Friendly bet dispute

Quote: AZDuffman

This sounds like when Luke said he could eat 50 eggs in one hour. One of the people on the bet said, "One rule, no throwing up. He throws up, he loses."

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.

Off topic here, but since you brought it up. Anyone could easily slurp down 50 over-easy eggs in a few minutes, or even 50 mildly scrambled eggs I think. 50 hard boiled eggs would be difficult.

Mike, You should pay up, - on the basis that advantage play is legitimate.

Quote: Wizard

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.

"Spirit of the wager" would also disallow using flashed hole-card info, ingenuity, cleverness, initiative, skill, inventiveness, etc. on a live game at a casino...

Quote: zippyboy

Off topic here, but since you brought it up. Anyone could easily slurp down 50 over-easy eggs in a few minutes, or even 50 mildly scrambled eggs I think. 50 hard boiled eggs would be difficult.

There is NO WAY I could eat 50 over easy eggs in any time period less than a few days. However, I could easily win the challenge of eating 50 eggs in under an hour, and did so just yesterday. It was really just one piece of sushi, salmon roe I believe. I tend to side against the Wiz here. The person accepting the bet from you clearly only accepted thye bet KNOWING she was going to influence the outcome. There would have been no bet if you worded it in such a way that she had to stay in the car with you. The final outcome of what you two decide would depend on how you interpret the word "friendly" in "friendly bet". I have often caught friends in this scam.. I have them pick a card, and place it back in the deck... I can identify it by knowing which card it is under.... I then start turning over cards, including theirs and a few more. I then offer a bet that the next card I turn over will be the card they chose. Having seen the card the selected already turned over, everyone is willing to take the bet. I then reach into the discard pile and turn over their card again. I have never actually made someone pay me off.

Quote: Alan

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.

I thought professional golfers used a draw and a fade. Only amateurs hook and slice.

Quote: SOOPOO

I have never actually made someone pay me off.

Due to the willingness to declare it was, indeed, too slick, you don't make a good case.

I had this very trick done to me not too long ago. The bet was just whether he could make a fool of me or not, you might say.

We are all still learning about about this business, and about life in general, in the strangest of ways, and from people we didn't expect to surprise us - surpsing us.

I hard for us to pay for our education at times, but we haven't seen it all, and we can't.

Edit - perhaps quote of the day: One of the things about gambling is that we are continuously paying for our education.

Quote: bbcpjc

I thought professional golfers used a draw and a fade. Only amateurs hook and slice.

Pro's can hook and slice just like amateurs do, it just doesn't happen as often. A draw is a less radical hook(slight curve) and a fade is a less radical slice(slight curve here, too). Here's a pic(for a right hander; lefty is the opposite:

Ah, a missapropriation of Thomas Jefferson comes to mind:

"I'd sooner believe a Northwestern judge would cheat, than the Wizard would make a bad bet."

So, can anyone identify the real quote by Jefferson? No bet, just some friendly trivia.

Quote: Paigowdan

Mike, You should pay up, - on the basis that advantage play is legitimate.

Hardly. The bet was that the car would not stop,
not that it could be stopped. Two entirely different
bets.

Quote: Wizard

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.

Wiz, you should be ashamed of yourself. Relying on an arbiter to justify not paying, even when the majority of voters in a poll of your peers on this forum are against you. You were outwitted - hard to accept, but you lost your own bet when you were the favourite. Favourites don't always win.

Let's say you have observed traffic at this intersection, and concluded that 60% of vehicles don't stop. Now all you need to do is find some mug who will accept a 50/50 bet on that outcome. You don't have to do anything else - on average you will double your money in 3 out of every 5 bets taken.

HOWEVER - in this instance, your opponent has a different approach. She would probably think that she will only ever take this bet once - so the next outcome is the only one that matters. The long run is irrelevant. Her thinking is "How do I make the NEXT CAR stop, to win this bet". Needless to say, she worked out a way, implemented it successfully, and WON THE BET.

You should take your hat off to her, as you pay up, and say, "Well played madam, you got me there!"

Now that is what a gentleman would do.

I agree that you shouldn't have to think of every possible contingency, but that is not a defence against a contingency that your opponent has thought of and you have overlooked.

Sine you resorted to an arbiter, the only questions the arbiter should have asked are:

1. Do you both agree on what constitutes a stopped vehicle? (both answer YES)
2. Do you both agree on which car determined the outcome of this bet? (both answer YES)
3. Did the agreed car stop? (both answer YES)

Result - pay up Wiz!

Quote: algle

Result - pay up Wiz!

You people are like kids in college taking a test. Its doesn't say no
cheating on the test paper, so when you get caught cheating you
whine and cry. Its taken for granted, its understood, that cheating
is not allowed.

The same is true in the bet. The other person knew the bet was that
the car wouldn't stop. They changed the bet, without informing the
Wiz, so they could win. You people are being tripped up
by the cheating mentality that is rampant in this country. You think
anything is fair as long as you win. It was a gentlemens agreement,
no cheating allowed.

OK, I may have voted differently if I had the benefit of hearing
all of the arguments, both pro and con.

But what exactly is the "case law" in this situation ?

Is it that neither party may ACTIVELY try to alter the outcome
by using means that are out of the ordinary ?

If she was wearing a short skirt and bent over to tie her shoe,
would that have been ok IF the car had stopped to get a good
look ?

" You should take your hat off to her, as you pay up, and say, "Well played madam, you got me there!"

Now that is what a gentleman would do. "



Hatfield: A gentleman doesn't smoke in the presence of a lady.
Dr. Josiah Boone: Three weeks ago I took a bullet out of a man who was shot by a gentleman. The bullet was in his back!

A bet is similar to a contract. You can not have a contract without a meeting of the minds. You bet was with a woman, so I asked my wife and 3 adults daughters. And without knowing I has asked the other each gave me the same answer.
Wiz should not pay her to teach her a lesson to not be stupid enough to walk in front of a car !


A man who says he understands women will lie about other things too.

Quote: Wizard

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,

EXACTLY! Some of the responses here have been alarming to me.
This 'win at any cost' attitude is not good. When I was a kid, if you
tried to pull a fast one to win a bet, you'd more than likely get the crap
beat out of you. Now its applauded.

Quote: EvenBob

EXACTLY! Some of the responses here have been alarming to me.
This 'win at any cost' attitude is not good. When I was a kid, if you
tried to pull fast one to win a bet, you'd more than likely get the crap
beat out of you. Now its applauded.

And they ask you to run for Congress.

Quote: algle

Wiz, you should be ashamed of yourself.

The Wiz has nothing to be ashamed of. He plays a fair game for he is a fair man (at least with my personal experiences with him and all that I have read about him and heard from others).

This was a friendly bet and friendly bet rules apply, not Supreme Court legal arguments over every contingency that could or should have been written in stone beforehand.

When I first met Mike he wanted to make a bet with me on hitting a sign with a rock. He didn't know what my throwing arm was like (or that I played cricket and was actually reasonably confident of hitting the sign). I said ok but not for money. I didn't want to take his money, nor have a friendly bet situation that involved money. It was for fun.

Regardless, had it been for money, it would've been for a token amount and I would've paid up (I missed the sign by just a little, but he did admit I got closer to hitting it than he thought I would).

Now (the reason for my anecdote), to my recollection, the simple bet was hitting the sign with a rock I picked up on the beach we were walking on. What kind of prick would I have been, for the sake of winning a simple, friendly bet from someone that had just flown all the way across the Pacific Ocean and got on a train for two hours to visit me, if I pulled out a sling shot and use that to propel the rock and hit the sign and then asked him to pay up?

A prick is what I would've been. A friend just doesn't do that.

Mike, The Wiz, is an honourable man and he has nothing to be ashamed of.

Quote: mickpk

When I first met Mike he wanted to make a bet with me on hitting a sign with a rock.

Good example. You knew immediately the parameters of
the bet and you agreed to it. You didn't say to yourself,
'Aha, here's where I can trick Mike and win by cheating
and then cry foul when he won't pay.' Only an ass does
that. It takes all the fun out of such wagers if people
think they can get away with not playing fairly.

Quote: jpprovance

anyone who votes for she won plays dirty

exactly! it comes down to playing by the same rules. the Wiz played by one and she played by another, her own. if the Wiz played by her rules then he should get behind the car and push it through the intersection to make sure it didn't stop! then run her over and as the car sits on top of her face walk by and say 'pay up'! a judge of all people should know about 'rules'.

if we don't all play by the same rules then we are up sh_t creek. there would be no need for prisons, just cemeteries. if you do this then i'll do that. bring a gun to the fight and i'll bring a bomb, and there's no end until we are gone.

this judge, one who is supposed to uphold the law, acted no better than the common criminal that she puts behind bars. Wiz, would you have made the same bet if you were with a gang criminal? i think you probably would have sized up the situaltion differently.

a lot of us like to think that we play by our own set of rules, but if everyone played that way would we really want to run into people like that on the street? or live with them? think hard before you answer. otherwise there's a headstone waiting for you.

.

I think there is a important factor here that we have overlooked.
How did the bet started, who started the bet?

If it was the WIZ, then it looks like, it backfired on him.
If it was the girl, then she is wrong, and should not get pay (and should not asked to get pay).

but she did win.

Quote: EvenBob

Good example. You knew immediately the parameters of
the bet and you agreed to it. You didn't say to yourself,
'Aha, here's where I can trick Mike and win by cheating
and then cry foul when he won't pay.' Only an ass does
that. It takes all the fun out of such wagers if people
think they can get away with not playing fairly.

My anecdote was also trying to relate that Mike likes these kinds of bets. He had no idea what my throwing arm was like so if anyone had the advantage it was me, not him. He wasn't trying to make money off me, but he just likes making these bets or testing your knowledge with quiz-type questions about what would you do in hypothetical situation x or y etc. He is/was after just a good bet, not a tricky bet, imo.

And I don't go so far as labelling what his friend did as cheating; that's too harsh for me, but the spirit of a friendly bet is far more important in adhering to than arguing about every unwritten contingency so once it was clear that one person did not have a good bet then a fair outcome would've been for her to offer a rematch or alternate bet and I'm sure Mike would've accepted that and 7 pages of debate on his forum, plus the time of two members of the legal profession, would have all been unnecessary.

I side with the Wizard for the most part, BUT (note the big but!) plenty of arguments and general animosity start because people ASSUME they have a general understanding that has in fact never been stated, and where you hear the words, "but I thought you wouldn't mind if I..." etc,.

Yeah, even things where someone thinks they are doing you a favor. (I straightened up your desk, where you had everything just the way you like it, and so on)

The understanding of what a friendly bet is can't always be assumed.

Quote: EvenBob

You people are like kids in college taking a test. Its doesn't say no
cheating on the test paper, so when you get caught cheating you
whine and cry. Its taken for granted, its understood, that cheating
is not allowed.

Bob, not true. Cheating is EXPRESSLY forbidden going into an exam (I was a High School teacher, I have discussed it in class), - and has been discussed by faculty and students and between faculty and student since antiquity as an open issue.

Quote: EvenBob

The same is true in the bet.

No, it is not.

Quote: EvenBob

The other person knew the bet was that
the car wouldn't stop.

No, it was not known going in, - that's why it was all a gamble going in. The car could have swerved, or otherwise not stopped - pedestrain accidents happen - and so the participant who elected to use "strategy" also took a strategy risk, and won, and should get a reward. For that matter, one participant didn't anticipate the employment of a viable strategy by the other, so its appearance came as a stinging surprise, just like the first casino who got creamed by hole carders and card counters, etc.

Quote: EvenBob

They changed the bet, without informing the
Wiz, so they could win.

No they did change the bet, a player applied a strategy, - something that Mike himself endorses when he uses it. He even advocates (and has written guidelines on) using hole card information, something that he argues is "fair game" to use with advantage when it happens as an opportunity for a player. see: https://wizardofodds.com/games/three-card-poker-flash.html.)

Quote: EvenBob

You people are being tripped up
by the cheating mentality that is rampant in this country. You think
anything is fair as long as you win. It was a gentlemens agreement,
no cheating allowed.

Cheating didn't occur, strategy was used instead, even if the strategy's use surprised a participant.

Thank you for the continued comments. I'm happy to see the margin has tightened. The last time it was running 2 to 1 against me.

I don't like to broadcast when I'm on vacation, but this happened at the corner of Pardall and Embarcadero Del Norte in Isla Vista, CA (map). In case "pardall" sounds familiar, it was discussed in depth in the Spanish Word of the Day thread.

You may be wondering how it is that I make bets with, and have them arbitrated, by judges. I just came from my annual week at UCSB's Family Vacation Center. I hope to make a separate blog entry about it, but they get some very professional vacationers, including judges. For those with kids, I highly recommend it.

I'm back in Vegas now, so let me try to catch up on some recent comments.

Quote: JohnnyQ

But what exactly is the "case law" in this situation ?

Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co., which was a 1928 case central to the issue of negligence. The judge I made the bet with rolled her eyes when I said that this case was used to justify the ruling in my favor. Maybe it isn't very applicable, but rather than try to reword it, here a direct quote from Wikipedia's entry on negligence.

Quote: Wikipedia

For instance, in Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.[8] the judge decided that the defendant, a railway, was not liable for an injury suffered by a distant bystander. The plaintiff, Palsgraf, was hit by scales that fell on her as she waited on a train platform. The scales fell because of a far-away commotion. A train conductor had run to help a man into a departing train. The man was carrying a package as he jogged to jump in the train door. The package had fireworks in it. The conductor mishandled the passenger or his package, causing the package to fall. The fireworks slipped and exploded on the ground causing shockwaves to travel through the platform. As a consequence, the scales fell.[9] Because Palsgraf was hurt by the falling scales, she sued the train company who employed the conductor for negligence.

The defendant train company argued it should not be liable as a matter of law, because despite the fact that they employed the employee, who was negligent, his negligence was too remote from the plaintiff's injury. On appeal, the majority of the court agreed, with four judges adopting the reasons, written by Judge Cardozo, that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, because a duty was owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs. Three judges dissented, arguing, as written by Judge Andrews, that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, regardless of foreseeability, because all men owe one another a duty not to act negligently.

The arbitrating judge would probably have said that but for the other party stepping in front of the car I would have won. In other words, I should not lose because of her negligence.

Quote: Paigowdan

Mike, You should pay up, - on the basis that advantage play is legitimate.

"Spirit of the wager" would also disallow using flashed hole-card info, ingenuity, cleverness, initiative, skill, inventiveness, etc. on a live game at a casino...

There is a difference between making a bet against a friend and in a casino. The casinos use every trick at their disposal to separate me from my money. As evidence, the "$200 free promotional slot play" offer at Hooters, which they advertise on billboards between LA and Vegas. This has an actual value of about $2. How about the keno bet I wrote about in my Harrah's review, with a 97% house edge? How about slot and sports tickets with the minimum 30-day expiration date? I could go on and on. The casino is no friend of mine. When I play in a casino it is war. In a war I still respect the rules, but will try to win by any other legal means necessary.

Quote: MrCasinoGames

I think there is a important factor here that we have overlooked.
How did the bet started, who started the bet? If it was the WIZ, then it looks like, it backfired on him.

I suggested it. Had the other party not agreed to arbitration, but absolutely demanded to be paid, I would have. However, a four-year friendship would have been ruined over it. I will not let the same person cheat/deceive me twice.

Quote: rxwine

The understanding of what a friendly bet is can't always be assumed.

I agree. In the last four years I've made hundreds of bets with the other party and never a significant dispute. A few times there was an honest difference of opinion on a technicality, but we always worked it out, usually by declaring disputed bets "no action." So this trick really took me by surprise.

If I were in a bar and a stranger proposed the hat bet, mentioned in another post, I would expect a trick, and probably would bet no more than a buck just for the entertainment value of seeing what the trick was. Reminds of of a scene in the movie Lucky You, where one guy bet another he could move across a poker room without touching the floor. So a small friendly bet was made on it, and the guy yanked his chair forward about six inches at a time while he sat on it until he got to the other side.

Basically, if the challenge seems impossible, then I think that trickery is expected. However, if it is something that is definitely within the realm of possibility then both sides should be on their honor to abide by both the letter and spirit of the bet.

Quote: algle

Wiz, you should be ashamed of yourself. Relying on an arbiter to justify not paying, even when the majority of voters in a poll of your peers on this forum are against you. You were outwitted - hard to accept, but you lost your own bet when you were the favourite. Favourites don't always win.

Let's say you have observed traffic at this intersection, and concluded that 60% of vehicles don't stop. Now all you need to do is find some mug who will accept a 50/50 bet on that outcome. You don't have to do anything else - on average you will double your money in 3 out of every 5 bets taken.

I said all along that the arbitrator would make the rule, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in other opinions. Had a vast majority gone against me I probably would have paid anyway. However, I'm happy to see at least some people share my feelings about honesty and honor. I think it was a worthy topic of discussion, and make no apologies for posting it.

Regarding the second point, I would not have accepted the bet had I done a survey and known my odds of winning were 60%. However, I hadn't. There was a fair bit of pedestrian traffic at the time, and the police are known to monitor that intersection. It could have easily gone her way.

As evidence that I don't accept bets with friends I know are bad bets on their part, the other party in question the previous day proposed a bet that my 13-year-old daughter could name the author of some obscure book that I had barely heard of. I didn't accept her bet because I don't want to take her money, I want to win it fairly.

I did not read through all 74 responses here, but in reading your original post my opinion is that the girl cheated. Now technically you didn't stipulate that the car had to stop on its own but in my mind it would have been implied. I'm really surprised that the majority of people here voted that you had to pay up. I would not make future bets with the girl, she sounds dishonest.

Quote: HotBlonde

I did not read through all 74 responses here, but in reading your original post my opinion is that the girl cheated. Now technically you didn't stipulate that the car had to stop on its own but in my mind it would have been implied. I'm really surprised that the majority of people here voted that you had to pay up. I would not make future bets with the girl, she sounds dishonest.

Clearly you haven't read all the responses. Of course she is dishonest. The wiz did mention she was an attorney.

Quote: SOOPOO

Clearly you haven't read all the responses. Of course she is dishonest. The wiz did mention she was an attorney.

And a judge.

See my "Playing Dirty" post for a more wordy response, but I would not pay her. Her actions, as well as some of the other cons the forum supplied, are good for a laugh, good for a "gotcha", but are not good for seperating a Friend from their money. Some ruses lend more leniency, such as the drink under the hat. That bet leads you to believe there'll be some hijinks and it becomes more of a bet of wits. The Wiz's bet was clearly a bet of random traffic habits. She unrandomed (my word) the traffic. That was not the bet. Let her claim victory if she must, but if she demands payment, she is not good people. This post ends the same - There is no room for dishonor amongst friends.

To be fair, I think we should hear her side of the story too.

One interesting mention:

Quote: Wizard

...There was a fair bit of pedestrian traffic at the time...

It was known to you that pedestrians were a factor - and apparently to her, as she was a pedestrian, albeit a deliberate one - and a strategicly artifical one. But a known, even obvious element and component in the wager.

Quote: wizard

...with casinos it is war...

For some gamblers, yes, but for some others, the war's with lady luck (or "today's variance") - and not with the operator providing the service. It's a mixed bag.
If I'm going to be a continuing part of this business, I'd be better off as an officer in an office, than a private on the front lines. Some crap shooters look at me with the dice stick in my hand like it were a rifle pointing at them. It really isn't, it's all perception and POV.

Quote: Face

This post ends the same - There is no room for dishonor amongst friends.

She may and could make the same claim - has been doing so, so far, it seems, - prompting M.S. to seek a ruling here from the Board of Gamblers....and one Casino Cop in some opinions...
I hope it is dropped before it affects an otherwise fine friendship.

Quote: MrCasinoGames

To be fair, I think we should hear her side of the story too.

She is not a member and isn't the type to participate in a forum about casino gambling. I've played with her twice in casinos and she doesn't have the first clue of how to play, so I accompanied her to help both times.

The facts of the case are simple. When this was told before the Vegas judge the only thing that was in dispute was that she added that it was late and we were planning to cross the street anyway. This was true. While we did need to eventually cross the street there was no reason to jump in front of traffic to do so. It wasn't like we had a plane to catch, I was just tired and wanted to go back to my room. She was the one resisting going back and wanted to hang out longer.

Furthermore, we had to travel south-east to get back, and the intersection was perfectly clear for north-south traffic, but instead she chose to impede car traffic by going east. She made it sound like we made the bet while we were in the processing of walking across the intersection, which is patently ridiculous. We had been standing at the same spot for 15 minutes making other bets.

The word is premeditated....that ain't natural gamblin'...I can see that POV. But I can also see a strategy call.
Damn, Mike, you and her found the grayest of the gray areas in this....
Hung jury here, if you look at the breakdown....

Edit: If a hung jury indicates essentially a misdeal on the bet.....no pay action

Quote: Paigowdan

It was known to you that pedestrians were a factor

Good grief. What do pedestrians have to do with
anything. The bet was that the driver would blow
the intersection with a rolling stop. Not that somebody
would jump in front of him, or a meteor would fall
out of the sky and crush his car. If either of those
things happened, the bet would be nullified because
something outside the drivers control made him stop
the car.

Quote: EvenBob

Good grief. What do pedestrians have to do with anything. The bet was that the driver would blow the intersection with a rolling stop.

They have everything to do with the bet because they were a causitive factor in getting a car to fully stop - which DID happen - and was the BASIS of the bet.

Quote: EvenBob

Not that somebody would jump in front of him,

- Somebody did indeed - and on purpose - a deliberate act to swing the bet's RESULT

Quote: EvenBob

or a meteor would fall out of the sky and crush his car.

If that had happened, Mike would have paid the bet as a clear sign for G-d. The entire board here would have theorized that....along with a few other things

Quote: EvenBob

If either of those things happened, the bet would be nullified because something outside the drivers control made him stop the car.

No, Bob -
1. One of those things DID indeed happen, AND HAD:
2. Caused the bet to be called into such a Win/Lose question that it was not nullified by the participant in this bet - who is a JUDGE - AND is the very issue at hand in this thread.

Bob, if you can't see these issues as related and as "at hand," you're scaring us....this is a grief.

Quote: Paigowdan

They have everything to do with the bet

The bet was the driver would make a rolling
stop. Not that something would prevent him from
making a rolling stop. Thats a whole other bet
entirely.

No, Bob. Thing is it was NOT a "whole other bet" - it was exactly this particular bet.
As for "something that would prevent him from making a rolling stop," - one would think it was:
1. the stop sign itself - or:
2. a pedestrian

that would cause a driver to full stop.
It had indeed. However, there was influence.
Question here - was it cheating or within the bounds of strategy?

Quote: Paigowdan

Thing is Bob - it is NOT a "whole other bet" -

Of course its a whole other bet. It goes:

"I bet you can't stop the next car."

See how its fundamentally different than the original
bet. One of two things happened. The judge didn't
understand the first bet, or she cheated. Its really
not that complicated.

No it wasn't.
The bet was:
"Either the car fully stops, or it does a rolling stop at the stop sign." Again, that was the bet, and that's it.

But...This was without an explicit rule of being an artificial pedestrian, although an authentic pedestrian would be unquestionably valid, and with an assumed presumption of non-interference.

One side says it's malfeasance, the other poker strategy.

EB, I totally agree with your earlier posts that the attitude about winning at all costs is a sad commentary on human nature. However, I would have paid without argument had different pedestrians made the car come to a complete stop. It would have been stealing her money otherwise. With no cross traffic at least 90% of cars will roll through. Whether a pedestrian would make an appearance was part of the bet, and there were lots milling about.

Quote: EvenBob

The bet was the driver would make a rolling
stop. Not that something would prevent him from
making a rolling stop. Thats a whole other bet
entirely.

(lol) Welcome to my world. When I asked the 'which bus' question, some insisted adding all kinds of other things to it.

Ken

Quote: Wizard

However, I would have paid without argument had different pedestrians made the car come to a complete stop.

Its all about the spirit of the bet. If this bet had been
with a complete stranger, I think you should have paid
because there weren't enough ground rules. A bet
with a friend has built in rules and one of them is
non-interference by the participants. If the two party's
don't understand the built in rules, they shouldn't be
betting.

Quote: Wizard

I totally agree with your earlier posts that the attitude about winning at all costs is a sad commentary on human nature.

This debate is not about a "winning at all costs" attitude. It is about a winning attitude - completely legitimate, creative thinking in this case - which should be applauded.

This very simple and straightforward bet was only about whether or not the next vehicle would stop! The "how" of stopping is not relevant. There is no right to assume that this bet should be viewed solely through the bias of one party's reason for offering the bet - namely that most cars will not stop at this intersection.

WIZ - I only said you should be ashamed of yourself because you are normally a model of impartiality and objectivity, which I greatly respect. So I remain very disappointed that you are persisting with your line about "interference".

Quote: algle

This debate is not about a "winning at all costs" attitude. It is about a winning attitude - completely legitimate, creative thinking in this case - which should be applauded.

Cheating should never be applauded.

Quote: algle

WIZ - I only said you should be ashamed of yourself because you are normally a model of impartiality and objectivity, which I greatly respect. So I remain very disappointed that you are persisting with your line about "interference".

It is hard to be impartial about a dispute you're involved in. So, of course, I'm going to disagree with those who take the other side. If the vast majority took the other side I would pause and reflect. That is not the case. I also agreed to submit to the decision of a third party, which I think is appropriate in such disputes.

Let it be known that I stand up for more than the letter of rules. That is why I take a hard line when casinos refuse to honor expired tickets. I know some disagree, and those of you are entitled to your opinion. I don't think there is anything more that I can say on this topic. Much like my thread on "Friend or Foe," I think your position on this says a lot about what you stand up for.

https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/tencom.html

2. Thou shalt honor thy gambling debts.
A true gentleman honors his debts, especially gambling debts. When making a bet with another person you are putting your honor on the line. If you lose, you pay. No excuses!

Quote: algle

https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/tencom.html

2. Thou shalt honor thy gambling debts.

1. Thou shall not cheat.

Quote: Nareed

1. Thou shall not cheat.

It is not a coincidence that that one is number one.

Quote: algle

If you lose, you pay. No excuses!

If you lose legitimately, you pay. If you get cheated, you don't. Weird how that works.

Quote: Wizard

It is not a coincidence that that one is number one.

She. Did. Not. Cheat.

CHEAT: verb (used without object)
- to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
- to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
- to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.

The guy who picked his ball up from the sand trap cheated - he violated a rule of golf. The rules of golf were "implied" in that bet.
Your friend did not break any rule.
She won the bet.

Honour thy gambling debts.
I would have paid.