> For example, the money line price of something that has a 90% chance of winning would be `-900`... meaning you have to bet $900 to win $100. This is what Nat

> For example, the money line price of something that has a 90% chance of winning would be `-900`... meaning you have to bet $900 to win $100. This is what Nate saying, when he says Biden has a 90% chance of winning. You intuit correctly that it would be ridiculous for anyone to offer odds like that for the NBA title one year out. Why do you think it would be ridiculous? Likely because you intuit that there's too much uncertainty for a chance to be 90% for any team to win the NBA title. Taleb's reasoning is similar, but for the election. 90% Biden win implies way too much certainty.