Friendly bet dispute
Poll
 | 41 votes (49.39%) | ||
| | 37 votes (44.57%) | ||
| | 5 votes (6.02%) |
83 members have voted
So after witnessing said event my friend walked in the middle of the intersection, forcing the car to either come to a complete stop of hit her. Of course, the car stops.
I protested having to pay because it was just a small friendly bet and she interfered with the outcome. Her argument is that the car did stop, and I never stipulated any conditions. So, we argued about it for a while and agreed to let a third-party known to both of us make a ruling. If you were the third party what would you do?
Quote: WizardHer argument is that the car did stop, and I never stipulated any conditions. So, we argued about it for a while and agreed to let a third-party known to both of us make a ruling.
I think you should congratulate her on her ingenuity instead of protesting. Particularly since it is a small friendly wager.
She may be technically correct and if she insisted I would pay but I value friendship and I reckon it would impact on me ever having friendly bets with her again and that would be a loss for the relationship.
This bet also reminds me of another 'friendly' bet: "I can tell you the score of the game tonight between [teams]." The bet is made, then announce the score: "Zero, zero."
Bottom line, she exploited a loop-hole and should be congratulated for her ingenuity. And paid.
I find no fault in a player betting on the game - as long as they are betting on their own team. On that note, I believe Pete Rose was unfairly punished. He claimed that he only bet ON the Reds, not against them. What's so terrible about having so much faith in your team, that you'd put your money where your mouth is?
Similarly, the woman who bet against the Wiz found and exploited a loophole. She should be congratulated, not condemmed.
Quote: NareedA friendly bet should be just that, not a contest to find loopholes. Besides, it's well understood one should not take part in events one is betting on.
I agree with this, but...
Quote: Nareed... It's just not done.
There are plenty of people out there who don't agree. For myself, and as a matter of fact personally it was just avoided, I just mark it down in my book that this person does not do 'friendly' bets, and is fair game to get 'same such in return'. However, for this I voted that the Wiz should pay.
What was just avoided in my case was a bet that Haynesworth would, or would not, report to the Redskins on the first day he was supposed to. Haynesworth got traded, and we agreed the bet was off. However, a 'slick' bettor with the 'won't' on this one could have claimed he won. If so the other person should pay, then decide on what basis he would ever bet the same guy again.
Quote: DJTeddyBearI find no fault in a player betting on the game - as long as they are betting on their own team.
So let's say you are the QB and bet that your team will win by 5 poitns or more. You're trailing by one point witht eh clock winding downa nd have a 1st and ten on the enemies 30. The coach tells you to run the ball for the next three plays, then he'll sned the place kicker in. You'll lose your bet if you do that, so instead you call a pass play and try to score, ro at least drive the ball closer to the goal line. you get intercepted, the other team takes a knee to the ground and you lose.
See anything wrong?
Likewise say you're an offensive lineman and face the same situation. On the first run play you let a defensive lineman through so he'll sack the QB or get the running back far behind the line of scrimage. Why? So the team will ahve to drive more aggresively. But, oh, the defense takes the ball away, takes a knee to the ground and you lose.
Quote:On that note, I believe Pete Rose was unfairly punished.
Who cares, so long as the pseudo sport takes one on the chin? :P
Quote:Similarly, the woman who bet against the Wiz found and exploited a loophole. She should be congratulated, not condemmed.
She cheated. The bet was not "can you make the next car stop at the intersection?" but "Will the next car stop at the intersection?" If a stray dog had chose that time to cross the street, then that would count as stopping assuming the driver didn't run the poor thing over. But in all such bets the assumption is bettors are interested observers, not participants.
Some time ago the Wizard posted about a bet concerning timely drink or meal service on a plane, if memory serves. As I recall, there was no service for some reason, so one side called no action. Anyway, suppose the service was about to start on time, and one bettor got up and made a scene, or tackled the flight attendant, or just blocked the galley, in order to delay the service. That would have been cheating too
Quote: odiousgambitWhat was just avoided in my case was a bet that Haynesworth would, or would not, report to the Redskins on the first day he was supposed to. Haynesworth got traded, and we agreed the bet was off. However, a 'slick' bettor with the 'won't' on this one could have claimed he won. If so the other person should pay, then decide on what basis he would ever bet the same guy again.
I agree there's no action. the bet as stated assumes Haynesworth has a reason to report to the Redskins. You wouldn't bet that James Harrison won't report for training camp with the Browns, would you?
Quote: Nareed
The bet was not "can you make the next car stop at the intersection?" but "Will the next car stop at the intersection?" If a stray dog had chose that time to cross the street, then that would count as stopping assuming the driver didn't run the poor thing over. But in all such bets the assumption is bettors are interested observers, not participants.
Some time ago the Wizard posted about a bet concerning timely drink or meal service on a plane, if memory serves. As I recall, there was no service for some reason, so one side called no action. Anyway, suppose the service was about to start on time, and one bettor got up and made a scene, or tackled the flight attendant, or just blocked the galley, in order to delay the service. That would have been cheating too
The bet was will the car going to have a "rolling stop," or a complete stop.
So did the car had a "rolling stop," or a complete stop?
There was no mention of No interference.
Quote: Nareed
Who cares, so long as the pseudo sport takes one on the chin? :P
I'd say your friend won, unless you specifically disallowed stepping in front of traffic while negotiating the bet.
Quote: heatherIsn't the whole idea behind placing proposition bets like this that you already have a plan for winning that the other bettor hasn't anticipated? Like saying that you can get a pound note out from between two glasses or lift up a pub table without using your hands.
Sure, if the bet is that you can do something. If the bet is whether something external to both sides will happen, then there shouldn't be any interference. it's bad sportsmanship.
Quote:You already know how you're going to win before you place the bet, the other bettor doesn't anticipate your planning, and you win their money.
I'd say offering up a sucker bet is not a particularly friendly act.
Quote: NareedI'd say offering up a sucker bet is not a particularly friendly act.
Yes, I think it would be entirely different if there was an understanding that it's no-holds-barred. That can be kind of fun for the price of a drink. But it would not be a "friendly" bet, but cutthroat betting instead.
Quote: odiousgambitYes, I think it would be entirely different if there was an understanding that it's no-holds-barred. That can be kind of fun for the price of a drink. But it would not be a "friendly" bet, but cutthroat betting instead.
I mean that for all the railing against the casinos, they don't offer you a bet where they know the result in advance. That's a fair bet. An unfair bet is when one side already knows the result and bets on it. So betting on party tricks is unfair. Interfering with the result of a bet is also unfair.
Quote: dmThe driver is going have to stop at some point, if even for gas.
Or pee!
Quote: AceCrAAckersShe did violate the spirit of the bet but not the rule of the bet. Since it is a friendly wager, pay up and get her on the next bet.
I agree that this is pretty much the case. However, in my opinion, trickery based on the exact wording of the bet is bad sportsmanship, unless both sides consent. I will not "get her on the next bet." That is not the kind of person I am.
Another bet that comes to mind was at a golf course and another friend's ball was in a deep and difficult sand trap. He bet me that he could hit it out in one swing. I accepted. Then he picked it up and used the golf club like a baseball bat to hit it out. This I also protested as violating the spirit of the bet. He could tell I was so angry about it that he suggested "no action."
Maybe I'm just a sucker but I'm a handshake kind of man. When I make a deal I honor it in both letter and spirit. People take advantage of me all the time, but I believe it is better to be cheated than to cheat another.
Quote: dmI assume there were stop signs and the driver apparently ran it and stopped in the middle of the intersection. That shouldn't count as stopping for the stop sign. The driver is going have to stop at some point, if even for gas.
The other party obviously planned this trick as a fallback plan if the car didn't properly stop at the stop sign. When I suggested the bet she added, "Can the car stop anywhere in the intersection?" To this I agreed. I should have smelled a trick at this point, but didn't -- my bad.
I still have not had a chance to ask the neutral third party for her ruling. Said third party is a municipal court judge in Las Vegas, by the way.
Quote: WizardI will not "get her on the next bet." That is not the kind of person I am.
Good for you. If you try to get her next, she'll try to get you afterwards. That's a splendid way to ruin a friendship.
Quote:Maybe I'm just a sucker but I'm a handshake kind of man. When I make a deal I honor it in both letter and spirit. People take advantage of me all the time, but I believe it is better to be cheated than to cheat another.
That's a tradition going all the way back to Socrates.
Quote: FleaStiffShe won. She caught you napping. You never considered the possibility of her stepping out into the crosswalk or hiking up her skirt to expose a trim leg. You lost. No rematch. Pay up ... and buy her a drink too.
I think she was clever too, so I agree she won.
BUT she should use the money to buy a drink
for the WIZ, NOT the other way around.
Quote: WizardI still have not had a chance to ask the neutral third party for her ruling. Said third party is a municipal court judge in Las Vegas, by the way.
Third party should make you pay the bet... then summons her for jay walking ;)
I hope the third-party arbitrator rules this way.
If you are betting on a NASCAR race and she steps in front of one of the drivers on the track, forcing him to swerve and crash, obviously it was not stated in the "conditions" but that is interfering with the imagined event. Best course is no action.
These kind of bets aren't about exploiting loopholes; this isn't the tax code. It's a friendly wager between two people.
Quote: WizardThe other party obviously planned this trick as a fallback plan if the car didn't properly stop at the stop sign. When I suggested the bet she added, "Can the car stop anywhere in the intersection?" To this I agreed. I should have smelled a trick at this point, but didn't -- my bad.
That's exactly the point -- you lost the bet under the terms you agreed to so it should stand. The whole point of making prop bets with a friend is to try to outsmart each other. Not only is it more fun but you both get smarter about such things so it's harder for someone with bad intentions to take you to the cleaners later on. If you wanted a no-tricks game you should have flipped a coin, but that's boring.
"I cheat my boys every chance I get. I want to make 'em sharp."
-- William Avery Rockefeller, Sr.
As to Nareed's point that one should not wager on contests in which one is involved, that's simply untrue. Anyone who's ever played golf, darts, billiards, poker, gin rummy, scrabble, Yahtzee, Liar's Dice (I'll stop here; you get the point) knows that betting on yourself to win is a very common occurrence indeed.
Quote: teddysNo action. She interfered with the outcome and she should not have won, but neither should you have won.
I would agree to no action, but I'd argue that cheating ought to be punished by forefiting the bet.
Quote:These kind of bets aren't about exploiting loopholes; this isn't the tax code. It's a friendly wager between two people.
Good one!
Friendly wagers shoulnd't require negotiations.
Quote: WizardAbout an hour ago I made a bet with a friend that the next car to approach the four-way intersection where we were standing would not come to a complete stop. The next car to come along sure enough came to a "rolling stop," which means to slow down a bit but continue on through without making a complete stop, because there was obviously no cross traffic.
So after witnessing said event my friend walked in the middle of the intersection, forcing the car to either come to a complete stop of hit her. Of course, the car stops.
I protested having to pay because it was just a small friendly bet and she interfered with the outcome. Her argument is that the car did stop, and I never stipulated any conditions. So, we argued about it for a while and agreed to let a third-party known to both of us make a ruling. If you were the third party what would you do?
I would pay her in pennies. I doubt there was a stipulation about how to pay up. Hopefully the bet was in the $10 range!
Quote: gofaster87Thats women for ya. They try to work the system any way they can. Her question about where the car stopped was a good indication of no good.
It was an excellent indication of no good. He took the bet anyway.
I probably would have paid, out of shock that he actually hit it. Hitting a small golf ball, with a narrow golf club, baseball style, can't be easy.Quote: WizardAnother bet that comes to mind was at a golf course and another friend's ball was in a deep and difficult sand trap. He bet me that he could hit it out in one swing. I accepted. Then he picked it up and used the golf club like a baseball bat to hit it out. This I also protested as violating the spirit of the bet. He could tell I was so angry about it that he suggested "no action."
Of course, if I was a golfer, I'd protest, on the grounds that it would be scored as two strokes. (Am I right about that? Is it two strokes?)
Quote: DJTeddyBearI probably would have paid, out of shock that he actually hit it. Hitting a small golf ball, with a narrow golf club, baseball style, can't be easy.
I was thinking the same thing. Either he was incredibly lucky, or had put a significant amount of practice into an incredibly esoteric skill. Either way, I'd have paid him, at least partially out of amazement that it had been done.
Quote: DJTeddyBearOf course, if I was a golfer [..]
If I were a golfer, I'd have my head examined :P
A man and woman meet during a drunken night in vegas and, as the cliche has it, they get married while in a drunken stuppor. Next day the man wakes up, kisses his new bride and tells her "Honey, amid all last night's excitement I forgot to tell you I'm an avid golfer. I golf every chance I get. In fact, I've a tee time ina hour or so."
The woman says "I forgot to tell you I'm a hooker."
The man is very surprised and says "Oh, no problem. You're probably holding the club wrong."
A golfer told me this joke. I told it to another golfer and she thought it was hilarious. Me, I've no idea what it means.
Quote: NareedQuote: DJTeddyBearOf course, if I was a golfer [..]
If I were a golfer, I'd have my head examined :P
A man and woman meet during a drunken night in vegas and, as the cliche has it, they get married while in a drunken stuppor. Next day the man wakes up, kisses his new bride and tells her "Honey, amid all last night's excitement I forgot to tell you I'm an avid golfer. I golf every chance I get. In fact, I've a tee time ina hour or so."
The woman says "I forgot to tell you I'm a hooker."
The man is very surprised and says "Oh, no problem. You're probably holding the club wrong."
A golfer told me this joke. I told it to another golfer and she thought it was hilarious. Me, I've no idea what it means.
Good one.
For a right handed golfer hooking the ball means that the shots ball flight curves to the left(curving to the right is a slice). Just the opposite for a lefty like Phil Mickelson; ball flight to the right for him is a hook. Typically most golfers favor one of these traits; the most common is a slice.
By the way, the party I made the bet with is also a judge, at the state level in Olympia, WA. The two judges had about a ten minute argument about the bet, but the Vegas judge held her ground against a fellow judge.
So, score one point for the good guys.
About the golf bet, I do think the guy who hit the ball like a baseball bat practiced it. He is a strong golfer but also loves to do bizarre props. One he especially likes is using the golf club like a pool cue to make a putt. I've tried to teach myself to not bet against him in golf, but the next game I do it again, every time. He probably let the bet in question go in the interests of keeping my long-term business.
Quote: WizardBy the way, the party I made the bet with is also a judge, at the state level in Olympia, WA.
You made a bet with a lawyer? I hope you don't get billed for that :)
When it started, Dragline (George Kenedy) started peeling the eggs. Upset a prisoner says, "he peels his own eggs, that's understood!"
Dragline's response, "When it comes to da law, NOTHING IS UNDERSTOOD!"
Like a judge reading a contract, I'd have to reluctantly rule for her.
Quote: WizardAbout an hour ago I made a bet with a friend that the next car to approach the four-way intersection where we were standing would not come to a complete stop. The next car to come along sure enough came to a "rolling stop," which means to slow down a bit but continue on through without making a complete stop, because there was obviously no cross traffic.
So after witnessing said event my friend walked in the middle of the intersection, forcing the car to either come to a complete stop of hit her. Of course, the car stops.
I protested having to pay because it was just a small friendly bet and she interfered with the outcome. Her argument is that the car did stop, and I never stipulated any conditions. So, we argued about it for a while and agreed to let a third-party known to both of us make a ruling. If you were the third party what would you do?
You need to read your own tagline Wiz!
It was a good bet - fair and very easy to judge. The bet was definitely NOT this:
"...come to a complete stop (terms and conditions apply)"
Your approach to the bet was scientific and correct.
Her approach to the bet was creative and correct.
She won, pay up!
Quote: algleThe bet was definitely NOT this:
"...come to a complete stop (terms and conditions apply)"
She won, pay up!
With a small friendly bet it should not be necessary to think of every possible contingency. In most cases the spirit of the wager is known to both parties, which should be enough for two gentlemen to go on. Since the ruling went my way I'm not paying anything.
Quote: WizardWith a small friendly bet it should not be necessary to think of every possible contingency. In most cases the spirit of the wager is known to both parties, which should be enough for two gentlemen to go on. Since the ruling went my way I'm not paying anything.
Good for you Wizard! Just don't ever set foot in Olympia again.
I completely agree. There is no dispute here. The point is the intent of the wager, which was about driving habits. This kind of behavior by your friend will lead you to simply not want to make more bets with her, for fear of such silly feats on the next wager. That's not what it's all about. Friendly bets are not about "getting" someone on a technicality.Quote: WizardWith a small friendly bet it should not be necessary to think of every possible contingency. In most cases the spirit of the wager is known to both parties, which should be enough for two gentlemen to go on. Since the ruling went my way I'm not paying anything.
--Ms. D.
the circumstances. She knew very well what you meant, agreed to it,
and then cheated. Its like I bet you I could throw a coin high into the
air and catch it and you bet I can't. When the coin comes down you bat it
away and claim victory. That wasn't the bet. Just like it wasn't the bet
that she could stop the car.
Quote: DorothyGaleFriendly bets are not about "getting" someone on a technicality.
Goes to show there is no such thing as a friendly bet with a lawyer.
I'm sitting at a bar next to a man who is unknown to me. I have a glass of whiskey on the bar. I turn to him, place my hat over the drink, and say, "Hi friend, I'll bet you the next round of drinks that I can finish my drink without touching my hat." He says "no way, you're on."
Scenario 1, the traditional ruse:
I put my head under the bar and make a "glug-glug" noise. I then sit back up, wipe off my mouth with the back of my hand, and say "See? No problem." The man, incredulous, lifts up the hat to check, at which point I grab my drink and knock it back.
Scenario 2, a non-traditional version:
I turn to the guy on the other side of me and say "Hey buddy, I'll bet you a dollar that you can't lift my hat." He picks it up and, with a grin, proclaims "Sure I can". I drink my drink and hand him $1.
Does my mark owe me a drink in both cases, only in scenario 1, or neither?
Quote: Toes14She cheated. Interfering in the outcome skews the odds in her favor, and would obviously change your reaction to the proposed bet had you considered it up front. Non-interference is the default rule for most bets.
ditto
.
