I clicked on the link expecting to read an elaborate version of "I lost the bet because I was wrong," perhaps followed by a detailed inquiry into the facts and

I clicked on the link expecting to read an elaborate version of "I lost the bet because I was wrong," perhaps followed by a detailed inquiry into the facts and reasons that motivated Buffett -- a man with a long history of NOT losing bets -- to take the other side of the bet. That's what one is supposed to do when things go wrong, right? Instead, Mr. Seides lays out in this article six reasons why, despite losing the bet, he's still right. Which begs the question: Why did he agree to the bet in the first place?