Chris, isna€™t it odd for you to state a€?Chicago had not the slightest chance to begin with.a€? The phrase implies you believe that the probability of Chicagoa€™s selection was near zero all along, but you have been claiming that it is impossible to predict anything about the outcomes of IOC selection processes.
Also, the NYT article reports on backbiting and disarray at the USOC. While the article is published after the IOC decision, presumably any careful observer knew this in advance [*] and you are suggesting it was relevant to the outcomes of the IOC market, i.e. you are suggesting it is a reason to have believed the Chicago selection as particularly unlikely. Again, this suggestion is contrary to your earlier views suggesting IOC decisions are unpredictable because there is no good information to aggregate.
I look forward to your correction!
[*] You presume too much, doc.
If, as you said quite cockily, “-any careful observer knew this in advance“-, then the (mass or vertical) media would have reported about that, and, logically:
- the prediction market traders would have downgraded Chicago early on-
- Ben Shannon (who is a smart man and a well informed bettor) would not have bet 6,000 bucks on Chicago.
The proof is in the pudding, doc.
You are wrong and I am right.