Wagers Between Couples

Posted By admin On 22/07/22

This book brings a sense of play and friendly competition to any relationship - and the wager is the best part. The prizes range from the innocent (as in a first date’s friendly wager for a second date) to the gourmet (chocolate-covered strawberries brought to you at work) to the sexy (full body massage) to the racy (a striptease). When the bet is made, the stakes are agreed on - whether its money changing hands, or sexual stakes between a couple, or doing a chore for siblings. It can be different for each person (If I win you do this, if you win I do that). The bet is then in effect when both have agreed to the stakes. Ok this wasn't really a wager but it was after I split with my ex and I really wanted him. Other than that I've played strip poker lmao 1. If he let his sister(my good friend) date a guy he hated I would give him a bj. From page one, Karen Tuft’s Wager for a Wife Is an absolute delight. A sweet and enchanting tale of a wager, causing an unexpected engagement, marriage, and of course romance. Tufts creative story comes to life through the experiences of her charming and enjoyable characters. This story focuses on family and a lovely romance.

good bets for couples

This is my (very competitive) wife's first year playing FF.We bet on everything: what's the dollar value of items in our shopping cart? Winner gets to drink from the good beer stein. What date is the first snowfall of the year going to be? Winner gets radio control during holiday travel.So now that the stakes are beyond silly bets and on to serious matters like FF --- what should we wager?Minor squabbles over this and that happen all the time. In the end, you often hear, “Wanna bet!?” The bet may be over a fact, something that happened in the past, what someone said, or any number of other things. People settle the immediate dispute by placing a wager on who is right, with the ante usually being a certain amount of money. With couples that have been together for even a little while, money very often loses its appeal as something to bet with. One of the reasons may be that people throw their lot together and then usually switch from keeping score to not really caring all that much.
Money loses the zing that it commonly has with others.Not that I’m trying to promote gambling, but I think it’s really lost opportunity that sporting betting between couples isn’t very common, because a good bet makes matters playful and intriguing. Well, here’s an incentive you can use instead of money, a way of betting between mates that works out much better, better even than almost any other conceivable wager.The two best “prizes” for winning a bet I’ve heard of are a surprise and a favor. Let’s look at a surprise bet first. You’re betting that whoever turns out to be wrong will have to surprise the other person, usually before the week is out. I’m talking about a good surprise and not something spiteful or bitter! With money, the amount of dollars indicates the confidence and consequence. This element can be simulated with the surprise wager as well. Use the qualifier of a little, medium, or huge surprise. Betting for a surprise also serves to fulfill the need for predictability (the rules are known and agreed upon) and novelty (the surprise is unknown).
Both people usually have fun with it no matter who wins or loses, so the betting becomes fun almost regardless of which end of the stick you’re on.The favor bet works a little differently. Instead of being surprised by the loser, the winner chooses what the loser will do for them. I use the word favor rather loosely, because a forced favor does not fit the definition. Nonetheless, it is an entertaining wager. If you use this bet, let me suggest a few parameters. The “favor” must not get you into trouble. It should have a time limit (like 10 minutes), which can vary depending on the gravity of the wager. If it isn’t requested or used within a set period of time (1 week, for example), it expires. If you make this kind of betting system part of your couple rituals, stipulate that the winner must agree to place a bet under reasonable circumstances again. This last point is important, because otherwise someone could ask for some killer favor and then refuse to bet again. No hostilities, just playfulness!
Otherwise it’s not the right couple ritual for you.Build the relationship culture and historyCommunicate values and beliefsHelp to accomplish tasksEmotional money in the bankFulfills the need for predictability and noveltySolve arguments and spice up your romantic life by implementing a few romantic wagers. There are some great ways to solve bets as a couple while keeping things fun. Bet on a sports game, flip a coin, or draw straws and let the loser do something romantic for their partner.Let’s face it – there’s only one winner every Fantasy Football season, and the other 11 people are doomed to be called losers for the rest of the year, with oodles of self-doubt and jealousy. So how can we turn that fantasy frown, upside-down? Make a small side bet with the person you happen to be going up against in the first week of the Fantasy playoffs!There are plenty of evil bets you could do, but to be honest, you have to see these people again next season, and some of them even sooner.
So try to be a little evil in a fun way! Plus, if you lose, you don’t want to end up on the bad side of one of these bets.A Side Bet Versus a FriendFacebook Takeover: For a 24-hour period, the winner gets to take over the loser’s Facebook status posts (maybe a 5-post limit?). The key here is that the loser just has to post the status updates, and that he never gives up complete control/password to the winner.A Side Bet Versus Someone You’d Like To See Naked SomedayLoser buys dinner – and obviously, you’re a winner either way in this bet and it’s an easy way to ask a girl out. If he/she immediately says, “Screw that!” then maybe you should set your sights a little lower. Then crush them in Fantasy.Hopefully, some of these fun side bets will help ease the fact that you’re likely not going to win your Fantasy Football championship. But if you do, then that means you are also the winner of a few awesome side bets!If the night is going well, and there’s a foozball table around, why not make the date a bit more interesting and challenge your date to a little friendly competition?
Make it even better by putting a wager on the outcome. Try one of these:The Loser Has to Eat Something Spicy. If you’re in New York City, we recommend the Phaal Curry Challenge (but if your date looks like he’s about to pass out, abort, abort!)The Loser Has to Drink Something Crazy. Make her drink (ew) Ass Juice. Make him drink a big old girly Sex on the Beach or Apple-tini. Or maybe a classic Sake Bomb.The Loser Has to Sing Time Of My Life Karaoke. Or some other embarrassing song. This could be scheduled for ten minutes from now…or the next date (look at you, lining up the next date already!).The Loser Has to Draw a Mustache On His Face. That will make it a date to remember, at least tomorrow, when his co-workers are like, “what’s on your face?”The Loser Has to Get Up and Do The Running Man. In fact, if you are reading this, I’d start practicing your Running Man now because I have this feeling that all these people are going to read this and think, “that is a great idea!” and it will turn into a widespread thing.
When it hits the Today Show, you’ll know I’m right.The Loser Has to Call His Mom and Ask Her What Her Bra Size Is. That’s pretty weird, right? If it’s a girl, have her call her dad and tell him she thinks it’s time to schedule a colonoscopy, and would he like her to accompany him?The Loser Has to Hit The Floor for 50 Push-Ups. This sucks enough when you’re not in a bar, after a few drinks. No getting up until they’re done. If it’s too easy for them, sit on their back.The Loser Has to Ask Someone in the Bar to Slow Dance. To whatever song is playing. Even if it’s Jay-Z’s “Give It To Me.” Especially if it’s Jay-Z’s “Give It To Me”. God, I love this song! I hope this happens to someone in a bar I’m frequenting.The Loser Has to Tell a Really, Really Embarrassing Story. In a British accent. If they’re British, American. If it’s something fake embarrassing like “I got caught singing in my car”, make them tell a new one. In fact, before you start, you might want to give the disclaimer that getting caught singing in your car is not that embarrassing.
Wagers

The folding process is where it gets irritating. Vacation Destination Choice - One of the other big debates between bets is where to go on vacation. Whether it be a week nasty trip, or just a day date, putting this up for a bet makes it one of the most valuable wagers of them all. County Music Couple Divorces.

Couples

The Simon–Ehrlich wager was a 1980 scientific wager between business professor Julian L. Simon and biologist Paul Ehrlich, betting on a mutually agreed-upon measure of resourcescarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. The widely-followed contest originated 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' Simon offered to take that bet, or, more realistically, '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.'

Simon challenged Ehrlich to choose any raw material he wanted and a date more than a year away, and he would wager on the inflation-adjusted prices decreasing as opposed to increasing. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The bet was formalized on September 29, 1980, with September 29, 1990, as the payoff date. Ehrlich lost the bet, as all five commodities that were bet on declined in price from 1980 through 1990, the wager period.[1]

Background[edit]

In 1968, Ehrlich published 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 was highly skeptical of such claims, so proposed a wager, telling Ehrlich to select any raw material he wanted and select '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 increases: 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.

Bets Between Couples

Bets

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, the price of each of Ehrlich's selected metals had fallen. Chromium, 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.[2]

Wagers

As a result, in October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07 to settle the wager in Simon's favor.

Analysis[edit]

Julian Simon won because the price of three of the five metals went down in nominal terms and all five of the metals fell in price in inflation-adjusted terms, with both tin and tungsten falling by more than half.[3][4] In his book Betrayal of Science and Reason, Ehrlich wrote that Simon '[asserted] that humanity would never run out of anything'. Ehrlich added that he and fellow scientists viewed renewable resources as more important indicators of the state of planet Earth, but that he decided to go along with the bet anyway.[3] Afterward, Simon offered to raise the wager to $20,000 and to use any resources at any time that Ehrlich preferred. Ehrlich countered with a challenge to bet that temperatures would increase in the future.[3] The two were unable to reach an agreement on the terms of a second wager before Simon died.

Ehrlich could have won if the bet had been for a different ten-year period.[5][6][7] Ehrlich wrote that the five metals in question had increased in price between the years 1950 and 1975.[3] Asset manager Jeremy Grantham wrote that if the Simon–Ehrlich wager had been for a longer period (from 1980 to 2011), then Simon would have lost on four of the five metals. He also noted that if the wager had been expanded to 'all of the most important commodities,' instead of just five metals, over that longer period of 1980 to 2011, then Simon would have lost 'by a lot.' [7]

Economist Mark J. Perry noted that for an even longer period of time, from 1934 to 2013, the inflation-adjusted price of the Dow Jones-AIG Commodities Index showed 'an overall significant downward trend' and concluded that Simon was 'more right than lucky'.[8] Economist Tim Worstall wrote that 'The end result of all of this is that yes, it is true that Ehrlich could have, would have, won the bet depending upon the starting date. ... But the long term trend for metals at least is downwards.'[6]

The proposed second wager[edit]

Understanding that Simon wanted to bet again, Ehrlich and climatologist Stephen Schneider counter-offered, challenging Simon to bet on 15 current trends, betting $1000 that each will get worse (as in the previous wager) over a ten-year future period.[3]

The bets were:

  • The three years 2002–2004 will on average be warmer than 1992–1994.
  • There will be more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2004 than in 1994.
  • There will be more nitrous oxide in the atmosphere in 2004 than 1994.
  • The concentration of ozone in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) will be greater than in 1994.
  • Emissions of the air pollutant sulfur dioxide in Asia will be significantly greater in 2004 than in 1994.
  • There will be less fertile cropland per person in 2004 than in 1994.
  • There will be less agricultural soil per person in 2004 than 1994.
  • There will be on average less rice and wheat grown per person in 2002–2004 than in 1992–1994.
  • In developing nations there will be less firewood available per person in 2004 than in 1994.
  • The remaining area of virgin tropical moist forests will be significantly smaller in 2004 than in 1994.
  • The oceanicfishery harvest per person will continue its downward trend and thus in 2004 will be smaller than in 1994.
  • There will be fewer plant and animalspecies still extant in 2004 than in 1994.
  • More people will die of AIDS in 2004 than in 1994.
  • Between 1994 and 2004, sperm cell counts of human males will continue to decline and reproductive disorders will continue to increase.
  • The gap in wealth between the richest 10% of humanity and the poorest 10% will be greater in 2004 than in 1994.

Simon declined Ehrlich and Schneider's offer to bet, and used the following analogy to explain why he did so:[9]

Let me characterize their offer as follows. I predict, and this is for real, that the average performances in the next Olympics will be better than those in the last Olympics. On average, the performances have gotten better, Olympics to Olympics, for a variety of reasons. What Ehrlich and others says [sic] is that they don't want to bet on athletic performances, they want to bet on the conditions of the track, or the weather, or the officials, or any other such indirect measure.

Wagers Between Couples

Best Wagers Between Couples

In his 1981 book The Ultimate Resource, Simon noted that not all decreases in resources or increases in unwanted effects correspond to overall decreases in human wellbeing.[10] Hence there can be an 'optimal level of pollution' which accepts some increases in certain kinds of pollution in a way that increases overall wellbeing, while acknowledging that any increase in pollution is nevertheless a cost which must be considered in any such calculation (p. 143). Some of the trends listed above are actually predicted by Simon's theory of resource development, and do not in themselves even count as costs (as pollution does). E.g., he pointed out that due to increased efficiency, the amount of cropland required and actually used to grow food for each person has decreased over time and is likely to continue to do so (p. 5). The same might potentially be true of decreased reliance on firewood in developing countries, and per capita use of specific food sources like rice, wheat, and fish, if economic development makes a diverse range of alternative foods available. Some have also proven false, e.g., the amount of ozone in the lower atmosphere has decreased from 1994 to 2004.[11]

Good Wagers Between Couples

Other wagers[edit]

In 1996, Simon bet $1000 with David South, professor of the Auburn University School of Forestry, that the inflation-adjusted price of timber would decrease in the following five 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).[12]

In 1999, when The Economist headlined an article entitled, '$5 a barrel oil soon?' and with oil trading in the $12/barrel range, David South offered $1000 to any economist who would bet with him that the price of oil would be greater than $12/barrel in 2010. No economist took him up on the offer. However, in October 2000, Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi, an economist with The University of the West Indies, bet $1000 with David South that the inflation-adjusted price of oil would decrease to an inflation-adjusted price of $25 by 2010 (down from what was then $30/barrel). Madjd-Sadjadi paid South an inflation-adjusted $1,242 in January 2010. The price of oil at the time was $81/barrel.[13]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^Gorelick, Steven M. (2009). Oil Panic and the Global Crisis: Predictions and Myths. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 104. ISBN978-1405195485.
  2. ^Regis, Ed (February 1997). 'The Doomslayer'. Wired.com (Issue 5.02). Archived from the original on 2008-05-16. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
  3. ^ abcdeEhrlich, Paul; Ehrlich, Anne (1998). Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future. pp. 100–104. ISBN978-1610912501.
  4. ^[1]Archived July 3, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  5. ^Sabin, Paul (September 7, 2013). 'Betting on the Apocalypse'. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  6. ^ abWorstall, Tim (2013-01-13). 'But Why Did Julian Simon Win The Paul Ehrlich Bet?'. Forbes. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  7. ^ abGrantham, Jeremy (July 2011), 'Resource Limitations 2: Separating the Dangerous from the Merely Serious'(PDF), GMO Quarterly Letter, GMO LLC, p. 12, retrieved 2013-06-05
  8. ^Perry, Mark J. (January 12, 2013). 'Julian Simon: Still more right than lucky in 2013'. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved April 28, 2017.
  9. ^http://jasoncollins.org/2011/05/20/the-simon-ehrlich-bet/
  10. ^Simon, Julian (August 1981). The Ultimate Resource (Hardcover ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN069109389X.
  11. ^url=https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/ozone-trends
  12. ^'The Simon South Bet On Pine Sawtimber'. Forestry.auburn.edu. 1998-02-08. Archived from the original on 2008-05-10. Retrieved 2009-09-07.
  13. ^'The Madjd-Sadjadi South Bet On Oil'. Forestry.auburn.edu. 2010-01-31. Archived from the original on 2012-06-08. Retrieved 2012-01-29.

Further reading[edit]

  • Sabin, Paul (2013), The Bet (Yale University Press).
  • Desrochers, Pierre and Vincent Geloso, 'Snatching the Wrong Conclusions from the Jaws of Defeat: A Historical/Resourceship Perspective on Paul Sabin's The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth's Future (Yale University Press, 2013), Part 2: The Wager: Protagonists and Lessons.' New Perspectives on Political Economy, vol. 12, no. 1-2 (2016), pp. 42–64.
  • Desrochers, Pierre and Vincent Geloso, 'Snatching the Wrong Conclusions from the Jaws of Defeat: A Historical/Resourceship Perspective on Paul Sabin's The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth's Future (Yale University Press, 2013). Part 1: The Missing History of Thought: Depletionism vs Resourceship.' New Perspectives on Political Economy, vol. 12, no. 1-2 (2016), pp. 5–41.

External links[edit]

Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon–Ehrlich_wager&oldid=996547894'