Or whether the company will fail or have a bad IPO.

If I propose odds based on survival tables for other companies of that age (I think for six years, the annual risk is 9 %), which side of the bet would you like to take?

The, uh, earnestness of your reply makes me suspect you missed the subtext.

We're not interested in expected value or winning the bet. If anything, it's the opposite: The "goal" is to lose the bet due to a situation caused by the pattern of betting, with something beyond any actuarial tables because it's not an independent event.

If I can presume to speak for up-thread commenters, we've agreed the system is inherently exploitable and harmful, and we're either (A) imagining the schadenfreude of using that same evil to harm the people who promote it, or at least (B) imagining them forced to fear the monster they're unleashing on others, so that they take steps to limit it.

Yes, obviously it is about the fear. If everybody takes a 100000:1 bet for a buck then that reserves the next 30 years or so. It's a lottery of sorts, someone will earn quite a bit.

If I propose odds based on US insurance life tables for people of their age and gender, which side of the bet would you like to take?

The over. Rich people live longer.

Even when there's a polymarket bet on their heads?

Yes. I add that google says: "controlling for substance abuse reduces the gap by about 60% for men and 36% for women". I couldn't get it to quantify the effect of obesity.

There are other imponderable factors at work. For example, does not-wealthy cause substance abuse or does substance abuse cause not-wealthy?

We are all the sum of our choices.

This comment is art

How about something that they would see more as a genuine threat?

Bet on whether they get into a car accident, and then see what happens if all of a sudden that number starts spiking towards 100%.