O.C. housing gets ?riskiest? ranking

[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1258112096][quote author="stepping_up" date=1258111374]I'm so lost here.....</blockquote>


Should I do a pink shirt and a searsucker pants?</blockquote>


will it help me follow along? :)
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1258112324][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1258112096][quote author="stepping_up" date=1258111374]I'm so lost here.....</blockquote>


Should I do a pink shirt and a searsucker pants?</blockquote>


will it help me follow along? :)</blockquote>


Depends - are we talking about my choice of clothing or the line on RE prices? I'm quite the '80s fashionista.



Somebody set the odds of the decline in RE prices at 99.9%, or roughly 1000-1 against. Assuming the betting line is correct (I'd argue it isn't for grip of arcane reasons that nobody would care about because they have something to do with gambling and not much else) you'd have to wager $1 for a payoff of $1000 if it worked out.



The rest of the pissing contest is simply an effort to negotiate a spot (aka adjustment in the line).



FWIW, I got a 250-1 shot to come in on Saturday at the Breeders Cup. If anyone cares I'll post about it.
 
Now I'm really confused.... I thought the original post was about a 99.9% chance of prices continuing to decline.... so wouldn't that be roughly 1000-1 in favor of declining prices? When I first read it, I wondered how much someone spent to determine that it was likely home prices in OC would continue to decline, since that seems to be close to a "no-brainer."
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1258111374]I'm so lost here.....</blockquote>


Me too. Can somebody translate to craps terms for me? ;-P
 
[quote author="centralcoastobserver" date=1258116258]Now I'm really confused.... I thought the original post was about a 99.9% chance of prices continuing to decline.... so wouldn't that be roughly 1000-1 in favor of declining prices? When I first read it, I wondered how much someone spent to determine that it was likely home prices in OC would continue to decline, since that seems to be close to a "no-brainer."</blockquote>


Even 1000-1 shots come in. The second hand I ever played at Hustler casino I won the "Bad Beat Jackpot". I had pocket aces (AA) the flop came A -10 - J. Turn was a red King, river was another red King - giving me aces full, the other guy with the two black kings quad kings, and me 65% of about $11K in the casino raked Bad Beat Jackpot. The odds of that coming in are a permutation of 41/2 and 40/1 - just about a thousand to one.



Point being you'd be retarded to book anything at 1000-1 if you were the house (if you weren't stealing it from the players via the rake in the first place). If you look at Vegas betting lines, they have less to do with what the "line" should be, but everything to do with where the casinos can balance their action - they don't care who wins, so long as they have half the action on one side of the line and half on the other (they have a 10% edge built into the bet).



That's why betting lines move - simply to balance the action. And that?s kind of what?s happening here, but in a totally amateurish retarded way.
 
Link to the PMI report itself - interesting that in the opening comments, they now take loan type into account as well as the usual factors in their risk measurement



<A href="http://www.pmi-us.com/PDF/q3_09_pmi_eret.html">http://www.pmi-us.com/PDF/q3_09_pmi_eret.html</A>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top