Julian L. Simon and Paul Ehrlich entered in a famous wager in 1980, betting on a mutually agreed upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. Simon had Ehrlich choose five of several commodity metals. Ehrlich chose 5 metals: copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Simon bet that their prices would go down. Ehrlich bet they would go up.[note 1] Ehrlich ultimately lost the bet, and all five commodities that were selected as the basis for the wager continued to trend downward until 2002, when metal prices generally began to increase[1] and at least the price of copper,[2] tin,[3] and nickel[4] increased.
In 1968, Ehrlich was the author of a popular book, The Population Bomb, which argued that mankind was facing a demographic catastrophe with the rate of population growth quickly outstripping growth in the supply of food and resources. Simon, a libertarian, was highly skeptical of such claims.
You could name your own terms: select any raw material you wanted — copper, tin, whatever — and select any date in the future, "any date more than a year away," and Simon would bet that the commodity's price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the wager...
Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals that they thought would undergo big price rises: chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Then, on paper, they bought $200 worth of each, for a total bet of $1,000, using the prices on September 29, 1980, as an index. They designated September 29, 1990, 10 years hence, as the payoff date. If the inflation-adjusted prices of the various metals rose in the interim, Simon would pay Ehrlich the combined difference; if the prices fell, Ehrlich et al. would pay Simon...
Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800 million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by September 1990, without a single exception, the price of each of Ehrlich's selected metals had fallen, and in some cases had dropped through the floor. Chrome, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.70 in 1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.88 a decade later.[5]
As a result, in October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07 to settle the wager in Simon's favor.
Other wagers
In 1996, Simon bet $1000 with David South that the inflation-adjusted price of timber would decrease in the following 5 years. Simon paid out early on the bet in 1997 (before his death in 1998) based on his expectation that prices would remain above 1996 levels (which they did).[6]
In recent years, there have been many bets and bet challenges related to global warming.[7][8] For instance, J. Scott Armstrong challenged Al Gore to a climate-related bet in 2007 [9] that focused on year-to-year variation in temperatures but not on betting over longer term changes in global average temperatures.[10]
Notes
^ The face-off occurred in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich's published claim that "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000" — a proposition Simon regarded as too silly to bother with — Simon countered with "a public offer to stake US$10,000 ... on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run."
The general role of the bookmaker is to act as a market maker for sports wagers, most of which have a binary outcome: a team either wins or loses. The bookmaker accepts both wagers, and maintains a spread (the vigorish) which will ensure a profit regardless of the outcome of the wager. The Federal Wire Act of 1961 was an attempt by the US government to prevent illegal bookmaking[1]. However, this Act does not apply to other types of online gambling.[2] The Supreme Court has not ruled on the meaning of the Federal Wire Act as it pertains to Online gambling.
This bet is admitted by both parties to be a good-natured resurrection of the same spirit and tradition behind the famous Simon-Ehrlich wager which spanned the years 1980-1990.
Tierney was a life-long friend and protégé of the late Julian Simon (the winner of the Simon-Ehrlich wager), and eagerly embraced the opportunity to follow in his mentor's footsteps. Tierney is (as was Simon) an avowed Cornucopian, believing in the ingenuity of humankind to adapt and improvise. Meanwhile, Simmons' "Twilight in the Desert" seemed to Tierney to be cut from the same gloom-and-doom cloth as Paul R. Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, a book published in 1968 which later became the impetus for the Simon-Ehrlich wager. When that well-renowned wager was settled in 1990, Simon's boomster victory over Ehrlich's doomster philosophies was heralded as a triumph for Cornucopian economics.
Tierney made unabashed reference to that infamous wager as he gave his apologetic for embarking upon this redux of it:
I didn't try to argue with [Simmons] about Saudi Arabia, because I know next to nothing about oil production there or anywhere else. I'm just following the advice of a mentor and friend, the economist Julian Simon: if you find anyone willing to bet that natural resource prices are going up, take him for all you can.
The inclusion of Rita Simon
After the bet was agreed upon (but before it was made public) Tierney immediately called Rita Simon, the widow of Julian Simon. She delightedly joined with Tierney's effort to carry on with her late husband's legacy, and even financed one half of Tierney’s obligation to the bet by contributing USD$2,500.00 of her own.
Ongoing updates
The price-per-barrel of crude oil is being heavily scrutinized by oil industry watchers aware of this bet. Many peak oil websites make frequent reference to the Simmons-Tierney bet[1] and some have already begun daily tabulations and adjusted-for-inflation charts on the latest price-per-barrel. (The price-per-barrel of oil at the time of the bet — August 2005 — was around $65.00. The price as of the initial publishing of this article — May 10, 2008 — was $125.96; the record high of $147 in July 2008 was in large part attributable to a weak U.S. dollar.)
With the dramatic drop in demand and prices for many commodities in the economic crisis of 2008, the average per-barrel price for December 2008 reached a post-spike low of $40.88, then steadily climbed back to an average of $78.33 for the month of January 2010.[2]
Both Simmons and Tierney (as of this writing) have publicly availed their e-mail addresses with a formal and open invitation to anyone else in the general population who might like to make similar wagers.
Bookmaking may be legal or illegal, and may be regulated; in the United Kingdom it was at times both regulated and illegal, in that licences were required but no debts arising from gambling could be enforced through the courts. Now, since the inception of the National Lottery, not only is it completely legal in the UK, it is a small contributor to the British economy, with a recent explosion of interest with regard to the international gaming sector industry. However, gambling debts still remain unenforceable under English law.
Bookmaking is generally illegal in the United States, with Nevada being a notable exception.
In some countries, such as Singapore, Sweden, Canada and Hong Kong, the only legal bookmaker is state-owned and operated. In Canada, this is part of the lottery program and is known as Sport Select.
In the United Kingdom, trusted legal bookmakers are members of IBAS, which is an industry standard organization which resolves to settle
Horse racing betting systems are based on a number of criteria, some of which include analysis of the horses' form.
Often horse racing systems are based on financial systems such as hedging (betting on multiple outcomes in a race) and arbitrage (lay the horse a low price and back it at a high price). Other horse racing systems exist which are based on items such as horse name, jockey form, trainer form, and lane draw. Modern horse racing systems can rely on specific betting possibilities only offered on betting exchanges.
Loss recovery systems such as Martingale can also be applied to horse racing.
Most exchanges make their money by charging a commission which is calculated as a percentage of net winnings for each customer on each event, or market. Gamblers whose betting activities have traditionally been restricted by bookmakers (normally for winning too much money) have found these sites a boon since they are now able to place bets of a size unrestricted by the exchange - the only restriction is that one or more opposing customers need to be willing to match their bets. Moreover, the odds available on a betting exchange are usually better than those offered by bookmakers, in spite of the commission charged, because the middle man is eliminated.
In spite of these advantages, exchanges currently have some limitations. Because exchanges seek to concentrate their liquidity in as few markets (i.e. propositions) as possible they are not currently suited to unrestricted multiple parlay betting. Betfair does offer accumulators but these are limited in number and type: Users cannot determine the outcomes contained in accumulators themselves. Some exchanges also offer multiples but the exchanges act in the same manner as traditional bookmakers in doing so (i.e. they themselves and not a customer act as the layer of such bets) Exchanges also tend to restrict the odds that can be offered to between 1.01 (100 to 1 on i.e. 1 to 100) and 1000 (999 to 1).
A further advantage that traditional bookmakers retain over exchanges is that bookies are better willing and able to allow customers to bet on credit. There are two obvious reasons for this:
- Exchanges operatee on much tighter margins, which lessens their ability to absorb bad debts.
- Allowing customers to bet on credit would likely compromise customer confidence in the financial integrity of an exchange, especially when one considers the effects of the ongoing credit crisis and the close association between betting exchanges and Internet betting in general.