Honor thy gambling debts - What Would You Do?
Poll
 | 18 votes (75%) | ||
| | 6 votes (25%) | ||
| No votes (0%) |
24 members have voted
February 19th, 2011 at 8:22:25 AM
permalink
This exact situation did not happen to me, but something sort of similar did.
Let's say you make a $100 wager with a friend before the season that the University of Michigan will win the Big 10. Season goes by, Michigan wins the Big 10. You pay your friend the $100. A year later, it's found that Michigan had been using an ineligible player and is stripped of the Big 10 title.
What do you think is the right course of action? Does whether or not you have paid your friend yet have any bearing on your decision?
Let's say you make a $100 wager with a friend before the season that the University of Michigan will win the Big 10. Season goes by, Michigan wins the Big 10. You pay your friend the $100. A year later, it's found that Michigan had been using an ineligible player and is stripped of the Big 10 title.
What do you think is the right course of action? Does whether or not you have paid your friend yet have any bearing on your decision?
February 19th, 2011 at 8:27:19 AM
permalink
Your friend should give you back the money and declare the bet a draw because of a technicality. If you were a stickler though you could insist that you won the bet, at the cost of your friend.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 19th, 2011 at 8:59:18 AM
permalink
I personally agree with boymimbo that having your friend give you your money back is a fair and honorable thing to do.
The legal side of me asks, however, what is the statute of limitations on this type of gambling bet? Had you placed this bet at a professional sports book and a year later it was proven that one of the teams cheated, I would guess that the sports book would not refund your money. More importantly, I would guess that you, as a gambler, would not give the casino back their money had you won.
I know that the statute of limitations for gambling losses varies from state to state, but normally it is between 3 months and 1 year.
The legal side of me asks, however, what is the statute of limitations on this type of gambling bet? Had you placed this bet at a professional sports book and a year later it was proven that one of the teams cheated, I would guess that the sports book would not refund your money. More importantly, I would guess that you, as a gambler, would not give the casino back their money had you won.
I know that the statute of limitations for gambling losses varies from state to state, but normally it is between 3 months and 1 year.
February 19th, 2011 at 9:21:55 AM
permalink
Quote: FinsRuleThis exact situation did not happen to me, but something sort of similar did.
Let's say you make a $100 wager with a friend before the season that the University of Michigan will win the Big 10. Season goes by, Michigan wins the Big 10. You pay your friend the $100. A year later, it's found that Michigan had been using an ineligible player and is stripped of the Big 10 title.
What do you think is the right course of action? Does whether or not you have paid your friend yet have any bearing on your decision?
Let the bet stand. The team still won the games. Unless it is a total fix like the Black Sox such a thing is not worth making an issue out of.
In this case they fielded a team and the team won. NCAA eligibility rules are a bit on the silly side as it is about nothing but cash yet they pretend academics still matter to them (they don't.)
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
February 19th, 2011 at 9:33:16 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboYour friend should give you back the money and declare the bet a draw because of a technicality.
Good question. This approach seems reasonable to me. Call it a draw.
There's emptiness behind their eyes
There's dust in all their hearts
They just want to steal us all and take us all apart
February 19th, 2011 at 9:46:10 AM
permalink
I agree with Duffman. The bet was that Michigan would win the Big 10 title that year, not that they would win and indefinitely hold that year's title.
Solo venimos, solo nos vamos. Y aqui nos juntamos, juntos que estamos.
February 19th, 2011 at 9:56:11 AM
permalink
I also say that the friend keeps the $100. There has to be closure to such bets, and I think it should be based on who the NCAAF initially said won the Big 10. On my site I wrote about a disputed Super Bowl 43 prop on the number of "kickoffs." The Associated Press initially published on number, I think 9, and on their web site the following day changed it to 8. The ambiguity was on a punt after a safety. What the Vegas casinos did was honor the original ruling, which I think is reasonable. Victories can be stripped years or decades later in some cases, like the Olympics. In the interests of avoiding arguments, the initial ruling should stand for purposes of scoring the bet.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
February 19th, 2011 at 10:49:16 AM
permalink
As usual, the Wizard's logic is unassailable. Staying with the initial ruling does seem to be the only practical way to handle such situations, so the friend should be able to keep the $100.
Given that it's a bet between friends though... If I had initially won the bet I would still offer the $100 back, along with a round of drinks as interest. No need to seed any bad feelings on a friendly wager.
Given that it's a bet between friends though... If I had initially won the bet I would still offer the $100 back, along with a round of drinks as interest. No need to seed any bad feelings on a friendly wager.
Old enough to repaint. Young enough to sell.
February 19th, 2011 at 2:35:43 PM
permalink
The only way someone would want their 100 bucks back is if they were experiencing tight financials. And if I were the winner then I'd simply tell you to go pound sand. We have games all the time that are decided on bad calls or are later decided to be "erased" because of violations etc. Doesn't mean a thing to bettors. Everyone has the same chance of issues popping up down the road. Bury the bet.
February 19th, 2011 at 2:40:00 PM
permalink
Note that the Wiz and JL come to the same conclusion. As did I. Now if Nareed ank mkl can also agree..... then...
February 19th, 2011 at 3:10:22 PM
permalink
Yes, but you see hesitancy on mkl's part because this is an answer that is very hard to look up on the internet.
February 19th, 2011 at 3:22:26 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOONote that the Wiz and JL come to the same conclusion. As did I. Now if Nareed ank mkl can also agree..... then...
But their agreement is coincidental, in that it's based on much, much different personal...um...philosophies.
I would imagine Josef Stalin and Mahatma Gandhi agreed on at least SOME issues, much as Jerry and the Wiz will at times agree.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
February 19th, 2011 at 6:36:49 PM
permalink
I can't go back to a casino and get my bet back because the NCAA ruled on something a year later and made by bet win. But they aren't aren't going to come after me for my winnings if the situation is reversed.
There has to be a time limit on this sort of bet. I think a month is reasonable. In that case, it was probably known very shortly after the season that Michigan did something wrong and it took 2 weeks for everything to get sorted out. A year later though and generally it was because some kid took some money which has no impact at all on them winning the game or not.
There has to be a time limit on this sort of bet. I think a month is reasonable. In that case, it was probably known very shortly after the season that Michigan did something wrong and it took 2 weeks for everything to get sorted out. A year later though and generally it was because some kid took some money which has no impact at all on them winning the game or not.
February 19th, 2011 at 7:46:15 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardVictories can be stripped years or decades later in some cases, like the Olympics. In the interests of avoiding arguments, the initial ruling should stand for purposes of scoring the bet.
I wonder what would have happened during the 1972 Olympic basketball final, where the USSR didn't "win" until about an hour after the US did. (If there was a line on that game, however, I have to believe the USSR would have covered the original result, which was a one-point victory for the USA.)
Sportbook tickets are bearer documents, right? Once they're cashed, they're cashed. If the outcome changes it's very difficult (and probably not worth the casino's time) to hunt down the original bettors. I think the rule should be the same here. The cash transaction represents that both parties agree forever to the outcome of the wager.
