I am not quite following you... the "price" of a bet is synonymous with the odds (i.e. they are two different ways of expressing the same information). For example, the money line price of something that has a 90% chance of winning would be `-900`... meaning you have to bet $900 to win $100.
No one has odds that say the Warriors (or any team) has a 90% chance of winning the NBA title. In fact, the current favorite (the Lakers) are listed at +350 (meaning you will win $450 on a $100 bet).
I am not sure what you mean by the 90% chance thing...
> For example, the money line price of something that has a 90% chance of winning would be `-900`... meaning you have to bet $900 to win $100.
This is what Nate saying, when he says Biden has a 90% chance of winning.
You intuit correctly that it would be ridiculous for anyone to offer odds like that for the NBA title one year out.
Why do you think it would be ridiculous? Likely because you intuit that there's too much uncertainty for a chance to be 90% for any team to win the NBA title.
Taleb's reasoning is similar, but for the election. 90% Biden win implies way too much certainty.
But, what do you think the odds would look like for the NBA for example?
Do you think a stable price could exist now, that the warriors have a 90% chance of winning?