are watering.
>

~ Did you hear that, folks? Risky puts $850 through in a video poker machine and four hours later he *expects* to have $1,275-$2,550. That's why he's a multi-millionaire. It's amazing the casinos haven't barred him!

You know as little about video poker as you do about live poker.

> > > You said you look forward to me putting my money where my mouth is. Why would I bet on Harris unless I thought her shares were priced too low? You aren't making any sense at all.
> >
> > Oh, it makes perfect sense as an intelligent person who has read your posts about Kamala Harris can attest.
> >
>
> Actually, it makes no sense at all. You are just making shit up. It makes about as much sense as your claimed 50-200% expected ROI in video poker. I have not said Harris's chances are any better (or worse) than that which are reflected by her predictit share price. In fact, I said several times she is a "longshot" but "still in it."
>
>
> > > > ~ I did say I don't think Yang has a 10% chance to win the nomination. Taking a 10% return on my money (8.5% after fees) betting against him seems like a good bet to me.
> > > >
> > > > What happened to Warren's 'solid lead'? You're the one who's so excited about it. Why aren't you betting your massive $850?
> > >
> > > I never gave any indication that I thought Warren's shares were underpriced. I merely reported that she had overtaken Biden (along with the exclamation "Woah"). If anything, that implies I think her shares are overpriced.
> > >
> > > It's pretty clear you don't really understand the concept of advantage wagering.
> >
> > It's pretty clear you don't really think predictit.com prices are the least bit meaningful. NOW.
>
> I haven't said anything that could lead anyone to that logical conclusion. I gave my opinion that I thought one candidate's shares were way overpriced, but it wasn't Biden, Harris or Warren. You are just making things up out of thin air.
>

~ Also, even if my initial impression is that someone's shares are overpriced (inviting a short) that doesn't mean I'm going to jump on that bet. It's a strong indication to me that it's possible the public knows something I don't. Further investigation is necessary. Even someone as intelligent as me can't possibly know everything.

It's surprising that someone as intelligent as you knows anything but, in any case, I'll take that as your admission that you aren't going to put your money where your mouth is but you still think I should put my money ($850, anyway) where your mouth is.

[risky biz]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 3:39:16 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 1:05:10 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:38:40 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> >
> > > > "A note of caution: when you use sic to mark a mistake, make sure it’s really a mistake. Just think of all the spelling differences between British and American English. Even if a spelling seems unfamiliar to you, double-check it before you sic it."
> > >
> > > 'woah' is only a variant spelling of 'whoa' for people who don't know how to spell 'whoa'.
> >
> > Stop making a fool of yourself. A variant spelling is not an error and is not an appropriate time to use sic. How far did you make it in school? lol
> >
> > From Oxford English Dictionary:
> >
> > woa, int.
> > (wəʊ)
> >
> > Also woah.
> >
> > [Variant of whoa.]

It will only become a proper variant when enough people like you who don't spell it correctly equal those who do. Even 'travel' can spell 'whoa' correctly. LOL.


'Woah is not yet in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as an official spelling variant of whoa, but its usage has increased dramatically in the current century. "Whoa" is still much more common however, so only time will tell if this spelling variant is accepted.

The spelling variants we include in our dictionaries are, like the words and their definitions, based on evidence, and primarily on evidence as found in published, edited text. It's not that the language as it's used outside of published, edited text is less effective in communicating; it's that looking at the language as it's used in published, edited text provides a scope for our work that is both useful to our readers and possible for our lexicographers. We can't scan the Facebook threads of millions of speakers of English for variant spellings, and most of you likely care more about whether a particular spelling has met the editorial standards of the likes of Forbes and The Atlantic than those of your cousin Steve. Is a particular spelling regarded as an error by the people whose jobs it is to consider such things? That's the question we answer.
What Does Whoa Mean?

But on to woah: the story starts with farm animals. Animals don't speak, but people speak to them, and the words people use to speak to animals qualify for dictionary entry if there's enough print evidence of those words being used.

In this dictionary you will find an entry for whoa, in which the word is defined with the following:

1 —a command (as to a draft animal) to stand still

2 : cease or slow a course of action or a line of thought : pause to consider or reconsider —often used to express a strong reaction (such as alarm or astonishment)

Although print evidence of whoa in use dates to the 15th century, the word was not common enough to be included in Noah Webster's 1828 An American Dictionary of the English Language. But it was entered in the 1864 dictionary that superseded it. In An American Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged an entry for whoa directed the reader to ho (also styled as hoa) which was defined as an interjection with the jarringly exclamation-marked "stop! stand still! hold!," and the notes "a word used by teamsters in stopping their teams" and "written also whoa." Webster had included ho too, categorizing it as an exclamation, and defining it as "a word used by teamsters, to stop their teams. It has been used as a noun, for stop, moderation, bounds." Ho no longer carries this meaning commonly enough to be included in this dictionary, but an entry for injectional use still exists: "used especially to attract attention to something specified," as in "land ho."
Goodbye to "Ho," Hello to "Whoa"

Ho died out, and whoa stepped in—and long before the time of spelling standardization. Looking at the entry for whoa in the historical Oxford English Dictionary, which includes examples tracing the word from its earliest use and into the current century, we see a variety of spellings employed: whoo, who, whoe, woyh, whoh, wo, woo, woa, and, with the first example from a 1790 source identified only as Merry Companion, woah. In the late 19th century, the word developed its more common modern use (sense 2 above), as in "Whoa, that's interesting."
Origins of Woah

The spelling woah has likely been simmering since the late 18th century, mostly not making it into published works. In the late 20th century, though, that started to change. Since the 1990s especially, woah has been making inroads into formerly whoa-exclusive territory, with the Lexis-Nexis "All English Language News" database showing woah start to appear in news transcripts and a few major newspapers as the century reached its close.

In the current century, woah has continued to grow in prevalence. It's always been more common in non-US English sources, but we've spotted it in stateside magazines like The Atlantic, PC Magazine, and U.S. News & World Report, and in the nation's best newspapers, including The Denver Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Miami Herald, The Sacramento Bee, and The Kansas City Star.

Part of what is going on with the story of woah and whoa is that informal interjectional uses are making it into published, edited text far more frequently than they used to. While woah is about as common as whoa was at the end of the 20th century, whoa is by some estimations now more than five times as common as it was back then. What is even more telling is that the sources in which woah appears have many more examples of whoa than they do of woah. It looks like woah is just occasionally slipping in.

What does all this mean? It means that the story of woah is still in flux, but that current evidence shows that it's not yet an established spelling variant in US English. For now, we're going to stick with the more common spelling. Whoa.'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/words-were-watching-woah-whoa-slang-definition

[BillB]

Uh, who said I am limited to writing in "US English"? lol I don't even live in the US. Did you know Canadian spelling more closely mirrors UK spelling? Did you know the OED is widely recognized the most authoritative English language dictionary in the world?

Please, stop making a fool of yourself. It really is unbearably embarrassing. If "woah" is good enough for Charles Dickens, it's good enough for me.

Now tell us more about your 200% expected ROI playing the nickel slots! That's the real story here!!

[risky biz]

I couldn't care less about twirpy British English. Why don't you start posting in French, too, Monsieur Paon?

> Please, stop making a fool of yourself. It really is unbearably embarrassing. If "woah" is good enough for Charles Dickens, it's good enough for me.

Oh, really? Where did Charles Dickens use that spelling?

> Now tell us more about your 200% expected ROI playing the nickel slots! That's the real story here!!

You don't know any more about video poker than you do about live poker.

[BillB]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 4:37:56 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

> I couldn't care less about twirpy British English.

lol...what a ridiculous man. So embarrassing. It's cringeworthy.

From Grammarly:

"A note of caution: when you use sic to mark a mistake, make sure it’s really a mistake. Just think of all the spelling differences between British and American English. Even if a spelling seems unfamiliar to you, double-check it before you sic it."

> Why don't you start posting in French, too, Monsieur Paon?

I don't speak French. I speak English.

> > Please, stop making a fool of yourself. It really is unbearably embarrassing. If "woah" is good enough for Charles Dickens, it's good enough for me.
>
> Oh, really? Where did Charles Dickens use that spelling?

Uh, you JUST FINISHED telling me you couldn't care less about British English.

> > Now tell us more about your 200% expected ROI playing the nickel slots! That's the real story here!!
>
> You don't know any more about video poker than you do about live poker.

That's very true. Keep on mind, though, that there are relatively few people on this planet that know more about poker than I do, and even fewer that can beat me over the long run. Now tell us more about your 200% video poker ROI!! lolol

[risky biz]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 5:30:04 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 4:37:56 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
>
> > I couldn't care less about twirpy British English.
>
> lol...what a ridiculous man. So embarrassing. It's cringeworthy.
>
> From Grammarly:
>

~ "A note of caution: when you use sic to mark a mistake, make sure it’s really a mistake. Just think of all the spelling differences between British and American English. Even if a spelling seems unfamiliar to you, double-check it before you sic it."

Just think of all the spelling differences between Spanish and American English.

Stick 'British English' up your bum. Most of them can barely speak English. It sounds like a mental patient who inhaled helium.

> > Why don't you start posting in French, too, Monsieur Paon?
>

~ I don't speak French. I speak English.

No one could guess that by your spelling.

> > > Please, stop making a fool of yourself. It really is unbearably embarrassing. If "woah" is good enough for Charles Dickens, it's good enough for me.
> >
> > Oh, really? Where did Charles Dickens use that spelling?
>

~ Uh, you JUST FINISHED telling me you couldn't care less about British English.

In other words, you don't have the slightest idea if Charles Dickens ever used that spelling.

> > > Now tell us more about your 200% expected ROI playing the nickel slots! That's the real story here!!
> >
> > You don't know any more about video poker than you do about live poker.
>

~ That's very true. Keep on mind, though, that there are relatively few people on this planet that know more about poker than I do, and even fewer that can beat me over the long run. Now tell us more about your 200% video poker ROI!! lolol

Uh, huh. You don't even know the difference between stud and hold'em.🤣 Everyone saw that.

Seriously, though- how many things are there in the world at which you aren't the world's most greatest, perfect practitioner?🤣

[BillB]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 7:24:17 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:


> Seriously, though- how many things are there in the world at which you aren't >the world's most greatest, perfect practitioner?🤣

This is a great question. There are of course an infinite number of things I'm not great at, but what about things I want to be great at, and in some cases tried and failed? That's a long list, too, but I'll hit a few of them for you.

I've been playing guitar for 30-something years on and off, and I still suck pretty bad. I was never a good track athlete, and I've never been able to dunk a basketball despite being over 6"4". I can't operate any heavy machinery, and I'm not much of a carpenter or a mechanic. I've never had the patience to learn any advanced chemistry or theoretical physics. I'm very good at snooker but not good at all at billiards. My archery skills leave a lot to be desired. Three times I've tried to make a souffle and failed. I love golf -- my dad was a scratch golfer and a club champion who started teaching me when I was four -- and I still can't keep it in the fairway to save my life. I'm bad at drawing and my handwriting is atrocious.

That's about it, I guess. I can say most of the things I've set my mind to I've become very good at, but there are still quite a few heartbreaking fails in there.

Thank you for your interest in BillB.

[BillB]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 4:06:41 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

> Please, stop making a fool of yourself. It really is unbearably embarrassing. If "woah" is good enough for Charles Dickens, it's good enough for me.
>

Sorry, I was mistaken. My memory failed me. Dickens used yet a third (risky-unapproved) variant spelling: "woa-a-a"

"It seemed that Mr Chuckster had been standing with his hands in his pockets looking carelessly at the pony, and occasionally insulting him with such admonitions as ‘Stand still,’—‘Be quiet,’—‘Woa-a-a,’ and the like, which by a pony of spirit cannot be borne. Consequently, the pony being deterred by no considerations of duty or obedience, and not having before him the slightest fear of the human eye, had at length started off, and was at that moment rattling down the street—Mr Chuckster, with his hat off and a pen behind his ear, hanging on in the rear of the chaise and making futile attempts to draw it the other way, to the unspeakable admiration of all beholders. Even in running away, however, Whisker was perverse, for he had not gone very far when he suddenly stopped, and before assistance could be rendered, commenced backing at nearly as quick a pace as he had gone forward. By these means Mr Chuckster was pushed and hustled to the office again, in a most inglorious manner, and arrived in a state of great exhaustion and discomfiture.

[Clave]

On 8/18/2019 11:50 PM, BillB wrote:
> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 4:06:41 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
>
>> Please, stop making a fool of yourself. It really is unbearably embarrassing. If "woah" is good enough for Charles Dickens, it's good enough for me.
>>
>
> Sorry, I was mistaken. My memory failed me. Dickens used yet a third (risky-unapproved) variant spelling: "woa-a-a"

Can I just point something out? If weren't for woah, neither John Wayne
nor Keanu Reeves would have been movie stars.

Change my mind.

[risky biz]

I was right then.

And, once again, I don't give a damn how limeys spell it.

Try driving on the left side of the road in the U.S. and see how far you get. Please make sure the cop gets bodycam video of you insisting that you were driving on the correct side of the road because that's the British variant and you prefer the British variant. I'm sure he'll understand exactly what you're saying.

[BillB]

You're a very silly man. I'm not in the US, and neither is RGP. This is a worldwide operation. And we're talking about creative writing, not driving. And even if I did spell it wrong, using sic for this kind of informal communication just makes you look like a complete moron. We're talking firkin-level stupidity here. Suit yourself.

[risky biz]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 4:30:46 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 2:32:40 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
>
>
> > > I've already explained to you, there is no inherent accuracy or inaccuracy with predictit or any other prediction market. They just reflect the betting public's sentiment at any given moment in time.
> >
> > After waving it around and yelling about it.
>
> I yelled about it?? No, I did not. I posted that Elizabeth Warren had made a dramatic move to overtake Biden on the leading prediction market. Is there a problem with that? It triggered you....why?
>
> >'Woah' (sic)
>
> Using (sic) in informal communications such as these is always a dick move, but using it incorrectly just makes you look like a bloody fool. To quote Grammarly:
>
> "A note of caution: when you use sic to mark a mistake, make sure it’s really a mistake. Just think of all the spelling differences between British and American English. Even if a spelling seems unfamiliar to you, double-check it before you sic it."



> > 'Woah' (sic)
>
> lol @ risky making a fool of himself again.

The fact of the matter is that you are making a fool of yourself by your illustration for everyone that you don't know the meaning of the word 'sic'. Perhaps you've focused on the mistake aspect because you're embarrassed that I revealed your febrile predictit.com reference ('Woah...Warren rockets into lead') as somewhat dubious given its past history. In fact, you've gone completely spastic about my little note of caution. I didn't foresee that you would regard it as such a near-mortal blow to your self-regard.

[risky biz]

Two people in Vancouver and one nazi in Dublin makes RGP a 'worldwide operation'. LOL. Throw some more names. It tells everyone a lot about your personality.

[risky biz]

I'm not that interested, actually, but there's always you to love you.

And I think the 'I'm very good at snooker' is pure, unadulterated bullshit.