UBK Guys v. SCOTUS

[Music] Mike, a lot has happened in the world since we got together a week ago, so we've gone to war. Yeah, that's one thing. All right, we'll cover that as a betting proposition soon. It's an unpleasant life proposition. Kristi Known was fired today, so if you had first to go or his first to go in the cabinet, you won that one. And we had a series of primaries on Tuesday. Did you watch News at all or have any lessons? I wasn't betting on it, but the one race I sort of followed intermittently was the one between Crockett and Tallerico. So we'll see what happens with the corresponding Republican primary, where their corner and their Paxton gets the nomination. But my takeaway from that is since Tallerico won, if it goes to Tallerico, he Paxton, we could see a real upset in the Texas celebration. I've heard that one before. We'll see. It's a little less beta though, you know? Tallerico seems more polished. I actually think he's excellent. So. Okay. Well, I'm always tempted to put my feelings in. We are actual flesh and blood human beings, but I'm not sure where I had before I analyzed this as a betting proposition. I want to see a poll. Sure. Of course. Me too. Yeah. What about you? Do you have any major takeaways from the primary? Well, I did. I did bet. And actually, I'm going to use it to talk about something that I think is important. So I had we hadn't we hadn't discussed it and here. I don't know if you and I had really discussed it either privately, but I did think both favorites were somewhat overpriced. And in the corn and Paxton. So the real clear politics polling average had a Paxton up 3.8 points. However, Cornet had come in ahead in a couple of polls, three polls, I think, and one high quality poll. And, you know, he spent an enormous amount of money on the race. So I had considered a bet on Cornen who was at 17 cents. Now. I watched early returns. I'm about to say something that I'm incredibly embarrassed by, but I think there's a lesson for certainly for me, maybe for you, but probably for more than us. So I was watching the early returns and Cornen was outperforming. And I thought there was a reason to think that right. So so far, there's been a pretty consistent Democrats have outruns certainly where they ran against Trump. Last year, but I even outrunning polling expectations. And as the more moderate candidate, it was conceivable to me that Cornen without without run his numbers. At a certain point, by time you had about 35% of the vote in, he was ahead by two, two and a half points. And I looked at the distribution of the outstanding vote. And, you know, he, the Republican primary dynamic there had a similar dynamic to most, you know, national political races in that corn and ran better in urban areas. So there was most out the outstanding, there was plenty of outstanding vote in the urban area. It's like Paxton was running ahead in the sixth most populous county and then the like 15th most populous county. So it was enough of a sample that it seemed to me logical to conclude that corn and was running ahead. I waited a minute and then I started to bat. And then more return came in and I bet some more. I think I blended in around 30 cents. Now, what's interesting about this. I just say this. I almost never, and it's the difference between I think of what I think, you know, we've talked about this before. I think of what I do. I think you think of what you do is investing, not gambling, right? Of course. Right. Okay. So there is, there are certain times of day, right? So I also, people think I'm crazy. You know, I think a poker playing is investing. I do too. Okay. So that makes a little sense. Yeah. I mean, I have a lifetime record of significant profit to show for it. And I'm aware that in any, you know, I could get all my money in with ACEs versus somebody with 72. And I'm just still going to lose. Yes. You know, 10% of the time, right? But, you know, if I put my money in and in enough advantageous situations, I'm going to do pretty well. Now, every poker player is familiar with the concept of tilt, which is when you're upset and you're operating emotionally. And I will say, and we've said this, I really try, I try to concentrate my wages during the day, like to make them, I try to think about them for a while. I'm definitely like a long thinker. So the text is thing happened. And whatever it's like 9 o'clock at night. And I'm like, oh, well, this is crazy. You know, at a minimum, it should be 50, 50, right? Right. Yeah. So I started throwing some money in. And, you know, I, I'm embarrassed to say this. I forgot that there was a runoff that there would be a runoff. So I was aware of that, but it completely slipped my mind. So really, there was a point there where I was like, well, Cornish would be going up to 70 or 80% but he really shouldn't have because there would be, and there still is going to be a runoff. Well, unless Trump, I mean, it seems that Trump might endorse Cornen in which case there wouldn't be a runoff. But anyway, I forgot that. And then I realized that. And as I go really, if he got up to 52% that would be a big number because he's not. So I'm distinguishing here at 52. Correct. Right. I'm distinguishing. I mean, CalShi price. I mean, you know, prediction market price as opposed to what he had in the vote. So if you could get to 52% of the vote, then there wouldn't be a runoff. So anyway, I started to sell it worked out fine. I made a, as a percentage, a great profit. But I thought I was a little lucky in that I was, it was the rare time where I thought I was on discipline. It was late at night. I was really tired. I, I'm definitely an early to bad early to rise person. And so I just think if you're going to adopt the discipline of doing this. That that was a mistake. And I know you thought I got a little lucky too. So, well, yeah, you got a little lucky. Actually, when you texted me about it, I was a little surprised. I was happy that you were in the green. But you usually go for locks. Whereas I sometimes will go from more market movement and where I think it's going to go. Why do you think you jumped in on this sort of halfway rationally as opposed to other propositions? Well, I don't think it was irrational. I think I think he was, I think there was a point at which he was a lock to win to win a plurality of the vote. What I think I'm lucky about is that I forgot that there was a runoff. Yeah. So you were pricing them. And actually, well, then I got on, but then I got unlucky. Then I got unlucky, right? Yeah. Because it is possible if this was a contested runoff. So I went to, I was ready to go to bad and just say, I'll just hold it. And then I, well, no, he's at 80, he's at 87 cents now. Well, it had flipped. So you at one point would have been down to 11 cents. I don't know what point exactly. But if I had held onto it, I'd have doubled my money beyond where it was, right? But that's now could anybody have foreseen that Trump's endorsement would go to Cornyn. Now, Paxton, Paxton is a very, very problematic individual. He does seem more consistent with the MAGA brand. Oh, I mean, these right seem it is. Yeah. So, you know, I think that's just kind of. It's a, that's very substantively interesting that Trump is considering endorsing Cornyn. That never would have happened a year ago. I think Trump is probably at this point trying to moderate and preserve the candidates that he thinks they're the perform best against the Democrats. I think Cornyn is clearly going to perform better against Alarico. I think that's right. Well, obviously, we're going to talk about the House and Senate races ahead. We'll do that sometime soon. I mean, I think it's fair to say the Democrats are way better positioned than they were a year ago. But I think that is priced into the market for markets for the most part. We'll see if we find any exceptions. All right. So we did the shutdown last week. Do you have any remaining bets on the shutdown? Now I had none even last week. I think I closed that a day before we recorded the market, you know, still seems to be largely priced well. I think I exploited what was there to exploit. And I've kind of moved on for the moment. What about you? I went on the DHS market. I'm still in. So I had to announce last week that I was going to sell over the weekend. I actually bought more. Are you talking about the above 90 day proposition? I went a little longer on the longs. And I'll tell you why. So the price is started to go down. It's all that I went down to like 12 cents. No, I've said this to people like, and I think it's interesting about our personalities. So I get that doesn't necessarily I mean I worries me at some level, but I get contrarian or I'm curious like what's driving it? And what I believed. And I'm reasonably confident what was driving it was we had attacked Iran and that there was some Republican rhetoric effectively saying that DHS needed to be. Needed to be funded as a matter of, you know, national security. Right. It's an emergency kind of thing. Yeah. So there did everything so emergency these days. Right. And there really didn't seem to be any democratic response. And I didn't really see the connection like that wasn't like funding, you know, the Navy. So I bought a little more. And I'm up on that too. And roughly what's yesterday. It's trading at right now. Well, depends on which you know the above 90 days is around. It's probably around 19 or 20 cents. I think excellent for you. Yeah. So, but I'm I'm prepared to get out this weekend should I don't think you should roll the dice on this one again. I thought I really think it's a dice roll. It's clearly risk. Right. There's risk. Anyway, I will say on the shutdown market. One thing that I think is basically a lock. We're recording this on Thursday night. We'll put it out on Friday. There's a market for whether you had been interested originally and whether DHS was funded. So there's one whether DHS is funded by next Tuesday. That's not going to happen. Right. The Senate is just rejected funding resolution today. They're not going to revote it on on. Re-vote on it on Friday. They're all going home for the weekend. And the rules in the Calhoun market. You know, our that it has to be signed by the president. So it's not going to happen by Tuesday. So if you're interested in short term, two percent returns, which I think you and I are on the same page. We both are, right? Yeah. Yeah. And you know, don't forget don't sleep on a 97 cent by order. You could get that. Oh, right. Right. You know, it's significant. Obviously 50% more return. Right. I just don't I just don't like leaving those orders open because. Yeah, I just feel like anyway. So right. Yeah. All right. Anything else to say about the DHS bets before we move into. You can make fun of me if I'm still in on the shutdown when we meet next week. Please cash out reasonably soon is my advice. All right. So we're going to talk about the spring court today a little bit. Kevin is our certified expert in the Supreme Court last week you mentioned the market that was a lock. You want to tell us more about that. Right. So it closed. I won the bet. It was a lock. So, you know, we're just starting this. I kind of want to be completely, you know, I don't think we can cover everything in every market all the time. But in our land, which is maybe politics and law, I'll try to cover a lot of it now. This was a very small market, which is why I and I didn't think it was going to resolve by this week. The New York City had sued the Trump administration, the Trump administration to try to enjoy congestion pricing. Right. So the city had sued basically saying that the Trump administration's actions for, you know, arbitrary. So kind of the legal basis doesn't matter, but they had prevailed on an injunction and an injunction. One of the elements of an injunction is the likelihood of success on the merits. So the judge is effectively saying, I think you're going to win this case. Okay, I then went and read the Trump administration's lawyers brief and it was so some people may know that they've they don't exactly get the best lawyers. The brief was, it was, it was pretty poor. It certainly didn't raise any compelling legal argument that I thought there was any chance was going to change the mind of a judge who would already said which way he was going to rule. Right. The only reason I didn't want to disclose it was there just wasn't that much money there. So I bought a, I got a lot of 88 and 89 cents. And so anyway, but he happened to issue his, his judgment this week. I also, I don't remember, call whether I had mentioned it. I, I was very confident that the Supreme Court was going to hold tariffs. Right. The Constitutional or without statutory basis. So, but question on the congestion pricing case, you know, I know it came out in your favor, but going into that, did you think it was hardlock? 100% 100% okay. That's a really good return. That was great. It was great. You know, it's fine. Yeah. So now talking about, you know, the markets that are still in play. Have you seen any locks in the current Supreme Court markets? Okay. So there are some, I would say some propositions that are worth worth a look at. Well, I don't know what folks know, but the Supreme Court term generally runs famously from the first Wednesday in October, first Tuesday, first Tuesday in October through basically the last day of June and then they all go on summer vacation. So we're sort of, we're nearing the end of the period where they argue cases and, you know, we already have the tariff decision. You're going to get major decisions. They often hold the most controversial ones for the last day or two of the term so they can get away or so the abortion decision hops wasn't released until the last day of the term. So I think the, there's a proposition. Calchi has a proposition, which is whether or not the Supreme Court is going to uphold state bands on restrictions against transgender athletes participating. So it's really trans gender girls. So by a born biologically boys who want to compete on a girl sports teams. And there's a pair of cases that are addressing this. The Supreme Court is going to uphold the state actions. I mean, I would estimate it at 99.9%. Can you give us a little bit of a sense of what legal issues are applied to why you think they're going to. Okay. So, so there really are only two kind of cases or precedents that you need to know about. So just as Neil Gorsuch had written an opinion in the case called a Bostock, which struck down. And this was kind of a surprise that Gorsuch took the position at the time. It struck down a funeral home that fired someone who was transgender as a violation of federal civil rights laws. And then in a case called Scrimetti, the court upheld some Tennessee restrictions on transgender surgery. Okay. So this case is more like the restrictions on transgender surgery than it is like firing somebody. Yeah. So if if if a state had tried to say transgender athletes may not participate in sports. That would be discriminatory against trends. You know, that would discriminate them against them on the basis of trans status. But they're going to say that this is subject to. In the court would say a rational relation test. It's not subject to strict scrutiny. So all the states going to have to do is just demonstrate any kind of reasonable connection between its goal and that. And I'll tell you also like I don't know why folks don't folks should pay more attention. The court's the justice is basically announced what they're going to do during oral arguments. So. So if you listen, yeah, so six of the judges said which way they were going to go on this. So this one is pretty pretty certain. Pretty certain and trading right now. Yes, at 96 cents. Is it a buy at 96 cents? It's a buy at 96 cents. All right. What are the locks do you see in the morning? Okay. So I'm going to. Nothing else is a lock. All right. I will say what I'll go down the list of. There aren't that many mark. There aren't that many markets on outstanding decisions. Right. For five left right now. Okay. So which one's most likely to resolve. Yes, that word. No. Okay. Okay. So there's a case called US versus Hermani, which was a prosecution basically what happens is this guy gets picked up for possession of marijuana and is found with a gun. Okay. And that violates a federal statute, but he wasn't under the influence of marijuana at the time he was arrested. So it's a somewhat ambitious prosecution under the statute. Now. Okay. So this one I was I listened live to the oral argument and actually maybe down the road what we'll do is live stream a Supreme Court oral argument and just analyze it from. And then again, we're probably right. Yeah. I think that's a good idea to do live stream. Yeah. Okay. So that one hadn't been signaled. And I actually so it was an unusual right. It's it's partially a second amendment case. I should second amendment is the constitutional issue that's being litigated. And the Trump administration was on the side of upholding the prosecution. Okay. So it's unusual dynamic, right. Because he just rescheduled. And now he's trying to take away right trying second amendment rights and a sort of. So you have right to have a conflict of values, which is pro law and order anti drugs. versus pro second amendment. My inclination going in was that the court would side with the Trump administration. I was just sort of defaulting to like kind of political, you know, who pointed political bias, heuristics. Right. Could I ask you one question before you proceed. So I'm just curious with having the gun and the marijuana right is what's the issue here whether the person was high at the time the gun was seized or is it that he just had marijuana and a system and was a casual user in general, you know. So the point in the question really is whether, you know, his status as a he can be punished effectively for his status as a drug user by virtue of having been in possession. So let me let me draw a contrast. If you've been convicted of a crime, you also can't hold a you can't have a gun right here. Okay, but that is an adjudicated status. So you would know that you're a conflict, but you know, I I used to have a prescription for ambient downstairs. Ambient can mess you up worse than marijuana. Okay, but the point is and right now would I understand right now that I am covered by the statute as a drug user. And therefore can't be in possession of a firearm and it's pretty clear. So let's just just flag that for one second. So I went in thinking, okay, they're going to want to kind of they're going to go with the Trump administration. It was immediately clear at the oral argument that this was going to go the other way and I'll explain to you the dynamics in a second. So I sold and bought in at the other side at a very low price and over the course of the oral argument. So I think now it's trading at 85 cents and I think I bought. I'm sorry, the yes is 15 cents. So the know is 85 cents, right? And you know, I bought the know around 40 cents. Sorry for thinking in those terms. It was clear of which that the case was going to come out for the defendant now. And this I think will be. I think this it'll be easier for me to explain kind of a legal issue to this example. Some people were there were some people who were concerned about the restriction on the second amendment, right? He had a second amendment right to possess the fire. But there was some liberal justices who were disturbed with the concept of whether the person could be branded categorized classified as an addict effectively simply by virtue of possession without any adjudication of the status. And so it's going to it divided on not on ideological lines, but Jackson actually Kagan was kind of on the other side, but Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett were clearly with the defendant. And as were Jackson and so to my or and Gorsuch, okay. Now here's why I wouldn't put it as a lot. I'm if you said what's the chance that her body's going to win the case, it's 99 cents 99%. And I think people have I don't you know you could pause here for you to tell me how you navigate this. I wasn't convinced within the rules, we're clear. I think the case will not be decided on second amendment grounds. I think the case will be decided on a much narrower basis that it hadn't been shown that her money satisfied the definition of habitual drug user or whatever the statute required, which I don't recall at the moment. But and I'm not sure whether that triggers satisfies the condition. And I don't like to deal with any uncertainty regarding the conditions. Yeah, I totally understand what you're saying here. And this is something that goes through my mind when I'm thinking about, you know, markets that are trading at let's say above 90 cents for proposition. And I think it's really valued at 99 cents. And I think it's really important to be very cautious about the contract and resolution terms. There's always sort of in well not always, but in most markets, there's an arguable ambiguity. You know, Cal she maintains a review board that can review contested markets and resolutions. So there's always kind of like this ambient risk in the background like is somebody could define something in a way that seems counterintuitive, but actually leads to resolution against you. So that's something I'm always considering in the background. But for this particular case, you're saying the mechanism of resolution is unclear. It because it has to be resolved on the basis of the second amendment. Right. I thought there was a little bit of uncertainty. I thought the case could be decided in Hermione's favor without deciding it under the second amendment. And it wasn't clear to me that it satisfies the condition. I think it's most likely overwhelmingly likely that it does. But I don't want to deal with that for a 15. Neither do I. I would not buy. Yeah. All right. So let me ask you about a few others. Scotus is supposed to take up work. Scotus may take up a. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Scotus may take up a court decision regarding the voting rights act. So one of the markets that's outstanding right now is Will Scotus weekend the voting rights act. So maybe first of all, if you can start with the mechanism of resolution here because it seems a little ambiguous to me. And then tell me where you stand right now. Yes, is at $0.08. What do you think? So this case is Louisiana versus Kilei. It's possible, you know, if you've read about it, it's a very unusual. The procedural history is very unusual. But effectively what happened is Louisiana, a jury man, a second black congressional district. Okay. Okay. Now what's unusual about it is that it was in response to a prior court challenge under the Voting Rights Act. So the there had been a. I mean, all of the states are jerrymandering the districts all the time, right? And they're generally jerrymandering them by party, which the Supreme Court has said is fine. Even if that has an incidental effect on race representation, which happens all the time. So so long that is not the direct effect court has said now, okay. So you couldn't legislate a district to minimize black representation. That has been clear. But you could to minimize democratic representations. Now the question is, could you jerrymandered to maximize black representation? Okay. It is very, it was clear from the oral argument that the court is going to strike down this jerrymandered district. Okay. Again. So that one's 99%. Right. Does that qualify as weakening the voting rights act? Okay. So that's the question. Yeah. So this if you read the rules here. And if I did it now, it'll take a full minute to read it. There's a very, very long set of propositions. Now again, I think this is possible. It's not likely, but that the court could decide this on narrower grounds. And the court could say could find that Louisiana wasn't acting with conscious race. So Louisiana's position is we weren't acting with conscious racial motive. We were acting to respond to the prior decision, which had struck down the earlier jerrymandered district for giving inadequate representations. So in other words, they were retrying their previous failure. Yeah. Right. That like our motivation, our motivation was to satisfy the district court. And this is the way we did it. Yes. And we thought the way to do it was to increase black representation. But that wasn't our direct object. It's it's a interesting distinction. So there's a whisker whiff of uncertainty in my mind that the court holds that the voting rights act does not allow states to jerryp to be to jerrymandered with conscious. You know, explicitly for race distribution purposes. So it's just again because of the complication of the rules. I'm certain about the outcome of the case. Right. I just it probably overwhelmingly likely is right. But I don't want to deal with any uncertainty of that sort. And sometimes I think like the noise and the prices is really attributable to these, you know, resolution ambiguities. Right. So I think so. I do think though generally speaking. I mean, the tariff market was wrong. Right. The tariff market. Based on the oral argument, the tariff market should have been 99 cents that the court was going to rule the tariff strike down the tariffs. You know, it wasn't. And I do think there are enough people out there that sort of don't that they're just sort of looking in at a kind of blunder bus political way. It's Trump Supreme Court. Yeah. Get it back him without like, you know, these are really, really smart people. And they're very articulate. And they in many cases tell you exactly what they think. Yeah. I just think a lot of people are fearful of ideological alignment, even when, you know, institutional pressures are going to prevent that to some degree. But yes, totally understandable. Anything else to say about that one before we move on to the next one. No. No. I don't know if it's worth it for a 10% return on that. Right. That makes sense. All right. So now we're going to talk about will the Supreme Court overturn gay marriage? And I just kind of like to preface this by saying, you know, going into Trump to this was my litmus test for reason ability. So when I would talk with people and they would out of hand just sort of argue that of course the court is going to overturn gay marriage. Look at what's happening culturally in the country. Be like, that's a pretty unreasonable position. I think you have to qualify that substantially. I've been pretty convinced for a while now that the court will not overturn this question. But why don't you give us your opinion. So right now it's trading at 85% no. As I understand it, they already declined review on a related case. What's the chance they pick up review of another case and what's the chance it's overturned. So this one is a three year proposition, right. There were some markets there, which are whether something happens before the end of Trump's turn. So it's not. If this were is the Supreme Court going to do this before December of 2026. And you can anything you get would be worth taking because there's no chance of it. So what Mike just alluded to is the Supreme Court has a process by which it decides whether to grant an appeal to call a red of search or a granting cert. The Supreme Court grants certain very few cases. Literally a grant of cert means that four cases want the four justices want the case to be heard. This is an interesting thing strategically generally they vote to grant cert if they think they're going to win. But sometimes they vote because they think it's important that something be decided. So all we can literally say is that a direct challenge to Oberkfeld, the case which. Constable protected gay marriage constitutionally they didn't grant cert this term. And there's nothing in the hopper anywhere. Right. Right. There's no so Supreme Court decisions. They generally the court is going to act where there's confusion across the circuit courts. And there is no confusion across circuit courts on this. Right. Oberkfeld's a perfectly clear decision. However, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, there was no confusion among the circuit courts. They just deemed it important. Roe v. Wade was a little bit shaky or legally right. I mean the whole tripod, the vision and whether or not they were legislating as opposed to reading the law. So I'm trying to try to without getting into the merits of it. I'm just saying the process by which the court generally decides cert that was, you know, you have a perfectly reasonable position on that. But that was an unusual circuit. Yes. Okay. There wasn't there wasn't. So this is the circuit court judges are saying, oh, help us Supreme Court. The third circuit is gone this way. The fourth circuit is gone this way. We don't know which way to go. We need your brilliant guidance. That wasn't happening with Roe v. Wade and they did it anyway. So, so wait, you think there's no chance. I don't think there's no chance. I just think it's unlikely. It's very unlikely. You know better than I do. And that's why I wanted to ask you this question. So how do you view the Supreme Court not granting cert to a case that would have potentially led to overruling gay marriage? I mean, does that seem like a solid basis to assume they're not going to take up a similar case in the future? Or does that seem unrelated to you? Does the fact that they how much do I make out of the fact that they didn't create a certain correct. It's not conclusive. It's not. I mean, in Supreme, you know, in Supreme Court history, for example, you know, my book is about a Supreme Court decision which they struck down the death penalty as on constitutional was later significantly modified. But the court effectively declined to grant cert in the case that became roe for Roe v. Wade because didn't think the American public could handle two decisions of this magnitude in the same year. So they put it off. So that's a great point. I didn't think that through rent. Yeah, I mean, it's not there's there's kind of no way to know on this one. But your point is that the court will actually weigh based on their perception of public opinion when they're going to release decisions and they certainly wouldn't be inclined to, you know, when there are two decisions that were really unpalatable at the same time. It's really, really important to just be very clear that there's no there's no institutional they there's just nine individuals who vote and, you know, we've seen this. I mean, these I mean, Trump was extraordinarily disappointed in Robertson and Barrett and sickly so yeah, sure. And you know, Gorsuch is certainly independent, independent minded. I mean, I think Alito is really reliably and Thomas is pretty reliably pro Trump, but you know, the others have shown independence in different regards. So we don't even know like why they didn't why they voted know somebody might have said, Oh, I really want to do this, but I don't think this is the right year for this somebody may say I really want to do this. I hope you know, if Kagan retires and there's a shift in the court, so all we get is the grant or no grant. We don't get the explanation for why they decided to France or refute it is very occasionally someone will descent from a denial of search or I very, very rare happened in the in a famous death penalty case, but it didn't happen here. It feels like it feels like it's a no, but it's a terrible bet. It's a terrible bet. Steel man, the opposition. So let's see, I'm in the opposition. I love steel man, let me just straw man. The strong man, the easy case that we could steal man, the opposite case. Okay, I'm not going to bet 85's I'm not going to put in money. A hundred bucks, for example, to win $15 in three years. Right. So first of all, even if we classified this as a lock, then we're going to do an episode soon on locks. Yeah, we'll go through each of our best ones next week too. So great. We'll go through our best locks and we'll talk to I told you before that I think they're sort of an implied return an implied guaranteed return on Cal sheet that there are some bets here like we talk about Trump getting compete is not going to get impeached. So why isn't you know, there's there's just you can get 12% on that 12 cents on that, which is effectively like 15% over the course of the year plus your 3% interest. So double the market return at that point on average. Yeah, that's what I think is kind of the money market rate on on Cal sheet now, you know, what would you do if you put that money in the stock market. You do comfortably, you know, on average, maybe a little maybe it's a little better than that. The stock market over here. Yeah, what's that? Yeah, that's what I think is right. Okay, so here I'd be putting in if I'm betting to know on trans on the Supreme Court over turning over felt I'm getting a 5% return per year. And honestly, I don't think there's any value in it. I mean, I think that is kind of I think there's a chance it happens. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a chance to, but I think you know, the people who think that it's going to happen at a hand have to qualify. Basically with you, basically, there's a huge opportunity. And they're clearly markets that have shorter duration resolution criteria and have better return. I don't think it's to yeah, it's not a good betty. The way the no price is just not appealing. Now, if it was a 1% yes, you might think I'd actually probably bet a lot of money because I would just hope that Sam Alito went out and gave a speech and just said something about how bad Oberkfeld was and there'd be a day where it went up to 2% and 2% of the resents and I doubled my money. Yeah, right. Anything more to say about the Oberkfeld decision and whether or not it will be open term. I think we've exhausted that. I think we have I think we have. So let's move on to probably the last market we'll discuss in our Supreme Court cases today. So we'll go to this. Band counting mail ballots after election day. Where do you think the court would come down on this? First of all, is there any is there a case pending that takes up this issue? There is. Okay. So it's it's Watson versus the Republican National Committee. And basically this is a challenge. That is based on the. And so the election reform law that was passed after COVID, okay. And so effectively what's trying to be done at the argument is that the federal statute, the federal post COVID statute preempts state laws that allow the late counting of ballots. It is based on the statutory language, a very, very thin argument. Okay. Now. I think this the Supreme Court will not ban it. Okay. I think the Supreme Court will not find federal preemption. And I think the court is still subject to so there's a very famous and influential book called democracy and distrust by a political scientist named John Hardily. And it says that one of the court's core functions is to preserve democracy. Right. Okay. Maybe if you're listening, you haven't read it, but every justice is a Supreme Court read it in law school. Okay. As everyone who goes to, you know, I read it. I read it in college. It's a reference point for all of them. What's interesting here is it's not clear entirely what way that principal cuts. So a lot of Democrats get up and arms about this, but it's not insane for the federal government to have oversight over these procedures. And, and you know, it's important. Look, if we had said, let's say, not so hypothetically, that Texas had said, we're not going to count your ballot. If it comes in after eight o'clock on election day, that would be presentably, or let's say Texas and said, we're not even going to count mail and ballots. Sure. They had the right to regulate their own elections. Okay. And now let's say the Biden administration comes in during COVID and says, oh, we're going to pass a statute requiring Texas to do that. Okay. Well, I presume every Democrat would be like, oh, that's great. That's great. We like federal preemption. Right. And so I just say this because this is the way Supreme Court justice is going to think. It's not clear that federal preemption is inherently right or wrong. Right. It's the same way, you know, I used to think federalism was stupid and then Trump came along and this got an eviscerated, you know, every environmental regulation in California, meanwhile, trying to hold on. I want thank God for California. Now, you know, they're effectively trying to preempt California's environmental regulations. I think federalists my whole life. Yeah. Yep. I, um, my God says I wouldn't bet a ton of money on this, but the statutory argument is so weak that I think, and this is basically, it's the counting of ballots that arrive after election day. So it's effectively a male and ballot that you've sent two days before. Right. I just, I just don't see that the Supreme Court is going to say that it's federally preempted, but, you know, it feels to me like it's a 90% or as a point now, we're 69% I have a, I have a small no bet on this. Right. I can say that conclusively. All right. Um, what else in the legal space is interesting right now? Anything else you want to flag? I got one, which we could talk about. Um, the, um, there's a market for whether the Trump administration is going to argue that, um, the Biden, um, Biden, pardon is invalid. So will the Department of Justice claim a Biden pardon is void in court? Um, that's interesting. Price, so I, I bought a fair amount of this on a no of 81 cents. Yeah. Um, interestingly, I had to look at this and now they know is the spread is between 93 and 86 cents. There's effectively no chance that the Trump administration will do this. And it's not even clear to me how they could argue it. You correct. There would be no legal basis for it. Yeah. And just think about, okay, even, even, uh, uh, Trump administration is sort of constrained by, um, um, blanket for a second on the name of the attorney general. Oh, uh, that's it. Yeah. So, uh, you know, even Pampondi is, there's a limit to the hypocrisy, right? So Trump has pardoned, you know, tons of people corruptly dare say, so what are they going to go and say that the pardon are invalid because they were signed by auto pen. I mean, it's just, it's more, nobody's ever made such an argument. It would be against their interest. They're not going to be able to stand in front of a federal judge and say, Biden's part of your invalid, but mine are valid. Right. There's no legal basis and the optics of trying to establish a fictitious one would be disastrous. This one's crazy. This one, this one should be, you know, this one, the know should be just the time value of money, whatever. So, um, I, I actually thought, again, we'll do a show on locks, but I got the know at 81 cents. So that's like a 20% return to actually 20 cents of 80 cents. That's a 25% return over, I bought it last week over, you know, 10 months, that that's pretty good. So I don't know whether there's still opportunity there, but that's, um, yeah, it looks like friendly order book, you know, if listeners were interested, you could probably still get it for around 83 cents if you put in some orders. Yeah, the spread is enough. So, hey, you could put it in order at 83 and put in a cell order at 93, just make buddy all day. Right. You're you're thinking those terms. I never think in those terms. It's interesting. And I could see it. You're just sort of what like you're acting as a market maker basically, basically. And you know, if you put like let's say how much capital you have tied up. So it's 300 dollars, but just, you know, about that somewhere around that. If you had more and you put a cell order in 93, you would depress the prices in the market because you can look at the capital structure of the order book. There's basically no resistance in 93. So to create that resistance. Our viewers are going to be happy because they'll be able to pick up 83 cents. No shares. Hmm. All right. Actually, maybe I know shockedingly little about this. I understood what you said, but I never think of those terms. It only works in thin volume markets. So you're looking at this market here. It has 80K and total traded volume or 60. 60. That's a pretty thin market. That's why you see such a big spread. So I had, I had a lot of money in the Kevin Worsh appointment and I saw that. There was 200 million dollars in the market or something like that. It was an extraordinary amount of money. And you would think that the market would be efficiently priced because there's so much capital. And yet you still picked up a free return basically. Well, that's interesting. I mean, I, yeah, I got a two or three percent return. That he would nominate the person he said he would nominate anyway. I don't know. Yeah. All right. Well, so we're going to try to well, we'll be back. Maybe we'll focus on Iran next week. Yeah. My thought is to focus on Iran. I have one really good lock that I want to discuss with people. It hits on a few different concepts that we discussed today. So we'll talk about the payout criteria on and whether or not it's a lock which I think it's a hard lock. So that's one mark in in mind. But there were a few in the Iran space and the next week we'll discuss them in more detail. We're also thinking about doing that Oscars episode. Yeah, maybe we'll pop in with a special with a special episode. We'll see if we can pull it off. Yeah, just to mix things up. Not politics all the time, right? All right. Folks, do well. Universal basic calcium guys was created and is hosted by Michael Horahan and Evan Mandry. Our producer is Amir Russell of her theme song is passing trains by Nathan Eklund. You can follow us on Twitter, Blue Sky and Instagram at @ubkguys or email us at admin at ubkguys.com. The content on universal basic calcium guys is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute trading financial or investment advice. Nothing discussed on the show should be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell contracts on any prediction market trading on prediction markets involves real financial risk and you could lose money. Always do your own research and consider your own financial situation before trading. The hosts may and often do hold positions and markets discussed on the show. Use expressed by guests are their own and do not reflect the positions of the show or its hosts. If you or someone you know who's struggling with problem gambling free and confidential help is available 24/7 through the national problem gambling helpline at 1-800-522-4700 or visit ncpgambling.org.