Opinion The War Room Bet Thread V7

[Jack V Savage]

Lmao bitter and defiant until the end.

Why do you say that?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Why do you say that?

The personal insult you levied for no reason

 

[Jack V Savage]

The personal insult you levied for no reason

It wasn't a personal insult, and my comment followed naturally from your question. What do you understand my position on BTC price to be?

 

[Rob Battisti]

You got priority on it, though.

Very likely to win anyway.

Wrong.

And nowww, it’s time for the main event of the evening.

In this corner, betting with a 1-1 record and #9 in the rankings, the only poster to previously beat the current champion, ROB “HR” BATTISTIII! And in this corner, coming in with a 12-1 record, the REIGNING, DEFENDING, UNDISPUTED WR bet champion, JACK V SAVAAAGGGEEE

Its official

Love this.

That's still predicting a 100% gain in a pretty short period. Assets do double quickly sometimes (generally because of new information), but if there were evidence suggesting such a move, I don't see why current value wouldn't reflect it. I think for any given stop date, $10K is just as likely as $30K.

Lmao

I look forward to collecting gentlemen.

“10k as likely as 30k”

LMAO again

I’d argue the cycle data for BTC is far more predictable than you’re giving it credit for. The halving cycles have BTC right on track for where it is supposed to be. You don’t think BTC isn’t following its historical trend? Sure the SBF event was a blackswan but otherwise it’s business as usual.

Obvious now as it was then

You're making an argument for it being efficient, not for it being inefficient. If you're saying the price is predictable, the natural question is why the market isn't collectively predicting it accurately.

The market is filled with people like you.

But again, if the changes are predictable, why haven't they been predicted? That is, if you think there is clear evidence that the price is going to double in X months, why haven't other investors already poured in and driven the price up to double, minus the time value? Your claim is that investors as a whole (weighted by the amount they are investing) are making a massive error but also that the answer to the problem (what is the true value of BTC based on publicly available info at the moment) is fairly easy. Doesn't add up.

Most predictable asset out there

Both of my outstanding bets are locks now.

LMAO

@Rob Battisti in all truthfulness, I'll be happy for you if it pays off big for you.

Thank you.

It's not even going to be close, most likely.

LMAO

"Can't" isn't a word I'd use. Anything can happen, but that's spectacularly unlikely.

I'm going to be 15-1 when tmy currently active bets settle.

Two more Ls incoming

"The only thing"?! Really?

Also, when did I say a recession is not in the cards? I've said multiple times that while we're in a tightening cycle, recession risk is elevated. I've pushed back against people who were saying that it was guaranteed or trolls who were saying we were already in a recession. I continue to think that the risk is above average (which is about 20%--so even in a normal year with no signs of immediate trouble, it's not that unlikely), but not above 50/50 for any one year.

And your model is just way off. If there were good reason to think that the price would be twice what it currently is in a year, people would already be bidding it up much higher (with some discount). That's true regardless of what you think is going on in the broader economy (discount rates are going to be different depending on strength, but that's a rounding error compared to the kind of moves you're predicting).

I would say that your arrogance is really mind-blowing, but I don't think you actually realize the implications of your claims.

Should have bought when I told you

After it drops back to 25k before Christmas

Naa fam

Very.

I think the question is revealing. Sort of mirrors what I think is our thinking differences on other issues. The way I see it, you have affective polarization and then sort of make comments sort of in the genre of an argument (or often just childish avoidance) to justify it, and I think you wrongly assume that everyone else is like that.

So on this, you have positive feelings about BTC, which leads you to think it's going up, and it doesn't matter much to you whether your specific arguments add up. And you think I have negative feelings about it, which leads me to think it's always going down, etc.

But my approach starts with a method and then goes to a conclusion. And my general thinking here is that the market is pretty efficient in that current prices reflect publicly available information pretty well. So I'd bet against any big move in any direction now. There could be some, but they'd be based on stuff that is currently unknown, and they can go in any direction. A two-thirds gain in a little over a year remains extremely unlikely.

Extremely unlikely

Even if it does, which is unlikely but not out of the question, it would need to hold an increase of 25% over a year for you to win the easier bet for you. If someone came up to you offering an investment and claiming that it would definitely gain 25% in a year, wouldn't you think it's a scam? If not, you're a sucker.

You’re a sucker

A certain JVS was very confident that Bitcoin wouldn’t be at this price point.

LOL

I was?

Yes

Yeah, that's a bit surprising. Personally, I've been neither bullish nor bearish--my view is that the market is pretty efficient in the sense of incorporating publicly available information into the current price at any time. So in a sense, increases make me more bullish, though the very high volatility is a bit of a check on that.

Lmao the lie detector determined that was a lie

 

[Jack V Savage]

Holy crap, how long did you spend on that? And you still don't grasp the point.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Holy crap, how long did you spend on that? And you still don't grasp the point.

In a few months…

“Bitcoin reaches 100k today with signs it still had room to run”

“You still don’t grasp the point!”

 

[Rob Battisti]

The only point is this, my understanding of the asset is correct. My understanding of where the asset will go based on modeling is correct.

Your understanding of the asset is incorrect. Your understanding of where the asset will go based on modeling isn’t even in existence.

 

[Jack V Savage]

In a few months…

“Bitcoin reaches 100k today with signs it still had room to run”

“You still don’t grasp the point!”

Do you understand the argument?

 

[Jack V Savage]

The only point is this, my understanding of the asset is correct. My understanding of where the asset will go based on modeling is correct.

Your understanding of the asset is incorrect. Your understanding of where the asset will go based on modeling isn’t even in existence.

What do you think my understanding is?

 

[Rob Battisti]

What do you think my understanding is?

well, it certainly isn’t based off of fundamentals or how a hard asset will react to inflows.

 

[Jack V Savage]

well, it certainly isn’t based off of fundamentals or how a hard asset will react to inflows.

What do you think it is based on?

This is relevant because what got you upset was my point that you don't understand the argument (and that I suspect you lack the cognitive ability to understand it). You could prove me wrong Herr, but you keep punting, which strengthens my conviction.

 

[Rob Battisti]

What do you think it is based on?

This is relevant because what got you upset was my point that you don't understand the argument (and that I suspect you lack the cognitive ability to understand it). You could prove me wrong Herr, but you keep punting, which strengthens my conviction.

What do I think my analysis is based on?

 

[Rob Battisti]

This:

An approach that starts with a method and then goes to a conclusion with general thinking that the market is pretty efficient in that current prices reflect publicly available information pretty well.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What do I think my analysis is based on?

Read again.

This:

What is your understanding of my position?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Read again.

What is your understanding of my position?

That you’re 50-50 if it goes up or down.

You clearly don’t believe it’s going up so idk if you’re asking me to write a dissertation on how you came to that belief.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That you’re 50-50 if it goes up or down.

You clearly don’t believe it’s going up so idk if you’re asking me to write a dissertation on how you came to that belief.

Wrong. And I'm not asking for a short dissertation. Just if I'm wrong about the point being over your head, show that you understand it.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Wrong. And I'm not asking for a short dissertation. Just if I'm wrong about the point being over your head, show that you understand it.

Your analysis is that if there was significant technical reasons for the price to be likely to rise, it would be priced in minus the time value.

Since you don’t believe that the price should go up, there must not be those indicators.

If there WERE indicators for a likely rise, more people would be flooding in.

Is that correct?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Your analysis is that if there was significant technical reasons for the price to be likely to rise, it would be priced in minus the time value.

Since you don’t believe that the price should go up, there must not be those indicators.

If there WERE indicators for a likely rise, more people would be flooding in.

Is that correct?

No.

The argument is that given the level of liquidity and participation in the market, information relevant to the price is going to be quickly impounded into it (so if there were a good reason to believe it would be $X in six months, it would almost immediately rise to $X-the value of holding a safe asset for six months). This works with probabilities too (if there's an X% chance of an event that would drive the price up by Y%, prices would already be at XY%). This is a general pro-market interpretation (that is, the argument for allowing markets to set prices is based on the accurate belief that they do a good job of it). So the higher the current price is, the higher my expectation for it to be in the future would be, though mean reversion is an issue.

 

[Rob Battisti]

No.

The argument is that given the level of liquidity and participation in the market, information relevant to the price is going to be quickly impounded into it (so if there were a good reason to believe it would be $X in six months, it would almost immediately rise to $X-the value of holding a safe asset for six months). This works with probabilities too (if there's an X% chance of an event that would drive the price up by Y%, prices would already be at XY%). This is a general pro-market interpretation (that is, the argument for allowing markets to set prices is based on the accurate belief that they do a good job of it). So the higher the current price is, the higher my expectation for it to be in the future would be, though mean reversion is an issue.

Sounds like a complicated way to say you’re wrong about Bitcoin but okay.

We will hit 100k this year

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sounds like a complicated way to say you’re wrong about Bitcoin but okay.

We will hit 100k this year

I think it sounds like that to you because you simply lack the aptitude to understand the point (not saying that it's that complicated, but I believe you are impaired).