Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Odds-on Science

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the always-bet-on-red dept.

utopia27 writes "According to article in New Scientist, a UK-based bookie will be taking bets for two weeks on major science benchmarks (specifically, odds of implementation by 2010). The ponies are life on Titan, 10,000:1, gravitational waves, 500:1, the Higgs boson, 6:1, cosmic ray origins, 4:1, and nuclear fusion, 100:1."

15 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. I'll bet... by BoldAC · · Score: 5, Funny

    Duke Nukem Forever -- 25,000:1

    (grin)
    AC

    1. Re:I'll bet... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

      SCO showing copyrighted code in Linux: 50,000:1

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  2. Obligatory quote by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry! This section of Newscientist.com is unavailable at the current time - every effort is being made to get it back up and running as quickly as possible.

    The ponies are life on Titan, 10,000:1
    Gravitational waves, 500:1
    The Higgs boson, 6:1
    Cosmic ray origins, 4:1
    Nuclear fusion, 100:1

    The New Scientist getting a good Slashdotting: priceless

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Obligatory quote by mothz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the link in the summary is wrong. Here's the actual article.

  3. 10000 to 1? by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am reminded of a certain phrase:

    The lottery is just a tax on fools.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  4. Nuclear fusion? by pclminion · · Score: 5, Informative

    We can easily achieve nuclear fusion. The problem is controlling and sustaining it. It should read, "Fusion power plants, 100:1", not "Nuclear fusion, 100:1."

    1. Re:Nuclear fusion? by Mateito · · Score: 5, Funny
      The problem is controlling and sustaining it.

      I heard that there is some scientist who has developed a system of four AI controlled robotic arms that will allow him to manually control the reaction. Apparently they hook into his nervous system. Could be interesting.

      --
      Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
    2. Re:Nuclear fusion? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Could be interesting.

      Don't bet on it.

  5. Easy Money... by still_sick · · Score: 5, Funny

    Stalk Steven Hawking, bet what he bets.


    ... Or just knock him down and take his winnings. Either way, Bling-Bling!

    --
    ...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
  6. Correct Link by ChrisTower · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 96331

    --

    I'm tired of bombing the universe
  7. One more odds. by Chmarr · · Score: 5, Funny

    He forgot the most important one:

    Odds on the bookie being contactable in 6 years to pay out on all the bets he lost: 1,000,000:1

  8. Seems risky for the bookie... by ChiralSoftware · · Score: 5, Interesting
    All bookies are at risk from "wise guys" who basically have insider knowledge of the bet in question. Betting on science makes this risk extreme. If I were an exobiologist at NASA and we found good evidence of life on Titan, the lag to publishing or even announcing it would be days, weeks or even months. Plenty of time to put down a $10k bet and then try to collect $100m after the announcement.

    The stock markets are obviously subject to the same risk of illegal insider trading, but they are somewhat protected by stringent rules and enforcement (cf. Martha). An inside trader is basically equivalent to a wise guy, except that being an inside trader is illegal but being a wise guy isn't.

    Even if their betting contract says "NASA employees and their families may not participate in the Titan bet" or whatever, scientific information (unlike business information) is generally not under any kind of non-disclosure, so Joe Astrobiologist at NASA can freely tell his buddies about the squirmy things they dug up in the ice and his buddy can freely log on and bet wildly if he wants to.

  9. Re:Who sets the odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are two ways of betting. The "proper", fixed odds way, and pool betting (sometimes known as tote or pari-mutuel).

    Proper, english betting markets are formed by a bookmaker evaluating the probabilities of a selection winning an event. He will then write, say, 6/1 on a big blackboard. If lots of customers think this is a good price, they will all stick lots of money on it. "Oh, poo-pants", thinks the bookie, and cuts the price to 11/2, then 5/1. The customers that have already placed bets have 6/1, but future customers will get 5/1. Under this system, a bookie can, and frequently does, lose thousands on individual events.

    The second way, which I believe is frequently used in the US (in the UK, pool betting is run as the Tote by the government under a monopoly), is pool betting. Say there are two selections, A and B. If £1000 gets staked on A and £100 on B, then A will have odds of 9/1 (or 10.00 if you're american) and B will have odds of 1/10 (or 1.1). In this method the bookie will never lose money, but isn't actually making any books!

    Anti-flame barrier - I know I've over simplified, but I've tried to be concise.

  10. Titan bet not just on life by loqi · · Score: 5, Informative

    I thought the Titan bet was a great deal until I RTFA and found out it's intelligent life on Titan. I think I'll pass.

    --
    If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
  11. As my dad often said... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    go into any bookies' and you'll find four windows for paying in, only one window for paying out.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars