Trump blames Obama for doubling the debt

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is not a 0 sum gain. Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000 and they took in mainly $500,000 at most. They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000

And the party that bought the CDS receives 2,500,000

They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Why would Goldman default on a payment of 2,500,000?

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives. The derivatives were traded like stocks. At the end of the day, using your example, you have a $500,000 asset securing $2,500,000 in investments. It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold. There were no regulations.
It is the same as having a piece of property worth $200,000. You can only get one loan you can secure with the property. But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property. If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

You can't explain to the Trump cult members things as complex as derivatives. They think ex lax is a derivative.

Explain how Bush caused derivatives

No. But you can go look to find how Gramm, Leech and Bliley made it possible.

MBS, Futures and Options all traded long before Gramm, Leach and Bliley.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Tonight rump blamed Obama for the debt under his administration.

1) Most of that debt was due to the Bush Administration's worst recession in 80 years as the deficit in 2009 was estimated to be over a trillion even before Obama took office.

2) Trump had made no improvements in the deficit since taking office despite taking over in a the midst of the longest streak (broken by Trump) of job gains & low unemployment

3) If you want to see huge deficits again, let Trump pass his tax plan. The Bush tax cut was a major part of that Great Recession

Um...Obama....FUCKING DID DOUBLE THE FUCKING DEBT!!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That was part of it, along with the derivatives.

Nah.

And mainly Fannie and Freddie share of the market being cut bye 60 seventy percent and

Try again in English?

Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 and Countrywide and other b******* Republican crony institutions took over and sold toxic b******* to anyone who was breathing, super dupe. End of story.

Fannie and Freddie's share of the market went from 75% to 25% in 2003

What does that have to do with the claim that derivatives were the major cause of the crash?

It has to do with the oft-repeated claim that Fannie and Freddie were to blame. Derivatives? All I know is when they are regulated by GOP swamp monsters, things go very very wrong.

It has to do with the oft-repeated claim that Fannie and Freddie were to blame.

Congress kept increasing the percentage of subprime mortgages Fannie and Freddie had to buy.
These purchases made the bubble larger.
They didn't cause it, it would have happened without them, but they did contribute to it.

Derivatives? All I know is.....

Yes, I've seen how little you know about derivatives.

 

[IM2]

Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000

And the party that bought the CDS receives 2,500,000

They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Why would Goldman default on a payment of 2,500,000?

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives. The derivatives were traded like stocks. At the end of the day, using your example, you have a $500,000 asset securing $2,500,000 in investments. It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold. There were no regulations.
It is the same as having a piece of property worth $200,000. You can only get one loan you can secure with the property. But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property. If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

You can't explain to the Trump cult members things as complex as derivatives. They think ex lax is a derivative.

Explain how Bush caused derivatives

No. But you can go look to find how Gramm, Leech and Bliley made it possible.

MBS, Futures and Options all traded long before Gramm, Leach and Bliley.

Well there was a reason for Glass-Steagall. Gramm-Leech-Bliley ended Glass-Steagall and less than 7 years later we faced a depression.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives. The derivatives were traded like stocks. At the end of the day, using your example, you have a $500,000 asset securing $2,500,000 in investments. It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold. There were no regulations.
It is the same as having a piece of property worth $200,000. You can only get one loan you can secure with the property. But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property. If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

You can't explain to the Trump cult members things as complex as derivatives. They think ex lax is a derivative.

Explain how Bush caused derivatives

No. But you can go look to find how Gramm, Leech and Bliley made it possible.

MBS, Futures and Options all traded long before Gramm, Leach and Bliley.

Well there was a reason for Glass-Steagall. Gramm-Leech-Bliley ended Glass-Steagall and less than 7 years later we faced a depression.

Gramm-Leech-Bliley ended Glass-Steagall

Not the entire thing.

less than 7 years later we faced a depression.

Less than 9 years later we elected a black president.
I guess Glass-Steagall was preventing that......

 

[francoHFW]

Tonight rump blamed Obama for the debt under his administration.

1) Most of that debt was due to the Bush Administration's worst recession in 80 years as the deficit in 2009 was estimated to be over a trillion even before Obama took office.

2) Trump had made no improvements in the deficit since taking office despite taking over in a the midst of the longest streak (broken by Trump) of job gains & low unemployment

3) If you want to see huge deficits again, let Trump pass his tax plan. The Bush tax cut was a major part of that Great Recession

Um...Obama....FUCKING DID DOUBLE THE FUCKING DEBT!!!!

You are so stupid, Dupe. For the billionth time, it was the stimulus in reaction to the Meltdown, and 6 or 7 trillion additional unemployment and Welfare there was already on the books. To say Obama did it was responsible is idiotic. Right up your alley

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

FACT Obama sued banks to force them to make bad home loans and Billyboy Clinton helped him

 

[francoHFW]

FACT Obama sued banks to force them to make bad home loans and Billyboy Clinton helped him

All the bad stuff happened under Bush duh. Obama had nothing to do with it duh

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tonight rump blamed Obama for the debt under his administration.

1) Most of that debt was due to the Bush Administration's worst recession in 80 years as the deficit in 2009 was estimated to be over a trillion even before Obama took office.

2) Trump had made no improvements in the deficit since taking office despite taking over in a the midst of the longest streak (broken by Trump) of job gains & low unemployment

3) If you want to see huge deficits again, let Trump pass his tax plan. The Bush tax cut was a major part of that Great Recession

Um...Obama....FUCKING DID DOUBLE THE FUCKING DEBT!!!!

With a GOP Congress. Why do you forget that?

 

[jillian]

Tonight rump blamed Obama for the debt under his administration.

1) Most of that debt was due to the Bush Administration's worst recession in 80 years as the deficit in 2009 was estimated to be over a trillion even before Obama took office.

2) Trump had made no improvements in the deficit since taking office despite taking over in a the midst of the longest streak (broken by Trump) of job gains & low unemployment

3) If you want to see huge deficits again, let Trump pass his tax plan. The Bush tax cut was a major part of that Great Recession

the orange sociopath says things like that because he's a compulsive liar. and it makes him crazy that the black guy was a better president than he can ever hope to be.

 

[jillian]

FACT Obama sued banks to force them to make bad home loans and Billyboy Clinton helped him

er..... you insane loon the CRA did not require banks to drop their financial screening of borrowers... it only stopped them from redlining.

learn something...anything before you run your mouth

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

FACT Obama sued banks to force them to make bad home loans and Billyboy Clinton helped him

All the bad stuff happened under Bush duh. Obama had nothing to do with it duh

\

Obama was a lawyer for ACORN and he sued banks to force them to make loans to people with bad credit, not Bush.
Those bad loans built up and are what caused the Great Recession.
U R fighting reality and losing.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

There is a clear pattern of Democrats stealing credit and shifting blame on economic issues.
Troglocrats are dumb.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Derivatives were the main cause. Do you even know what a derivative is? In this case it was an investment that would hedge a mortgage by betting it would default. If you allow one derivative per mortgage it is a zero sum game. But the law allowed for one mortgage to back multiple derivatives. If the mortgage failed there would not be funds to pay off the many derivatives. It puts a multiplier effect on bad mortgages. That caused many financial institution to default.
You are correct that the democrats made mortgages easier to get for low income people but the bigger driver were banks allowing middle and high income individuals to qualify for loans they should not of.

You obviously have very little knowledge of investing and our banking system.

If you allow one derivative per mortgage it is a zero sum game. But the law allowed for one mortgage to back multiple derivatives. If the mortgage failed there would not be funds to pay off the many derivatives.

It's still zero sum.
If Goldman insured the same $500,000 mortgage, 5 times and the mortgage fails, Goldman pays out $2,500,000 and the insured parties receive $2,500,000.

It puts a multiplier effect on bad mortgages.

How many mortgages had a CDS written against them even once, let alone multiple times?
Probably a really small number.

That caused many financial institution to default.

How many firms went under because they wrote CDS?
How many went under just because they wrote/held crappy mortgages?

It is not a 0 sum gain. Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000 and they took in mainly $500,000 at most. They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000

And the party that bought the CDS receives 2,500,000

They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Why would Goldman default on a payment of 2,500,000?

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives. The derivatives were traded like stocks. At the end of the day, using your example, you have a $500,000 asset securing $2,500,000 in investments. It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold. There were no regulations.
It is the same as having a piece of property worth $200,000. You can only get one loan you can secure with the property. But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property. If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives.

Great, so if Goldman didn't default, which derivative selling firms did?

It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold.

So what? Why do you feel that's an issue?

But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property.

A derivative is not a loan.

If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

When people defaulted on their mortgages, money was lost. Nothing to do with a derivative.

Derivatives were the main cause. Do you even know what a derivative is? In this case it was an investment that would hedge a mortgage by betting it would default. If you allow one derivative per mortgage it is a zero sum game. But the law allowed for one mortgage to back multiple derivatives. If the mortgage failed there would not be funds to pay off the many derivatives. It puts a multiplier effect on bad mortgages. That caused many financial institution to default.
You are correct that the democrats made mortgages easier to get for low income people but the bigger driver were banks allowing middle and high income individuals to qualify for loans they should not of.

You obviously have very little knowledge of investing and our banking system.

If you allow one derivative per mortgage it is a zero sum game. But the law allowed for one mortgage to back multiple derivatives. If the mortgage failed there would not be funds to pay off the many derivatives.

It's still zero sum.
If Goldman insured the same $500,000 mortgage, 5 times and the mortgage fails, Goldman pays out $2,500,000 and the insured parties receive $2,500,000.

It puts a multiplier effect on bad mortgages.

How many mortgages had a CDS written against them even once, let alone multiple times?
Probably a really small number.

That caused many financial institution to default.

How many firms went under because they wrote CDS?
How many went under just because they wrote/held crappy mortgages?

It is not a 0 sum gain. Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000 and they took in mainly $500,000 at most. They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000

And the party that bought the CDS receives 2,500,000

They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Why would Goldman default on a payment of 2,500,000?

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives. The derivatives were traded like stocks. At the end of the day, using your example, you have a $500,000 asset securing $2,500,000 in investments. It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold. There were no regulations.
It is the same as having a piece of property worth $200,000. You can only get one loan you can secure with the property. But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property. If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives.

Great, so if Goldman didn't default, which derivative selling firms did?

It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold.

So what? Why do you feel that's an issue?

But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property.

A derivative is not a loan.

If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

When people defaulted on their mortgages, money was lost. Nothing to do with a derivative.

You are making no sense

 

[ElmerMudd]

[
It is not a 0 sum gain. Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000 and they took in mainly $500,000 at most. They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

It's a "zero-sum game", not gain. And you're an idiot.

It can only be a zero sum game if the money is paid out. That was the problem. The investments were defaulted on because there were no hard assets backing them.
There were retirement funds and individuals invested in companies that could not pay out what was owed. Or companies who did not receive what is owed causing major defaults along with the mortgage defaults.

IF IT WAS A 0 SUM GAME THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A FINANCIAL CRISIS AND A RECESSION. YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!!

It can only be a zero sum game if the money is paid out.

You're wrong.
If you and I bet $10 on the Cubs game, one of us will win $10, one of us will lose $10.
Adds up to zero.

If I win the bet and you default, I'll get $0 and you'll lose $0.
Still zero sum.

You are comparing betting to our financial markets. Our financial markets are based on assets not chance.
Derivatives were made illegal in the early 20th century because it determined to be gambling not securities.
Some assets are not hard assets but there needs to be assets or it is just gambling.


The term security means it is secured with something.
You may be successful in your business but you do not understand financial markets.

You are comparing betting to our financial markets.

Because a credit default swap is a bet.
One side is betting the loan or firm will default. The other side is betting it won't default.

Derivatives were made illegal in the early 20th century because it determined to be gambling not securities.

Derivatives have been traded on the CBOT since before the Civil War.

You Googled derivative and found credit default swap is the type of derivative I have been referring to.
With that very limited knowledge you are talking out of your ass about something you do not understand.
You cannot fake it with a google search.
Nice try.

 

[francoHFW]

FACT Obama sued banks to force them to make bad home loans and Billyboy Clinton helped him

All the bad stuff happened under Bush duh. Obama had nothing to do with it duh

\

Obama was a lawyer for ACORN and he sued banks to force them to make loans to people with bad credit, not Bush.
Those bad loans built up and are what caused the Great Recession.
U R fighting reality and losing.

50% of GOP dupes believe Acorn stole the election... Absolutely out of their minds. You haven't heard of all the ridiculous BS Bush RIT Regulators allowed Banks Etc to get away with 2003 - 2006?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you allow one derivative per mortgage it is a zero sum game. But the law allowed for one mortgage to back multiple derivatives. If the mortgage failed there would not be funds to pay off the many derivatives.

It's still zero sum.
If Goldman insured the same $500,000 mortgage, 5 times and the mortgage fails, Goldman pays out $2,500,000 and the insured parties receive $2,500,000.

It puts a multiplier effect on bad mortgages.

How many mortgages had a CDS written against them even once, let alone multiple times?
Probably a really small number.

That caused many financial institution to default.

How many firms went under because they wrote CDS?
How many went under just because they wrote/held crappy mortgages?

It is not a 0 sum gain. Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000 and they took in mainly $500,000 at most. They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000

And the party that bought the CDS receives 2,500,000

They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Why would Goldman default on a payment of 2,500,000?

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives. The derivatives were traded like stocks. At the end of the day, using your example, you have a $500,000 asset securing $2,500,000 in investments. It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold. There were no regulations.
It is the same as having a piece of property worth $200,000. You can only get one loan you can secure with the property. But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property. If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives.

Great, so if Goldman didn't default, which derivative selling firms did?

It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold.

So what? Why do you feel that's an issue?

But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property.

A derivative is not a loan.

If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

When people defaulted on their mortgages, money was lost. Nothing to do with a derivative.

If you allow one derivative per mortgage it is a zero sum game. But the law allowed for one mortgage to back multiple derivatives. If the mortgage failed there would not be funds to pay off the many derivatives.

It's still zero sum.
If Goldman insured the same $500,000 mortgage, 5 times and the mortgage fails, Goldman pays out $2,500,000 and the insured parties receive $2,500,000.

It puts a multiplier effect on bad mortgages.

How many mortgages had a CDS written against them even once, let alone multiple times?
Probably a really small number.

That caused many financial institution to default.

How many firms went under because they wrote CDS?
How many went under just because they wrote/held crappy mortgages?

It is not a 0 sum gain. Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000 and they took in mainly $500,000 at most. They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Goldman has to pay out 2,500,000

And the party that bought the CDS receives 2,500,000

They have to default on the payment or go bankrupt.

Why would Goldman default on a payment of 2,500,000?

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives. The derivatives were traded like stocks. At the end of the day, using your example, you have a $500,000 asset securing $2,500,000 in investments. It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold. There were no regulations.
It is the same as having a piece of property worth $200,000. You can only get one loan you can secure with the property. But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property. If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

Goldman did not but there were 100's if not 1000's of firms selling the derivatives.

Great, so if Goldman didn't default, which derivative selling firms did?

It could be a $200,000 mortgage with $10,000,000 in derivatives sold.

So what? Why do you feel that's an issue?

But the derivative law or lack of laws you could go out and get 50 $200,000 loans being secured by 1 property.

A derivative is not a loan.

If you stop paying on the 50 loans, a lot of people loose money.

When people defaulted on their mortgages, money was lost. Nothing to do with a derivative.

You are making no sense

Logic not your strong suit?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's a "zero-sum game", not gain. And you're an idiot.

It can only be a zero sum game if the money is paid out. That was the problem. The investments were defaulted on because there were no hard assets backing them.
There were retirement funds and individuals invested in companies that could not pay out what was owed. Or companies who did not receive what is owed causing major defaults along with the mortgage defaults.

IF IT WAS A 0 SUM GAME THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A FINANCIAL CRISIS AND A RECESSION. YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!!

It can only be a zero sum game if the money is paid out.

You're wrong.
If you and I bet $10 on the Cubs game, one of us will win $10, one of us will lose $10.
Adds up to zero.

If I win the bet and you default, I'll get $0 and you'll lose $0.
Still zero sum.

You are comparing betting to our financial markets. Our financial markets are based on assets not chance.
Derivatives were made illegal in the early 20th century because it determined to be gambling not securities.
Some assets are not hard assets but there needs to be assets or it is just gambling.


The term security means it is secured with something.
You may be successful in your business but you do not understand financial markets.

You are comparing betting to our financial markets.

Because a credit default swap is a bet.
One side is betting the loan or firm will default. The other side is betting it won't default.

Derivatives were made illegal in the early 20th century because it determined to be gambling not securities.

Derivatives have been traded on the CBOT since before the Civil War.

You Googled derivative and found credit default swap is the type of derivative I have been referring to.
With that very limited knowledge you are talking out of your ass about something you do not understand.
You cannot fake it with a google search.
Nice try.

You Googled derivative and found credit default swap is the type of derivative I have been referring to.

Google didn't exist when I first learned about credit default swaps.

You cannot fake it with a google search.

You're proof of that.

Options and futures trading is the closest practical example to a zero-sum game scenario. Options and futures are essentially informed bets on what the future price of a certain commodity will be in a strict timeframe. While this is a very simplified explanation of options and futures, generally if the price of that commodity rises (usually against market expectations) within that timeframe, you can sell the futures contract at a profit. Thus, if an investor makes money off of that bet, there will be a corresponding loss.

Zero-Sum Game

 

[ElmerMudd]

It can only be a zero sum game if the money is paid out. That was the problem. The investments were defaulted on because there were no hard assets backing them.
There were retirement funds and individuals invested in companies that could not pay out what was owed. Or companies who did not receive what is owed causing major defaults along with the mortgage defaults.

IF IT WAS A 0 SUM GAME THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A FINANCIAL CRISIS AND A RECESSION. YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!!

It can only be a zero sum game if the money is paid out.

You're wrong.
If you and I bet $10 on the Cubs game, one of us will win $10, one of us will lose $10.
Adds up to zero.

If I win the bet and you default, I'll get $0 and you'll lose $0.
Still zero sum.

You are comparing betting to our financial markets. Our financial markets are based on assets not chance.
Derivatives were made illegal in the early 20th century because it determined to be gambling not securities.
Some assets are not hard assets but there needs to be assets or it is just gambling.


The term security means it is secured with something.
You may be successful in your business but you do not understand financial markets.

You are comparing betting to our financial markets.

Because a credit default swap is a bet.
One side is betting the loan or firm will default. The other side is betting it won't default.

Derivatives were made illegal in the early 20th century because it determined to be gambling not securities.

Derivatives have been traded on the CBOT since before the Civil War.

You Googled derivative and found credit default swap is the type of derivative I have been referring to.
With that very limited knowledge you are talking out of your ass about something you do not understand.
You cannot fake it with a google search.
Nice try.

You Googled derivative and found credit default swap is the type of derivative I have been referring to.

Google didn't exist when I first learned about credit default swaps.

You cannot fake it with a google search.

You're proof of that.

Options and futures trading is the closest practical example to a zero-sum game scenario. Options and futures are essentially informed bets on what the future price of a certain commodity will be in a strict timeframe. While this is a very simplified explanation of options and futures, generally if the price of that commodity rises (usually against market expectations) within that timeframe, you can sell the futures contract at a profit. Thus, if an investor makes money off of that bet, there will be a corresponding loss.

Zero-Sum Game

Put this in your browser and smoke it.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ib187.pdf
You have partial knowledge, not full knowledge. I am not sure where you got it from or didn't get it from.

 

[ElmerMudd]

It can only be a zero sum game if the money is paid out.

You're wrong.
If you and I bet $10 on the Cubs game, one of us will win $10, one of us will lose $10.
Adds up to zero.

If I win the bet and you default, I'll get $0 and you'll lose $0.
Still zero sum.

You are comparing betting to our financial markets. Our financial markets are based on assets not chance.
Derivatives were made illegal in the early 20th century because it determined to be gambling not securities.
Some assets are not hard assets but there needs to be assets or it is just gambling.


The term security means it is secured with something.
You may be successful in your business but you do not understand financial markets.

You are comparing betting to our financial markets.

Because a credit default swap is a bet.
One side is betting the loan or firm will default. The other side is betting it won't default.

Derivatives were made illegal in the early 20th century because it determined to be gambling not securities.

Derivatives have been traded on the CBOT since before the Civil War.

You Googled derivative and found credit default swap is the type of derivative I have been referring to.
With that very limited knowledge you are talking out of your ass about something you do not understand.
You cannot fake it with a google search.
Nice try.

You Googled derivative and found credit default swap is the type of derivative I have been referring to.

Google didn't exist when I first learned about credit default swaps.

You cannot fake it with a google search.

You're proof of that.

Options and futures trading is the closest practical example to a zero-sum game scenario. Options and futures are essentially informed bets on what the future price of a certain commodity will be in a strict timeframe. While this is a very simplified explanation of options and futures, generally if the price of that commodity rises (usually against market expectations) within that timeframe, you can sell the futures contract at a profit. Thus, if an investor makes money off of that bet, there will be a corresponding loss.

Zero-Sum Game

Put this in your browser and smoke it.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ib187.pdf
You have partial knowledge, not full knowledge. I am not sure where you got it from or didn't get it from.

sometimes partial knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge