07-29-2003, 10:48 PM
Quote: The bet wouldn't be "The Empire State Building will be hit by two airplanes tomorrow morning"...it would be "A terrorist event is planned on the Empire State Building...and here's how to stop it." It wouldn't pay off in the event of the terrorist event or criminal act succeeding â it would pay off only if the proposed plan succeeded in halting it.(my emphasis added)
Can you support this? Because it was my belief that the system paid off on events, not the successful prevention of events. How could we gauge the success of a negative event, that of something not happening?
I only have information based on reading what has been currently available. I found nothing that led me to believe that the program only paid on successful preventions. Even further, this contradicts what you said earlier, " Plus, analysts can also bet against the proposition, so it's not as if money can only be earned if bad things happen.". So if you could bet against things, how does that reconcile with your contention that the plan would only pay off for successful prevention?