"Matthew will prepay the $500 in January 2023; the preceding terms have been pre-adjusted to compensate Matthew for expected inflation. "
So according to this, the bet does adjust for inflation, so I'm not sure why Bryan says here that it isn't . And it is Matthew who is getting the payoff at the end.
He's pretty clearly saying they factored in inflation when making the odds of the initial bet that way they don't have to do some sort of weird 'true-up' based on CPI at the end or something.
So it's not an equal odds bet? I think that should have been mentioned in the original post more explicitly. Also, it is better to disentangle the odds from inflation as the odds are supposed to provide an idea about the belief of the bettors.
Don't know what to tell you, it was clear to me and apparently to the bettors.
It wouldn't be that hard to reverse-engineer implied inflation rates and the effective odds of the bet -- either party could have hedged were they so inclined.
In this case the odds depend on the future inflation, which is what makes it weird. Like if the US undergoes higher than expected inflation within this decade, Matthew loses money even though the bet had nothing to do with the US economy. I'm not sure how you think this isn't weird.
Wait I thought that the bet was inflation adjusted! That's a really unfair bet!
It's only unfair to Bryan. If he won, he would only get the payoff at the end.
In the bet post, Bryan says this:
"Matthew will prepay the $500 in January 2023; the preceding terms have been pre-adjusted to compensate Matthew for expected inflation. "
So according to this, the bet does adjust for inflation, so I'm not sure why Bryan says here that it isn't . And it is Matthew who is getting the payoff at the end.
He's pretty clearly saying they factored in inflation when making the odds of the initial bet that way they don't have to do some sort of weird 'true-up' based on CPI at the end or something.
So it's not an equal odds bet? I think that should have been mentioned in the original post more explicitly. Also, it is better to disentangle the odds from inflation as the odds are supposed to provide an idea about the belief of the bettors.
Don't know what to tell you, it was clear to me and apparently to the bettors.
It wouldn't be that hard to reverse-engineer implied inflation rates and the effective odds of the bet -- either party could have hedged were they so inclined.
In this case the odds depend on the future inflation, which is what makes it weird. Like if the US undergoes higher than expected inflation within this decade, Matthew loses money even though the bet had nothing to do with the US economy. I'm not sure how you think this isn't weird.
makes perfect sense for a bet that is more likely to be won later into the time window, automatically adjusting the odds depending on when it happens
it is also much simpler to handle logistically which I would guess is the primary reason
I mean, he is not a Professor of Economics for nothing...