Will Patrick Swayze die before April 15, 2008?

"All of the reports stating the timeframe of his prognosis and his physical side effects are absolutely untrue. We are considerably more optimistic."
Well, than ...

I've got $1500 saying he makes it. So for all of you that thought I was rooting for Americans to die in Iraq, that makes $1500 in Swayze and $10,000 on fewer deaths in Afghanistan. Show your morality and put your money on life!

Yeah, historyteacher, I'm with you!
I put 3K on life in this one :)

Okay Kruijs, I put another 1500 in so now we're even at 3K :)

In this case, i do really do care if i lose.
i placed 1,500 on Pat to Live!
please contribute to the cause.
I'd love to see the NO make it to 100%. Let's all help!

ok, i raised to 7K

ok, I've raised my stakes on life as well. thx all!

and again! ok, I'm in for over H$7K.

kruijs, your the boss!

any other takers?

Distasteful!

@jake
do you really think, his cancer is as serious as told in the first place?
As soon as this was made public, it has been denyed - that was what i posted in my first comment. So I thought this question is an easy win for my bets.
Read this:
http://www.chippewa.com/articles/2008/03/09/cinema-source/movies/news/mv_news-14638.txt

Yes, he has cancer. But it also states he is "continuing his normal schedule during this time, which includes working on upcoming projects.". So he is not going to die that soon.
On the other hand: I do not like this kind of questions where its all about how people dying. Just like historyteacher said, its a moral problem. I'm not saying these question should not be allowed. But they taste bitter somehow, in my eyes.

Pancreatic cancer is about the worst type of cancer you can have. No one survives. To his credit, he is somewhat young and healthy, but no one can beat this.

My guess is that he will succumb soon, sadly. There is nothing good about this disease, or this question.

In for 7K as well

Pancreatic cancer is unbeatunable? i didn't know that. this is very sad. Pat's succumbing might help this type of cancer get more attention. I have finally made up my mind. These types of questions (death pools), should be banned from the site.

Where will the next political leader be assasinated? (this may qualify as news, and may, under a certain level of scrutiny by the hubdub admin, be allowed, imho).

Will so-and-so die of a terrible fate before midnight ?/?/?? should be banned.
If not, I will dump my money, and discontinue my use of this site.

I expect Hubdub Admin so respond to this comment soon. we ALL want to know where this is leading.

In for another 7k (this is how I'll dump my money until I'm broke.)

I'm not placing any money on this, but I wholeheartedly agree with jersjustrolling. How anyone can deem themselves supreme enough to wager on someone's death beats me. I don't think that hoping someone will die so that you rise a place on the leaderboard is a very good thing

like i said rohan, i'm dumped some money on life already, even though we've been told the Pat's cancer is unbeatable. So have many others. Death Pools are beneath contempt. And, Hubdub Editor-in-Chief should look into this from a perspective of what it is they are trying to accomplish with Hubdub.com

It's already been discussed that the Sports News Market is similar to a betting pool. And the Hubdub team did a great job of organizing and managing that market seqment.

Now it's time to clean up the Death Pools. Not because Hubdub should be moral policeman. Absolutely not.
Mainstream press do not allow death pools for obvious reasons. Mainstream press does have final say on what news gets run. Mainstream press can and does deny advertisements that do not fit with the presses image of itself.

So Hubdub ... what's taking you so long?

I hope we win and Patrick beats his odds, or at least, stays strong for a long while as a moral victory (to hell with the date- let's hope he's still battling in 2009!) I don't like the macabre, but I vote yes on this one for the principle of support... I hope jersey just strolling stays in, as I really value your opinions..

ty ladylara, and i'm with you on Pat.
i really enjoy hubdub and the comrades i've met here.
However, i will not associate my name with a site that condones death pools. plain and simple.
Please help me convince hubdub.com that it in their best interest to ban these types of markets, not just because they'll lose a few members, but because they need to continue to cultivate positive reviews, and no negative reviews. hubdubs market does not believe that 'any press is good press'. potential investors, partners, and other important constituents may shy away from a site associated with death pools. And by further association, the usernames presented on the leaderboards because accomplices. Please help!!!

'become accomplices.'
Please Help!!!!

All, thanks for your comments.

I have created a question on Get Satisfaction to discuss whether the rules should be amended so that questions like this would be voided. We aim to make Hubdub community led and decisions like this need agreement before we can proceed. Give your views here:
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/topics/contentious_questions_part_3

This one has multiple sides.

In the first, I read the question and read the news published and I thought, "OK, someone makes a little PR for Swayze, he doesn't have cancer at all, and in summer, when his new film comes out, everyone knows already about it." And I put in on the "NO" option.
The problem here is, that I bet on "NO" _not_ because I want to bet on him living or dying, but because I thought about this as "does someone try to fool the pulblic yes/no". If that would be the case, I didn't have any concerns about the question - at first glance, because, sadly, if the outcome of that question would be "no, no public fooling, he has cancer", it would turn to be betting on live/die - I didn't take that in account at that time.

At this point I'm willing to say: Void the question.

That's my personal opinion.

To be objective, there are three other things:
1) What about questions, which imply (directly or indirectly) any casualties like the ones about the earthquakes? If you bet on "5-8 Earthquakes above 5.0 on the richter scale", your forecast implies the loss of human life and injuries. Is this one a moral one?
2) What about questions, which imply direct harm of people. Just not in this extreme. Lets say this one:
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_Hillary_Clinton_divorce_Bill_Clinton_in_2008_2914/view
Isn't it immoral to hope for a divorce? It could be the proverbial end of somebody's life.
3) Why does nobody take offence on this simular question having the death of a person as an option:
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Britney__what_will_she_do_next_123/view

So where do you draw the line if a question touches the integrity of a person:
a) physically or mentally,
b) directly or indirectly,
c) a single concerned person or masses of simultaniously concerned people
d) more or less severe
e) liked or disliked people

Let me state this: By putting money on the option "YES" in this question, nobody really says he wishes Swayze's death. He just says "he has cancer and I regrettably think he's not going to make it." Nobody really looks forward to people to getting hurt by earthquakes by putting money on that question. Nobody really wants Hillary and Bill getting divorced.

People make prognoses. They don't state desires.

So I consider this questions legitimate.

Oh, I'll post this at getsatisfaction too.

kruijs wrote: "By putting money on the option "YES" in this question, nobody really says he wishes Swayze's death. He just says "he has cancer and I regrettably think he's not going to make it." Nobody really looks forward to people to getting hurt by earthquakes by putting money on that question. Nobody really wants Hillary and Bill getting divorced."

You can not assume this. There are many wierdos out there, hence the idea of and availability of a dead pool is ghastly. Nothing to do with free speech. Those 'wierdos' can be 'led' to do things. Have you ever seen Clint Eastwood's movie "Dead Pool"? Kind of gives you an idea of where this dead pool issue can lead.

jersjusttrolling,
sy@getsatisfaction

i want bill and hillary to get divorced. tomorrow.

5 star quackin' in your honor, ducky.
thanks for putting smile on my face after morosely reading through this string.

sorry, mispelled your nom duckie.

no worries.

A very good friend on an ER team tells me that pancreatic cancer is the worst, as discussed above. However, I also have another good friend whose son has SURVIVED pancreatic cancer for nearly two years now. (Survived WITH complications). We all know that this is an exception and not the rule. No one knew the son was ill until he collapsed, was rushed to emergency, and was not supposed to survive the weekend. That was May 2006.

With Patrick Swayze, what we can read is that he is definitely ill but still actively making a movie and working on other projects. Further reading suggests these projects are difficult for him but still workable at this time. It also appears clear that the Hollywood press over-reacted with their five week death forecast. Conclusion is that Pat IS seriously ill, but is still making a movie and taking part in projects (with some difficulty), going through specific medical treatment, and fighting it with the will to live. We know he is seriously ill, fighting it, and we admire the man and his spirit. We want to show that we wish him well, even though we know that he might not make it. He still has earned our respect.

That last sentence is important, BECAUSE public figures belong to the public domain. In short being famous makes them free-for-all public fodder. And unfortunately it's fair game to wager on their life, health, demise, and death (whether we like it or find it distasteful). Loads of cheap magazines at the grocery checkout pander to this market, and sell well. Looking at the comments under this question: Patrick Swayze has earned our respect over the years. Can we say the same for Paris and Britney? Quite a load of hubdub questions have already written off specific famous stars, scoundrels, politicians and royalty. And they all belong to the public domain, whether we like it or not. It would be nice to keep them in a cheap tabloid section on hubdub and the proposed settlement seems to be moving in this direction.

And then there is the common man, whose name we do not know, but he stands for something. The American composer Aaron Copeland wrote a brief but majestic piece of music entitled THE FANFARE FOR THE COMMON MAN. It is brief, stunning, and breathtaking: his very best piece of music. In honor of the common man. Every month somebody wants us to count more American military corpses in Iraq, or Canadian military corpses in Afghanistan, or how many dead in the current rioting in any number of countries. These men and women, whose names we do not know, are fighting for something dear to them and deserve our respect (even if we do not agree with their cause). They are all somebody's patriots.

Yes, a body count in the current disturbance in Tibet IS news, because it brings to our attention that the political situation is serious and not just a "protest march". If we are getting questions five years from now on how many Tibetans will die in April, it won't be news and will show a distinct disrespect for the human condition. This week the US will have been in Iraq for five years. Yes, that is news of a tragic nature. In the next couple of weeks the total American military in Iraq that have given their lives will reach 4000, and YES that will be news because it will remind us (again) that something must be done.

I think I am trying to separate the death pools into three areas: (1) When is death genuinely news? e.g. the current situation in Tibet or Arthur C. Clarke died today (and I read his obit with interest), (2) When is death news tawdry? (which the Oxford defines as "showy but worthless") e.g. a Britney question, and (3) When do the "death pools" become completely tasteless and disgusting? e.g. when they show lack of respect for groups of individuals who deserve respect.

And maybe that brings us to the answer: Death is genuinely news when it points with respect to people and issues that need our urgent attention, consideration, assistance and respect...

that word again...RESPECT

sums it up quite nicely for me ... thank you for these thoughts.

15Hun4Life.

Mork and Destry have pledged to NOT play this game any further until a satisfactory conclusion is made concerning Satyaki's cheating ... PLEASE follow this link and ask ALL of your (friends) to use these links to send hubdub's admins a huge protest over this unethical situation!

Please go to these links and post a protest as well and HELP the HubDub Community regain it's integrity!
http://www.hubdub.com/public/contact
^ There's an email form on that page ^
Post your decision at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/topics/i_am_on_strike

lucidstates (dismayed)

what if he crashes his plane and dies, will the settlement be "yes"

Settled 4 days early huh?

Im cool with that, as his body is apparently reacting well to the treatment, however, why was this settled now?

lucidstates

this should not be settled today

i agree with bitz..why was this settled before april 15th?

Settling this question early is so very wrong. Now if he dies you will just resettle the correct way and everyone who had a position will win. That is ridiculous.

As per the Rules at 2.2.6, 'if something is 99.9% certain, we will tend to settle it'.

Is life and death ever certain? What are the odds Britney will die by the end of the year? If you look at odds, then don't we all over more than a .1% chance of dying anyday? No way this question should have been settled before settlment date. We are setting a bad example.

That's unfair to everyone...the stock market questions often go to 100% several minutes before closing, but we leave them open because there is no certain settlement until the actual close is reported.... Now, i can't cash out, even at a loss, and if he enters the hospital tonight bleeding from his orifices, laying on death's bed, no one on the other side can cash out or change their bets.....

I HEREBY FLAG THIS SETTLEMENT

Why are we applying the "99.9%" rule to a market that is only 98%

FLAGGED SETTLEMENT

Now the smoke has gone from this market:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i1751753614c1db77735d9a6a5baa778e?imw=Y