I propose a minimal pragmatic restriction on the interpretation of the weights in the "Equal Weight View" (and more generally in the "Linear Pooling" view) regarding peer disagreement and argue that the view cannot respect it. Based on this result I argue against the view. The restriction is the following one: if an agent, i, assigns an equal weight to another agent, j, (i.e. if i takes j to be as epistemically competent as her), she must be willing — in exchange for a positive and certain payment — to accept an offer to let a completely rational and sympathetic j choose for her whether to accept a bet with positive expected utility.