It doesn't serve the main purpose of the bet which is to find someone with a strong enough conviction about the specific terms to risk $100k.
So I don't find this taker particularly interesting. In the context of an industry wide debate, the opinion of someone who doesn't have an audience similar to Sam's doesn't really mean much. Not that they aren't smart, just that they aren't someone influencing the discussion. Which is what this is mostly about.
And to say "I take the bet" without any discussion of why really misses the whole point.
Of course Sam should take this bet. But I'd suggest that he amend his proposal: Find people with enough audience to change the discussion, who are talking about bubble valuations, and ask them specifically to put a stake in the ground on this.
if another VC from a top-tier fund with at least $500MM under management would like to take the bet, i will make the same bet once more.
before, with the open definition of VC, it expressed a high confidence in your bet.
now, by limiting the pool of potential bet takers, you are weakening your overall goal of maintaining public perception that there is no bubble.
the analogy is boxing. before, you were putting a huge bet that you were the best boxer in the world and you challenged any other boxer to challenge you so you could prove it. now that someone has, it's like saying that you are the best boxer in the world, and anyone can challenge you to prove it, except this challenger because reasons. it sounds like an excuse not to fight and makes you look scared.
lol.
it sounds like your confidence in your position concerning bubbles has been weakened, but you are trying to convince yourself it is as strong as ever by saying no REAL venture capitalist has taken your bet, so you must still be right.
it's cool though, I'm sure nobody will notice.
the logic being that, the more restrictive requirements, the less people who meet them, which means less probability that someone would take his bet, which implies that he never really wanted anyone to take the bet in the first place.
the subtext is that sam is not as confident in his position as he would like you to believe.
'This bet is open to the first VC who would like to take it' http://blog.samaltman.com/bubble-talk
Any bets taken beyond that would be a relaxation of the 'you weren't here in time' criteria which would have excluded all other gamblers.
plus he isn't doubling down on the same bet: he's changing the new bet to be more in his favor, so the additional 100,000 is actually worth less than the original 100,000. (not monetary value, but rather the money's value as representation of the strength of his belief that the bubble won't pop before 2020).
If you believe the person will not follow through that's one thing, maybe both parties should put $100K in escrow, talking about the purpose of the bet is weak.
maybe you shouldn't be so dismissive
The only thing I'm really interested in is why sama decided the other bettor had to be a VC. That's a pretty silly requirement.
Anyway this isn't a ballsy bet at all, really. Guys on 2p2 (poker forums) routinely make huge proposition bets that are more fun, interesting, and risky than this--occasionally for charity, as well (though not that often).
Losing this bet will likely do no more to either bettor than losing a $5 bar wager would do to me. Pony up the cash, shake victor's hand, move on with my day and forget about it.