[Joe Johnson]

As to EddieMcD's comments:

I set the wagers and the odds. Since the game can be ANYTHING, I think that it is in general riskier to make a statement about what the game will be than to state what it will NOT be. So, in general, the odds favor me in that I get a higher benefit for me if I am correct.

For example, If I were to bet you on the outcome of a single roll of a fair 6 sided dice, I might have a feeling about the dice coming up #1 next roll. In this case, I would make a statement like "Then next roll will be a 1 : Odds 6:1" meaning I bet that then next roll will be a 1, if someone accepts my wager and a 1 comes up, they would owe me 6 cases of Mt. Dew. If it came up anything other than a 1, I would have to pay them 1 case of whatever they wanted.

Assuming that the setter of the odds and the accepter of the bet are equally good a predicting outcomes (and that the bet is repeated many times) over time everything will average out and nobody will be richer or poorer for all the betting.

In the case of fair dice everyone is (or should be) equally bad at prediction but equally good at estimating the odds of various outcomes. However, in other cases (e.g. predicting FIRST games) it is tricker. In this case, I am making a claim and posting up odds. If you think I have mis-judged the odds, then you will think that it is a good bet and take me up on it. If so, feel free.

Now concerning Mr. Rawls:

I am afraid in light of the discussion above that you may have misunderstood my position, so I will not accept your wager until we are clear. I win if the game is 2 vs 2. You win if the game is something other than 2 vs. 2.

Are you still in?

Joe J.