Lack of Common Sense in wov football pool

I signed up to this forum in late 2010 and was pretty active until March 2011.. then I do not think I visited the website until January 2012. Stayed for about a month and then took my longest break, which ended right before NFL season. I think I went here to look up NFL posts to be honest... Anyway, I received this private message.

"From: Mission146
To: minnesotajoe
Date Sent: August 26, 2013 11:55 pm
Greetings,

You are cordially invited to play in the 2013 WoV Picks Game.

In this game, you'll pick five NFL games Against the Spread, Over/Under or a combination of the two each week, and the player with the highest winning percentage will cash in! Just to make the game +EV, I am throwing $25 into the prize pool that I will not be defending.

Read the full Rules here:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/sports/14894-wov-picks-game-2013-discussion-thread/#post264188

If you intend to play, a PM informing me of such would be greatly appreciated, but is not necessary. If you do not PM to let me know that you are playing, then you may simply PM me your picks at the appropriate time.

Your Friend,
Pierce"

Him writing "to make the game +EV throwing in 25$" I took that as him trying to keep interest in it for people to play. If there no prize, people won't care. When I went to the rules, I remember seeing something like You are allowed only one week to pick 0 games but that's it.

I submitted picks for Week 1... and went 0-3-2 (if pushes are counted as losses then the standings are accurate in depicting me as 0-5).

Week 2 I forgot to submit picks. Remember thinking "crap! oh well, that will just be my BYE"
Week 3 it slipped my mind again, and said "well I'm out"... and in fact I did not even log in to forum again until December.
-------
Now in my private messages it looks like this:

FW: WoV Football Contest Ayecarumba January 28, 2014 12:32 pm
FW: WoV Football Contest Ayecarumba January 6, 2014 5:31 pm
WoV Football Contest Ayecarumba December 30, 2013 10:21 pm
Week 3 Picks Mission146 September 20, 2013 10:20 pm
Week 2 Picks Mission146 September 13, 2013 9:30 pm
RE: Week 1 Picks Mission146 September 7, 2013 1:11 pm
Week 1 Picks Mission146 September 6, 2013 10:26 pm
------------------------------
As you can see, I never even got messages about Week 4-17
I did not read the messages from Ayecarumba until today. The first two I figured were just mentioning who won and such... but when I got a third message today, that caught my fancy and I decided to open it.

I am shocked to see a message asking me to make payment for my gambling loss (keep in mind I was under impression this contest was just a 25$ freeroll). so I click the link provided to see what it says.. and I get this table:

"Name Wins Losses % Owes
AyeCarumba 51 36 58.62% -
BoyMimbo 51 37 57.95% $0.67
EdgeLooker 57 42 57.58% $1.04
JW17 47 37 55.95% $2.67
StrictlyAP 52 42 55.32% $3.30
Boz 44 36 55.00% $3.62
Ten2Win 51 42 54.84% $3.78
ZoomZoom8 41 34 54.67% $3.95
BeachBumBabs 50 42 54.35% $4.27
Wizard 51 43 54.26% $4.37
KeyserSoze 43 37 53.75% $4.87
Buzzard 37 32 53.62% $5.00
TheCessPit 46 40 53.49% $5.13
Malaru 42 37 53.16% $5.46
KMUMF 44 40 52.38% $6.24
Paradigm 46 42 52.27% $6.35
Mission146 41 38 51.90% $25.00
Miplet 44 41 51.76% $6.86
TGarrettCPA 49 46 51.58% $7.04
RDW4POTUS 50 48 51.02% $7.60
DeeDubbs 46 47 49.46% $9.16
BeardGoat 45 46 49.45% $9.17
JML24 45 46 49.45% $9.17
Vendman1 36 39 48.00% $10.62
Knuckleball3 41 46 47.13% $11.49
Aluisio 44 50 46.81% $11.81
Terapined 39 45 46.43% $12.19
10DollarBri 40 47 45.98% $12.64
OdiousGambit 32 38 45.71% $12.91
SteelDCo 42 51 45.16% $13.46
MidWestAP 24 30 44.44% $14.18
DuckManKilla 41 52 44.09% $14.53
Johnzimbo 38 53 41.76% $16.86
FRGamble 33 47 41.25% $17.37
Rstrata 20 30 40.00% $18.62
EdCollins 36 56 39.13% $19.49
FourFiveFace 37 60 38.14% $20.48
SOOPOO 38 63 37.62% $21.00
YouCanBetOnThat 30 51 37.04% $21.58
Jon 28 50 35.90% $22.72
AssWhooperMcDaddy 32 62 34.04% $24.58
NCFatCat 6 20 23.08% $35.54
MinnesotaJoe 0 5 0.00% $58.62
Totals 1,710 1,826 48.36% $525.42"
-----------
My gripe is the total lack of common sense from people running this. I still have not read the official rules on how payouts will be. The winner is decided on win percentage. Had I gone 5-0 week 1 then didn't pick again, would I have won and been paid? Zero chance. After no interaction for 4 weeks (let alone every week after week 1) why wouldn't they just throw my name out... And was this set 500$ to winner, and 25$ will be added.. or was the amount owed calculated based another way? If it set up such that the winner gets 500$ and how much from whom is based on % the people running should have thrown out score.

I will be the first to admit, I should have read the complete rules (which I still have not).. and made sure this was just a freeroll to the 25$.. however, next time similar situation comes up... use common sense.

I agree, the fact this was NOT a freeroll pool should have been clearly stated in the invite message, not just the official rules.

I clicked on the official rules and they say that you owe $0.10 for every thousandth of a percentage point you were behind the winner. So since your percentage was .000 and the winner's was .582, you are calculated as owing $58.62.

The rules also say that you can only miss one week of picks. So if you had gone 5-0 you couldn't just stop.

Buyer beware! You don't read the official rules and then file a complaint. No offense but you gotta be kidding.

Quote: rainman

Buyer beware! You don't read the official rules and then file a complaint. No offense but you gotta be kidding.

yes, he should have read the official rules. however, consider this:

Nowhere in the invitation PM does it mention that by playing, you could owe money.

The rules post is 830 words long, and doesn't mention anything about playing for money until 550 words in.

The fact that the pool was for money, and that every participant but the winner would owe money, is the single most important rule and should have been prominently featured in both the invite message and AT THE TOP of the official rules, not buried in the middle of an 800-word post.

Yes, buyer beware, and of course, read the official rules before agreeing to play -- but really the fact that the pool was for money should have been much more prominent from a design standpoint.

Yeah, buyer beware, but it's not clear that he bought anything.

I hate these "did he agree to a bet" discussions, but.... did he agree to a bet?

In the future it would probably be a good idea to force entrants to acknowledge the bet as part of the first week of picks.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

In the future it would probably be a good idea to force entrants to acknowledge the bet as part of the first week of picks.

This is a great idea.

I would also like to add that with the way the invites and official rules were formatted, it seems like it was almost a freeroll for those who did read the rules.

I mean, let's face facts, any time you offer any sort of contest, some people just aren't going to read the full rules.

The fact that OP picked 5 games, went 0-5, and then stopped playing -- thus ensuring he would owe the maximum amount, makes it crystal clear he had no idea he was playing for money beyond the $25 mentioned in the invite.

He also posted his PM inbox. It looks like Mission PMed him with reminders for weeks 2 and 3, and then per the official rules, auto-forfeited him after he missed two weeks. But it would have been nice if someone had written to him saying "hey, if you skip all these picks you're guaranteed to lose about $60."

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Yeah, buyer beware, but it's not clear that he bought anything.

I hate these "did he agree to a bet" discussions, but.... did he agree to a bet?

In the future it would probably be a good idea to force entrants to acknowledge the bet as part of the first week of picks.

Quote: sodawater

yes, he should have read the official rules. however, consider this:

Nowhere in the invitation PM does it mention that by playing, you could owe money.

The rules post is 830 words long, and doesn't mention anything about playing for money until 550 words in.

The fact that the pool was for money, and that every participant but the winner would owe money, is the single most important rule and should have been prominently featured in both the invite message and AT THE TOP of the official rules, not buried in the middle of an 800-word post.

Yes, buyer beware, and of course, read the official rules before agreeing to play -- but really the fact that the pool was for money should have been much more prominent from a design standpoint.

I didn't play, And I knew you could end up owing. No complaints from other players? Seems as if everyone else was clear on the rules. The responsibility to understand what he was getting into falls on the player.

Quote: rainman

I didn't play, And I knew you could end up owing. No complaints from other players? Seems as if everyone else was clear on the rules. The responsibility to understand what he was getting into falls on the player.

Yes, but it's also good practice and good design to make the most important rule of the pool as clear as possible. If you don't, you're vastly increasing the chances someone is not going to understand. In this case, the entire issue could have been avoided if the invite PM mentioned it was for money and the rules mentioned it was for money at the top, not 62% the way down the page.

It's also clear that the OP did not know he was playing for money he could lose, thus it's not clear if he agreed to a bet.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

In the future it would probably be a good idea to force entrants to acknowledge the bet as part of the first week of picks.

That probably would be a good idea. However, when I say, "I am throwing $25 into the prize pool that I will not be defending," apparently there is a, "Prize pool," that exists outside of the offered $25, so I felt the language pretty clearly indicated what that was.

On the other hand, the thread title the first year was, "WOV Picks Game/Bet," so I probably should have went with that again.

Also, I'm not going to nail the OP for PM Confidentiality (obviously!) under the circumstances, but let it be known I deleted my last initial from the OP.

Quote: sodawater

Yes, but it's also good practice and good design to make the most important rule of the pool as clear as possible. If you don't, you're vastly increasing the chances someone is not going to understand. In this case, the entire issue could have been avoided if the invite PM mentioned it was for money and the rules mentioned it was for money at the top, not 62% the way down the page.

It's also clear that the OP did not know he was playing for money he could lose, thus it's not clear if he agreed to a bet.

You kind of have to explain the game before the whys and hows of someone owing money are going to make sense, though. I guess I could say, "This is a game and bet structured as follows:," in the OP of next year's game, so I probably will.

It was also discussed, at-length, in the Discussion thread in which MinnesotaJoe committed to playing, and partially on the same page, though it is apparent that he did not read the Discussion Thread, either.

I could see where this is a retroactive problem, but in fairness, it's not like I had a ton of people (or anyone, really) in the thread that openly questioned whether or not there was any bet involved. There were some who did not understand exactly what the bet was, true.

I would also suggest that MinnesotaJoe may have at least skimmed the official Rules, going back and looking at his PM, he provided his Picks in almost exactly the manner I requested in the Rules. The only exception is that OVER and UNDER were not in all caps.

Let it also be shown, in my defense, that MinnesotaJoe also invoked a Confidence Pick, such Rule being immediately before the PAYS Rules in the OP.

I'm not saying MJ knew about it or accusing anyone of anything, I'm just saying that if he read far enough into the Rules to know what a Confidence Pick is, then he came really close to reading about the pays.

That having been said, he clearly made no meaningful attempt to play the game.

What I don't understand is, if he had gone 5-0 the first week and then quit..the rules say he doesn't win the money for top win % because he skipped more than one week, fine. Well then how come violating that same rule doesn't also exclude him from owing ? Is that so people doing poorly with two weeks to go in the season can't quit and thereby exclude themselves from paying because they missed two weeks? That would be a pathetic move

So I guess if I play one week and go 3-2 (60%), and the winner finishes at 60.01% I then owe him 10 cents.. But if the top picker finished at 59.8%..my 60% doesn't count but I owe nothing.
Those 5 games certainly become hugely meaningful for the one week and doners

Quote: michael99000

What I don't understand is, if he had gone 5-0 the first week and then quit..the rules say he doesn't win the money for top win % because he skipped more than one week, fine. Well then how come violating that same rule doesn't also exclude him from owing ? Is that so people doing poorly with two weeks to go in the season can't quit and thereby exclude themselves from paying because they missed two weeks? That would be a pathetic move

It doesn't necessarily have to be with two weeks left, you could know you are all but finished with six-seven to go, sometimes less.

Heck I don't know what you are all talking about: Free Roll, Free Throw, Pool, Entry fee, Continuing liability...

If you are allowed one week of zero picks and by neglect happen to submit picks in time, does this terminate your participation?

Fine Print???? Should be darn little of that ... particularly amongst experts who know where the Free Throw line is.

I knew that I did not understand what was being offered but I don't know how to run a sports book or sports pool or whatever.

Basic Rules:
How much does it cost to enter
what do I win
If I have a continuing duty to select and submit picks , what happens upon default of such duty am I fined, tarred, dropped from the pool, ...
I think the poster was correct: COMMON SENSE.
And common sense means SPELL IT OUT.

Must affirmatively sign up for this.
Once you sign up must get First picks list in by xxx. Default means death.
Subsequent Picks list must be in by xxxxx. First default means "Bye" Second default means Death

Sheet... its obvious I don't know what I'm talking about but that is because the terms were not disclosed with sufficient particularity for experienced sports bettors to know what would happen much less curious but inexperienced bettors who might have entered the shallow end of the pool.

I do not buy for one minute he had no idea this was a gambling pool.

I came to this site for the first time in September. I saw the picks thread going on and within 5 minutes I knew exactly what kind of bet was being played for. I think OP has the common sense thing backwards. Common sense falls on the players and not on the person initiating the bet.

Quote: sodawater

This is a great idea.

It seems like it was almost a freeroll for those who did read the rules.

Don't agree at all, I think the rules were very clear that it wasn't a freeroll and the participants had something at stake.

Quote: sodawater

I mean, let's face facts, any time you offer any sort of contest, some people just aren't going to read the full rules.

True enough, although one would think that on a site focused on gambling that a read of the rules is important. This isn't like some grocery store promotion with 2 pages of fine print.

Quote: sodawater

It looks like Mission PMed him with reminders for weeks 2 and 3, and then per the official rules, auto-forfeited him after he missed two weeks. But it would have been nice if someone had written to him saying "hey, if you skip all these picks you're guaranteed to lose about $60."

Mission did PM him? How is anyone going to "write" him if he isn't looking at his inbox?

Also, it's clear he read the rules since he selected a "Confidence Pick".

I don't know if this is angle on his part or not, but I somehow think if he had gone 5-0 the first week instead of 0-5 he would have been back for week two.

Next year, Mission will not only have to pm reminders, but will also have to email, page, text, call each player's home and work, and also need their neighbors contact info as well, to ensure they read their messages, lol.

Yeaaaahhh, ok. Maybe the rules could have been more clear or differently organized. But, if we're going to talk about a lack of common sense, let's start with the part where someone played a game without reading the rules and then complained about the outcome...

When I saw the MJ wasn't participating in weeks 2, 3, etc, I had him on my allowance for doubtful accounts for someone who wouldn't pay. Fair enough. Free pass.

Mission, next year, make your outgoing PM more verbose and include the disclaimer:

"Your participation in this contest indicates that you understand the full terms and conditions of the contest, [found here] and that all but x players will end up paying x players up to $100 each at the end of the contest, with the median loss being about $xx."

I think it's quite clear MJ stopped playing right after the beginning of the game. Perhaps a withdrawal mechanism is in order, like classes in university, where you can drop a class without penalty to your record until, say, the 4th week.

However, I also think it was entirely inherent on the player to know what they're joining. I was one of those who did not sign up until I understood the structure of the game, and I did that by asking questions in the thread until I understood the stakes and the exposure. Missing in any of the correspondence is any indication from MJ to Mission that he was resigning the game. He opted in; why wouldn't he opt out?

Some of the suggestions for improving the game rules and procedures above seem worthwhile, but none of this rises to the level of a flaw that invalidates MJ's entry this year, by ommission or by misleading statements. I have no problem with MJ asking for or getting a "no bet" declaration based on what happened, but saying the rules were at fault is dodging responsibility on his part. All IMHO. YMMV.

So the bigger question is if he is going to pay the debt that I feel is still owed (By the way, that is assuming he didnt pay)? That would give your complaint a little more credibility in my opinion.

Quote: MidwestAP

Mission did PM him? How is anyone going to "write" him if he isn't looking at his inbox?

Also, it's clear he read the rules since he selected a "Confidence Pick".

I don't know if this is angle on his part or not, but I somehow think if he had gone 5-0 the first week instead of 0-5 he would have been back for week two.

I just send the PM's, whether or not they are opened is none of my concern. We've had players active for the entire season, that even made Picks on the weeks in question, not open my reminder PM for whatever reason.

Quote: EdgeLooker

Next year, Mission will not only have to pm reminders, but will also have to email, page, text, call each player's home and work, and also need their neighbors contact info as well, to ensure they read their messages, lol.

Per the Rules, I don't even require myself to send reminders, it's a courtesy. I think I failed to when I was in Vegas this year, but maybe not, let me check my Outbox...Yeah, no Week 16 Reminders, but I think I said that in the thread.

Quote: boymimbo

When I saw the MJ wasn't participating in weeks 2, 3, etc, I had him on my allowance for doubtful accounts for someone who wouldn't pay. Fair enough. Free pass.

Mission, next year, make your outgoing PM more verbose and include the disclaimer:

"Your participation in this contest indicates that you understand the full terms and conditions of the contest, [found here] and that all but x players will end up paying x players up to $100 each at the end of the contest, with the median loss being about $xx."

Right, I've always preferred Mean to Median, though, so I'll send both.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I think it's quite clear MJ stopped playing right after the beginning of the game. Perhaps a withdrawal mechanism is in order, like classes in university, where you can drop a class without penalty to your record until, say, the 4th week.

No way, there's no way I'll give someone four free weeks of Picks before they decide if they are in or not. That's nearly 25% of all of the Picks, I only want people who are actually serious about playing the game out, win or lose, you'd have half of the people sub-.450 gone after Four Weeks if we did that. I think one week is probably a good standard.

In terms of resolution for MJ, again, legal considerations are such that I don't actually enforce anything $$$-wise as relates this game. That having been said, whether he understood the Rules or not, I think it can fairly be said that he made no meaningful attempt to play the game. I'd pretty much had him written off since Week 6, or so, as far as paying goes.

Quote: Mission146

No way, there's no way I'll give someone four free weeks of Picks before they decide if they are in or not. That's nearly 25% of all of the Picks, I only want people who are actually serious about playing the game out, win or lose, you'd have half of the people sub-.450 gone after Four Weeks if we did that. I think one week is probably a good standard.

In terms of resolution for MJ, again, legal considerations are such that I don't actually enforce anything $$$-wise as relates this game. That having been said, whether he understood the Rules or not, I think it can fairly be said that he made no meaningful attempt to play the game. I'd pretty much had him written off since Week 6, or so, as far as paying goes.

Mission,

I was not suggesting 4 weeks free play; my bad in my phrasing, I was trying to give a comparative example....Universities often let you go 4 weeks without penalty to your record. You don't get a refund of your tuition per credit paid, but it doesn't count against you. I think for this game, week 2 at the latest for a withdrawal would be adequate.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Universities often let you go 4 weeks without penalty to your record. You don't get a refund of your tuition per credit paid, but it doesn't count against you. I think for this game, week 2 at the latest for a withdrawal would be adequate.

So are you suggesting that a person can have two free weeks and if they aren't doing well can quit without any consequence? I don't like that idea at all.

Read the rules, make your picks, and pay up if you lose.

Quote: MidwestAP

So are you suggesting that a person can have two free weeks and if they aren't doing well can quit without any consequence? I don't like that idea at all.

Read the rules, make your picks, and pay up if you lose.

2 weeks at the LATEST. I'm speaking Greek this morning, I guess. I said in the original (MY take on what I said) was that when you sign up for something, you take responsibility for what you get into and the rules as they're stated, or you get clarification on the rules before you sign up, or you don't sign up.

Based on conversation before my input, I was also trying to say I could see a rule introduction that allowed an initial free play if the players wanted one, and gave an example using what Universities do.

It was a whole thinking-out-loud post, not particularly clearly written, sorry all. To be concise, I personally agree with your last statement.

deleted

I will start my reply by stating, yes I should have read the rules.

For people saying I pulled out because 0-5 start, let me debunk this immediately. Yes, it is disadvantageous (in fact 0-5 is absolute worst start) but by no means is that immediate loss. Any player could go on streaks of going 3-2.. By no means was I completely down and out of the contest.

I also do NOT believe the organizer intended to "trick" people into gambling. I do believe that playing for money should have been more of a headline. Again, when I read it, I took it as guy wanted to have a friendly contest among the community. To keep active participation/interest he was going to throw in a 25$ gift card.. and in the event he won the contest he would give the gift card to 2nd place.

The winner was at 58%, right? Had a person gone 3-2 then stopped participating... not one person will pay the guy with 60% then quit. Conversely going 0-5 then bricking.. to expect payment would be having your cake and eating it too. Would there be a punishment for a player that went 3-2 and then stopped participating?
-------------------
Now I ask myself these questions:

1. How would I respond if I was the winner?
2. How would I respond as a person that fully understood the rules but did not participate in contest?
3. How would I respond if I was in contest, lost, and paid at least 10$ to the winner?
4. Had I played all 17 weeks and won, what would I have done?

1. Had I won, I can honestly say it would not upset me.... now lets say it was Week 10 and I was in strong contention to win and a player that was active all 10 weeks posts "hey I just realized this was for money, I didn't know....." I would roll my eyes and give a deep breath, but I wouldn't let it ruin my day.

2. My initial reaction would be, ok rules say pay.. but then see only did one week, would understand he didn't know.

3. If I lost, paid, then other people in the bet did not pay, I would be upset. When I make a wager I always have full intention on paying if I lose, nothing gets me more angry than making a wager, then other person stiffing. -- in this contest, I honestly did not know I was participating in a wager. To make an analogy, I feel as if I was on a basketball court, person told me that if I can make a basket the length of the floor I would win 25$..... So I take the shot, miss, then person tells me that since the ball didn't hit the backboard I owe 58$ - but had I hit the rim it only would have been 20$ that I owed.

4. Lets say that I played each week and ended up winning.. and it was only after I won after week 17 that I realized that this had been a money pool the entire time. I wouldn't have you all send me 10 cents, 1$, 5$... I WOULD want the 25$ gift card, but I wouldn't sweat over the other. I legitimately didn't know.

Read the rules. Ita fairly simple. READ THE RULES and you'll have an answer to your questi
on

For the record i dont expect MJ to pay $58 and if i had won i wouldnt hold him to it. But i think it is lame to accuse mission of not using common sense when you are the one who admits to not reading all of the rules.

Quote: minnesotajoe

Would there be a punishment for a player that went 3-2 and then stopped participating?

Yep.

"***Any player missing two weeks will have the option of EITHER forfeiting immediately or accepting a record of 0-5 for the second missed week. If the player misses a third week, the forfeit is automatic."

MJ, I appreciate you started this thread because you would have been easier on you to remain silent, not pay, and avoid the criticism you find here. And, I can even consider you just forgot to submit picks on weeks two and three and it wasn't an attempt to freeroll the contest.

What I'm having a more difficult time with is the arguement that you didn't read the rules and seemingly this excuses you from paying? In my past I've had situations where I didn't fully understand a the rules/options in a contest and it cost me. In those cases I sheepishly paid up and used it as a learning experience. It's also evident you did read the rules with the selection of a Confidence Pick. Therefore I find most of your arguements flawed.

It is pretty clear that MJ was out after week 4 with no picks registered after week 1.

If I had won the pool, I would have immediately put MJ in allowance for doubtful accounts as previously suggested......he basically didn't really participate.

One week, yeah 0-5 is a bad start and maybe he can't overcome that to win. But if he was really participating, you certainly can bring that 0-5 start up to a 500 record and know your downside is likely less than $10. I truly believe he didn't read the rules or understand what the pool was about and I wouldn't expect him to pay at the end for whatever that is worth.

I think I have a different answer if a player is 4-5 weeks in and is 7-18....but MJ basically put in one week's picks and the pool kind of slipped his mind and he didn't think there was much downside to that.

All that being said, MJ knows that he should have read the rules and understood what he was getting in to. I would suggest he come up with some $$ figure that he thinks is a fair penalty for not doing his reading and send it to Ayercrumba and we call this issue done.

Quote: Paradigm

One week, yeah 0-5 is a bad start and maybe he can't overcome that to win. But if he was really participating, you certainly can bring that 0-5 start up to a 500 record and know your downside is likely less than $10. I truly believe he didn't read the rules or understand what the pool was about and I wouldn't expect him to pay at the end for whatever that is worth.

I did this. I was 0-5 in week 1 and owed about $8 in the end.

Quote: minnesotajoe

2. How would I respond as a person that fully understood the rules but did not participate in contest?

This describes me. If I were you, I would pay the $58 just for the sake of maintaining a good reputation on the forum, and be sure to read any contest rules closely before participating in the future.

If you didn't pay up, probably most of the forum members wouldn't call you an outright welcher and most would probably just let it slide and move on. But it wouldn't reflect well on you, and I'm sure some forum members would remember this incident.

I understand your complaint as the initial PM didn't state it was for money, and it probably should have. I'm guessing Mission will make that clear in any future picks contests. But you definitely should have read the full rules.

How much is $58 really? For most folks on this forum, I'm assuming it doesn't rate much on the pain scale (considering we are all gamblers). I don't know you or your situation, so if losing that money would impact your life, I would take it up with AyeCarumba and he will probably let you out without any hard feelings.

But I would just pay up. Interesting that AyeCarumba hasn't replied to this thread at all.

I honestly dont feel paying $58 is the answer either. There is no way he would have finished his season with no wins and a 0.00 win percentage. They should work out an agreement and hopefully this is settled easily. If MJ still thinks he doesnt owe anything, then he should be excluded from future pools.

My solution:

(1) make the contest clear next time and make it clear that you are playing for money that can be lost
(2) allow week 1 to be a free week.
(3) If you participate after week 1, and you drop out, you are responsible for your liability up until LAST place of a participating member. That is, if last place was 34.04%, your assumed liability is up to 34.04%.

To that end, MJ should pay Aye $24.58 which is AssWhooperMcDaddy's last place ranking. That would restore goodwill.

Quote: boymimbo

My solution:

(1) make the contest clear next time and make it clear that you are playing for money that can be lost
(2) allow week 1 to be a free week.
(3) If you participate after week 1, and you drop out, you are responsible for your liability up until LAST place of a participating member. That is, if last place was 34.04%, your assumed liability is up to 34.04%.

To that end, MJ should pay Aye $24.58 which is AssWhooperMcDaddy's last place ranking. That would restore goodwill.

The problem with this is that if you are in last place you can just "drop out" near the end of the season and reduce your liability.

In the future, I think that in order to enter, you should have to include a statement in your first week of picks that says something like "I understand that, by participating in this pool, I may lose up to $100" or something like that.

As for this situation, I think that's between the winner and MJ. I would not think any less of either one regardless of what agreement is reached, or even regardless of whether an agreement is reached. It's not a clear situation at all. Hopefully they can work something out that leaves them both somewhat happy with the outcome.

technically I was a part of this since I chop with the winner, but then took a buyout figuring something like this may happen- with all respect to parties involed I'm not sure how any confusion could have occurred from all this and clearly thing mj should pay in full

Just me but I see NO reason to give anyone a free week and this never came up until someone complained they didn't read the rules. Mission puts a lot of time into this for no gain and now we are telling him how to run the game. I don't speak for anyone but myself but a bet is your word and it is your responsibility to understand the terms of the bet. If the rules don't apply on this site, with this group of people, where in the gaming world do they?

My advise? Pay the relative small amount and count it as a lesson, and a cheap one at that. And then if Mission asks we can make suggestions on the game next season. And if we don't like the rules, don't play.

I'd be interested to know if MJ had gone 5-0 in week one, would he have continued submitting picks??

Any pool that has a prize structure which doesn't allow for collecting all the money BEFORE the season starts, is susceptible to this type of issue.

Quote: Boz

Mission puts a lot of time into this for no gain and now we are telling him how to run the game.

No one is saying we shouldn't be appreciative of Mission for running the game. He does a lot of work just to make the forum a better place.

That said, just because someone volunteers to do something doesn't mean someone else can't make a suggestion.

I didn't play the pool and have no stake in the resolution, but for next year, I would strongly suggest that the invitation contain the fact that you could lose money by playing the pool.

Quote: sodawater

...but for next year, I would strongly suggest that the invitation contain the fact that you could lose money by playing the pool.

I agree. I do think that the OP should pay up since it's his own fault for not reading the rules, but I can understand his confusion. For example, when I get something in the mail from a casino inviting me to participate in [insert event here], many times I will enter without reading all the rules, and it would never occur to me that I could possibly lose money. Better yet, everyone should just pay up front for the 2014 season. No confusion that way.

Quote: Beethoven9th

I agree. I do think that the OP should pay up since it's his own fault for not reading the rules, but I can understand his confusion. For example, when I get something in the mail from a casino inviting me to participate in [insert event here], many times I will enter without reading all the rules, and it would never occur to me that I could possibly lose money. Better yet, everyone should just pay up front for the 2014 season. No confusion that way.

I think it was mentioned before that we can't pay up front, at least to Mission or the Wizard. I guess we could have someone else be an escrow.

I think there should be a buy out clause. Something like between week 4 and 5 you can buy out of the game for $20. If you are in last place you could still get into the middle of the pact for $10 but if you want to limit your liability then you can pay the $20 to get out.

Oh and also.. Judge Marilyn tells me that in order for a contract to be valid then there has to be a meeting of the minds. In this situation we have to determine of the OP was free rolling or if there was not a meeting of the minds. In my opinion I think it is pretty clear that he didn't understand the full rules even know he knew about the confidence pick.

easy way to do it everyone buy a gift card for amazon give the codes to mission then he just forwards codes to anyone that wins