You wouldn't want to be more than 99.9% sure on a trivial thing like the academy awards. Landing a plane, sure. Actually, there are few things that I would want to be, or could be, more than 99.9% sure. Maybe a nuclear power plant? The risk is proportional to the probability.
I have been somewhat fascinated by how inadequate 99.9% is for many things, yet it still gets quoted as if more than sufficient. Atlanta and O'Hare and many more have more than 2000+ flights a day, thus one in a thousand unsafe? yikes. Do you drive everyday and get in an accident once every 3 years? Then you drive without incident better than 99.9% of your days driving. And, yep, nuclear power plant safety better be better than 99.9% .
Personally, I would want to be more that 99.9% sure.
Just to clarify, I would be happy betting
with odds like that, but would be cautious about broadcasting it if I had any status as someone to listen to [which I don't].
What I was trying to say is that the probability of Colin Firth losing was the kind of thing that is theoretically possible, but would be so unlikely that if it did happen you would suspect some kind of foul play.
I don't mean to be hypercritical, and certainly you can point to being right here after all.
"No, I will weep no more. In such a night
To shut me out! ...
O, that way madness lies; let me shun that;
No more of that" - King Lear deciding he has to accept bad Variance