Some bloggers take bets on the ideas they express in their writing. A few have been quite successful. I have chosen not to do so (thus far.) In some cases, those who refrain from betting are criticized for not having the courage of their convictions. I don’t believe that criticism is reasonable, and I’ll explain why in this post. Before doing so, let me emphasize that I am not opposed to betting, and do not criticize others for doing so. I will merely be expressing my highly subjective personal preferences. My distaste for betting has two aspects, personal and philosophical. (It’s not ethical.)
Personal objections:
Think back to when you were young. Perhaps some 8-year old boys dared Freddy to pull Mary’s ponytail. When Freddy refused, they taunted him. “Nah, nah, nah, you’re afraid do it.” Maybe he was afraid. Or maybe he had other reasons. Maybe he was polite. Or maybe he was kind. Fear is not the only human motivation.
Unfortunately, many people seem to have so little imagination that they cannot conceive of why someone would refuse to bet on their beliefs, unless they were afraid of losing money. Refusal is seen as implying that their stated beliefs were somehow not sincere. To say I’m not a fan of this sort of childish taunting is an understatement. But it occurs so often I feel I should respond.
Note: Some (not all) of the following applies to my current situation, and would not apply to when I was 30 years old. If you are young, you may have trouble accepting these claims.
Last time I looked, Bryan Caplan had done several dozen bets, and won almost all of them. When I looked at his bets, many of them were pretty lopsided. The people he bet against were frequently taking foolish positions. So I do understand the argument for doing Caplan-style bets. Often it was like stealing candy from a baby. Good for him! But it’s not for me.
[To be clear, although I almost always would have agreed with Bryan, I still think he did a bit better than I would have–I recall a Brexit bet where I would have taken the other side. He really did do quite well.]
Consider six types of possible bets: small and large bets with friends, small and large bets with strangers, and small and large bets in betting markets. I’ll start with the three types of small bets.
At my age and financial position, I don’t care very much about money, and I hardly care at all about small amounts of money. I value two things–time to enjoy the last few years of my life, and a lack of aggravation. Money? I won’t say it doesn’t matter at all, but it’s way down the list.
Why would I want the aggravation of doing a bunch of small bets, where even if I win, the money won’t change my life at all? Even worse, I have a very non-competitive personality. If I lose my bet, I feel bad. If I win $50 from a friend, I feel bad for the friend. And who cares about a lousy 5o bucks? If I bet with someone I don’t know, then how do I know they’ll pay up? But I do know that I would pay up, and that fact tilts the bet in their favor.
I while back I recall a tweet from Elon Musk, predicting that Sam Bankman-Fried would escape arrest because he had donated to the Democrats. (SBF donated to both parties.) I immediately knew the tweet was dumb. How did I know that? Because I’m not 100% ignorant about how the US criminal justice system works. Of course he would be prosecuted. Ambitious prosecutors have never refrain from prosecuting someone like SBF. They live for that kind of target. (Read The Bonfire of the Vanities.) To be clear, Musk is arguably the world’s greatest entrepreneur, much smarter than me, and there’s no shame in not being an expert on all topics. As long as you know that the intricacies of government just aren’t your thing . . .
Suppose I had challenged Musk to a bet. Most likely he would have ignored me. But let’s say he took the bet and I won. That sounds great, doesn’t it? No, that would be a nightmare.
I had thousands of readers at TheMoneyIllusion, many of whom were Russia trolls who hated me. I would have been bombarded with demands to bet on this or that. Some of the proposed bets would be too vague to resolve. If I refused, they’d endlessly taunt me. If I accepted, I’d be stressed as to whether these trolls would actually pay up. I just want to spend my last few years reading novels I like and watching old B&W Japanese films. I don’t need this sort of aggravation.
To give you a sense of how much I hate aggravation, there has been more than one occasion when I regretted speaking to people at a major financial firm for a brief period, even though they gave me a large sum of money. The aggravation came from getting them to pay up, which often involved many back and forth emails and failed attempts at direct deposit. Most people would regard the money I received as more than enough compensation—I’m different.
So if I don’t like betting with individual flesh and blood humans, why not with betting markets? Before the recent election, I blogged that Trump had a 75% chance of winning, and 50% for winning the popular vote. That was higher than the betting markets, which I recall had Trump with a 60% to 65% chance of winning the election, and only 25% to 30% for the popular vote. So why didn’t I bet on Trump? The thought of winning a small bet was simply not worth the hassle of figuring out how betting markets work, and doing the paperwork of setting up an account. And don’t tell me it’s “easy”. I’d say roughly 90% of the time when someone tells me something is easy to do on the computer, I find it hard. (Mercatus tech support: “This will just take 5 minutes.” Two hours later . . . )
So far I’ve been talking about small bets. What about a large bet? Why didn’t I bet $10,000 on Trump winning, or $100,000?
Here a different set of issues comes into play. I’m married, and it’s not really “my money”, it’s “our money”. For small bets that doesn’t matter, but for large bets I’d wish to consult my wife. In this area, I’m far from risk neutral, and far more risk averse than I was when younger and single. Even winning a big bet is no longer life changing. Indeed one definition of “old age” is the moment you realize that even if you won a million dollar lottery it wouldn’t really change your life. That realization happened to me a few years ago. On the other hand, I know that my wife would not enjoy seeing me lose thousands of dollars on a silly political bet. Thus even if in “expected dollar value” terms the bet was slightly in my favor, in “expected utility” terms it would be a bad bet.
Again, I’m not opposed to bets on ethical grounds. I can imagine a bet proposal so favorable that my wife would insist that I accept it. One of those “taking candy from a baby” bets. But it would have to be an extremely favorable bet to make me at all interested. You cannot find those sort of extremely favorable bets in betting markets, and do I trust a stranger to pay up on a $100,000 bet? And do I really want to bet $100,000 with friend? Perhaps Elon Musk. He’s so famous he’d be pressured to pay up. Seriously, while I won’t completely rule out betting, non-Elon bets just don’t seem like an attractive option for me.
Philosophical objections:
When I was young, I recall a tour guide leading parents around the campus at UW-Madison. The guide pointed to a building with an observatory on top, and called it the “Department of Astrology.” I smiled, but no one else seemed to notice.
Don’t get too smug. I sometimes wonder if we should re-label economics as “financial astrology”. Those who follow my blogging know that I am pretty contemptuous of the cult of prediction. Due to the EMH, asset prices are basically unforecastable. Bubbles are a myth. The business cycle cannot be forecast. Big swings in inflation are largely unforecastable.
Unfortunately, most people, even most economists, don’t agree. There’s a sort of fake macho competition to see who is the best forecaster. This just makes me sad. It’d be like a bunch of guys at a statistics conference bragging that they are good at predicting roulette. Of course not all bets are about unforecastable issues, but many are. I worry that the cult of betting just reinforces the view that economics is mostly about prediction, whereas it is actually about policy regimes. For instance, I don’t think that I’m very good at predicting big swings in NGDP. But I do believe that I know how to prevent big swings in NGDP. (Use level targeting and be guided by market forecasts.)
All my old blog posts are still online. People are free to judge for themselves whether my takes have generally been useful.
Summary:
Just because you cannot see any reason why someone would reject a bet other than fear of losing, don’t assume that others feel the same way. Libertarians should be especially receptive to this argument. Consider some related examples of intellectual arrogance:
- “I can’t see why anyone would greatly enjoy smoking, alcohol or pot, ban them.”
- “I can’t see why anyone would like modern art or architecture, they must be faking it.
- “Rap music seems stupid to me, so it must appeal to dumb people.”
- My neighbor voted for the other candidate, he must be stupid or selfish or phony or brainwashed.
Don’t assume that non-bettors are cowards, or phonies.
PS. Here’s another take on the aggravation issue, if you remain unconvinced. Most people pay more than they need to on all sorts of stuff. If you aggressively search out deals and coupons, you can get lower prices on a wide range of goods and services. You can rebook your Expedia hotel reservation every time the price drops. But who does that? When I was young, I did that on a big TV I bought from Amazon, which had a promise to refund future price cuts after you bought the set. I applied for and received three rebates, each time the price dropped. Now I’m too lazy to do that stuff. I long for a simple life.
READER COMMENTS
Dylan
Dec 5 2024 at 6:55pm
Great post. I don’t share most of the personal issues, but I completely get why someone would.
I’m probably closer on the philosophical side. I don’t know that I’m as strict of an EMH adherent as you are, but I don’t have a ton of reason to think that I have deeper insights than anyone else. And, I think there’s a distinction to make between what you think should happen and predicting what will happen. I’ve got much stronger opinions on the former than the latter.
P.s. funny you mention the predicting roulette thing, since I was just listening to the Econtalk episode with a guest who had done just that, successfully no less.
Craig
Dec 5 2024 at 8:25pm
“To give you a sense of how much I hate aggravation, there has been more than one occasion when I regretted speaking to people at a major financial firm for a brief period, even though they gave me a large sum of money. The aggravation came from getting them to pay up,”
Maybe put your wife in charge of accoubts receivable. 😉
David Seltzer
Dec 5 2024 at 8:41pm
Scott: Excellent post. I managed a hedge fund for years. When I retired I refused any entreaties from start ups and in one case from Citadel. The considerable compensation was not enough to trade my low stress existence for a few more years of sixty hour weeks.
Craig
Dec 5 2024 at 8:54pm
“The considerable compensation was not enough to trade my low stress existence for a few more years of sixty hour weeks.”
I remember my first part time job fondly as well 😉
He is speaking about speaking engagements. Honestly it sounds like those could be fun, get paid, take the wife on an excursion, have some lunch, see some place new, do the engagement, perhaps meet some new colleagues, do some dinner at a new place to eat.
David S
Dec 6 2024 at 3:44am
I enjoy making bets with myself for harmless things. I’m frequently wrong, and when I lose I can welsh on any type of promise I made for a payout or penalty. Sometimes these take the form of predicting if someone will show up on time. Because I regard people, particularly teenagers and family members, as being highly unreliable I can be pleasantly surprised when they DO show up on time and I win the bet with myself (and sometimes my wife).
I’m trying to refrain from making any bets about what happens after January 20th, 2025. It’s like trying to guess what part of the canvas Jackson Pollock is going to splatter paint on next.
john hare
Dec 6 2024 at 4:22am
One part of betting, or trying to get someone to bet, is the large number of people that insist with absolute certainty that certain things will happen. Sometimes it is almost impossible to get people to either back off OR put any skin in the game at all.
I guarantee that Trump is going to drain the swamp, for example. There being no way to get them to either wait on results, OR to quit preaching at you. My suggesting that the election was between a pair of undesirables is heresy, and a bet on results could help clear the air and lower the noise level.
Chris Gardner
Dec 6 2024 at 6:28am
As a high school Macroeconomics teacher who spends a great deal of time teaching young people about personal finance, I am very concerned about the proliferation of betting platforms and the way gambling has openly permeated sports. I fear we will be looking at an even larger problem with gambling addiction, especially among young men. And yes I would bet on it.
JoeF
Dec 6 2024 at 6:46am
I clicked on that tweet and I don’t think it was a “prediction.” On Nov 12 (right after FTX filed Chapter 11 and SBF resigned), Tom Fitton tweeted “While the Biden gang has been harassing and threatening ElonMusk and his companies, one of the worst scams in modern finance was being perpetuated under their nose.”
Musk replied “SBF was a major Dem donor, so no investigation.” He was clearly referencing the past, not the future. Musk’s comment was wrong – FTX was an offshore exchange, so not regulated by the SEC. But it doesn’t look like he was predicting that SBF would not be investigated (to me).
Scott Sumner
Dec 6 2024 at 2:08pm
I think it’s pretty clear that he was implying that there would be no investigation. And even if he wasn’t, he was wrong, as you say.
Alan Goldhammer
Dec 6 2024 at 8:39am
Nate Silver has a very good discussion on betting in his new book. He spent a full year betting on NBA games. IIRC, the amount was close to $2M for the full season and he made about $40K which is a worse return than putting the money into an S&P index fund and letting it ride. Unless you are a very good poker player, gambling is pretty much a great way to lose a lot of money. Michael Lewis is covering the rise of on line sports betting in his latest “Against the Rules” podcast series. Well worth listening to if you are into that.
Anecdotally, I was a small-time sports bettor in college in the late 1960s, most college and pro football. There was a nice bar just outside the UC Santa Barbara campus that was co-owned by an assistant football coach, the volleyball coach and the sports information director. A bunch of us including a number of the football players were there to watch Super Bowl III. Everyone in attendance thought the Colts would easily beat the point spread which was ridiculously high. I took the spread and the Jets in a series of bets and ended up making just over $700 which was real money back then. Last gambling I ever did was on the blackjack table in Las Vegas in 1970 on my way to graduate school.
Garrett
Dec 6 2024 at 2:10pm
Was $2mm his gross betting or his account size? 2% return on account is bad relative to opportunity cost (tbills) for sure but it’s not clear to me that’s what you mean
Alan Goldhammer
Dec 6 2024 at 3:51pm
Gross amount that was bet during the season.
Scott Sumner
Dec 6 2024 at 2:10pm
I did a bit of gambling on football when I was young, and won a few hundred dollars. I also won a few hundred in casino gambling. But then lost interest.
I’m still ahead!
Craig
Dec 6 2024 at 11:26am
“gambling is pretty much a great way to lose a lot of money”
Gambling is for suckers, the more you gamble, the more you lose.
Garrett
Dec 6 2024 at 2:05pm
Economists more often than not damage their credibility with forecasts. Here’s an example:
“My barber said his brother-in-law was investing everything in Bitcoin, and asked me if he should too. This will not end well.”
– In honor of his retirement today, Paul Krugman, 12/21/2017
Scott Sumner
Dec 6 2024 at 2:12pm
Great example. In contrast, my first Bitcoin post (when it was around $30), criticized a Tyler Cowen post that suggested it was a bubble.
If only I’d bought some!
John
Dec 7 2024 at 5:48pm
This post reminds me of the Austrian objections to complex statistical empirical tests in Economics, in the sense that the social sciences don’t lend themselves to precise predictions. It has been something that I’ve thought about a lot recently (I’m not an economist). For some, that Austrian objection seems like a way to get out of empirically testing their ideas, but is it simply just embracing a humility that many social scientists don’t do? It also reminds me of the Sowell quote from Knowledge and Decisions: “To say that a farm boy knows how to milk a cow is to say that we can send him out to the barn with an empty pail and expect him to return with milk. To say that a criminologist understands crime is not to say that we can send him out with a grant or a law and expect him to return with a lower crime rate. He is more likely to return with a report on why he has not succeeded yet, and including the inevitable need for more money, a larger staff, more sweeping powers, etc.”
I’m curious what Sumner thinks in that regard.
Jose Pablo
Dec 8 2024 at 9:34am
You look kind of “Unamerican” in this betting thing
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/12/05/americas-gambling-boom-should-be-celebrated-not-feared
By the way it looks like The Economist is drifting libertarian (again). Good news!
Freedom is not only measured by speech and political liberty, but also by the ability to spend your money as you wish.
TGGP
Dec 11 2024 at 10:55am
If your concern is aggravation from trolls, then why are you blogging? Trolls pay no cost for spouting nonsense, whereas forcing them to put money where their mouths are would tax their BS.The bit about the practicality of extracting money from people who can choose to delay payment is more understandable.
Don Geddis
Dec 20 2024 at 1:09pm
I agree with everything you’ve said … but have come to almost the opposite conclusion. The point of personal betting is to sharpen your own reasoning (and that of your friends), and to calibrate your intuitions. At a given moment in time, the future is uncertain, and you have certain opinions and perhaps theories of how the structure of the world fits together. You and your friends can have informal amusing discussions and arguments. At some point, there is a particularly sharp disagreement. Betting is a tool that forces both sides to be concrete about their claims. What time period are you talking about? What magnitude of effect? How would we resolve who the winner is? Many times, when you get precise enough to construct an actionable bet, you discover that you and your friend don’t actually disagree after all; you were just talking past each other. Other times, you (or your friend) have a slightly broken theory of the world, but confirmation bias prevents you from detecting your own errors. Making a concrete bet, and then following up on the outcome, forces you to confront the gap between your earlier confidence and the actual real-world results. In the best circumstances, you can learn from this evidence and update your theories and opinions.
The difference with these examples are that the bets are with friends (so the issue of payment shouldn’t arise), and the amounts are trivial (the social bragging rights are the real stakes). They don’t even necessarily need to be “public” … but they need to be fixed and agreed upon at a certain point in time, and they need to be followed up on when the results become clear. It is a tool to sharpen your thinking and calibrate your confidence. It can be quite effective in those circumstances!
Comments are closed.