I tote don't know how I missed this but Ted Danson won a long bet on whether or not the Red Sox would win the World Series before the US men's soccer team would win the World Cup. He won 2,000 bucks which was donated to his preferred charity. I do like his reasoning especially regarding the level of competition in baseball and soccer:
Besides, statistically, scoring goals is harder than hitting a home run, and in the World Cup, you have the whole WORLD against you, in baseball, but the Red Sox only really have to beat the Yankees.
Recently Warren Buffett challenged a hedge fund with a long bet claim of his own with the winner receiving $1 million dollars which will be donated to their charity of choice. Buffett argues that:
Over a ten-year period commencing on January 1, 2008, and ending on December 31, 2017, the S & P 500 will outperform a portfolio of funds of hedge funds, when performance is measured on a basis net of fees, costs and expenses.
Because he says that the costs imposed by hedge funds negates the extraordinary gains that they are supposed to provide their clients, and "investors, on average and over time, will do better with a low-cost index fund than with a group of funds of funds." Currently 77 percent of the public side with Buffett on this prediction. I'd love it if one of my more economics savvy friends could jump in here with their more cogent thoughts on this.
Read more here.