Friendly bet dispute

Guys,
Something interesting happened today at a Stations property. Actually a couple...
One of the concerns that I have working in casino operations - is the manufacturing of ground rules of a game by participants after the fact. There is a huge amount of "Well, that what I meant," even if it is not said. I once had a crap player Lay the 4 after making his come-out don't bet, and I announced "Sir, you're LAYING the 4, not buying the four" - and I showed him his two green chips being place behind the four with a LAY lammer on top of the chips, with me pointing to the bet. Two rolls later a four was rolled ("down behind the four") and I took his bet. He protested that "That's NOT what I meant!!" but I and the boxman said, "That's what you said and ordered, Sir, and we showed you your lay bet in action." He lost the argument, except in his mind, and left steaming. He may have actually meant it, but it was not what he said and done going in.

In Mike's example, the bet was:
1. Car either comes to a complete stop, or it does a more typical "California Roll," or slow-moving Yield action through an intersection that we ALL kind of shade on (Right turn of Red, stop sign, etc.), especially in surburban areas.
2. No other ground rules were explicitly specified before the fact - for whatever the reason - either assumed - or not thought of at that moment - as a stipulation, nor was the bet "boxed" or parameterized any other way here, though Bob got creative. If it really were the ground rules, it could have been mentioned. was the judge mentioned as a "partiipant pedestrian" (and pedestrrians were mentioned as a bet factor here) until after her ploy went down?

Okay...
If the Judge hadn't made a strategy play, and Mike and the judge had watched the car roll on through, would either party thought of this "participant strategy on a bet" that happened. In gambling, the bettors are participants using often strategy for the most part, but on an ad hoc prop bet, who can think of or foresee everything UNTIL it is seen or done??!! There is a smattering of "well, that what I meant/assumed/etc." here.

Today at Sunset Station a player used a $25 free bet couple on an even money bet at Roulette - on the black bet. But a double-00 was spun, and the coupon was taken. The player protested that it should be a push because it was a coupon. Why in the world would this be assumed when all even-money action loses on a Zero spun on the wheel: Red, Black, Odd, Even, etc. Why shouldn't a losing bet be otherwise, coupon or chip or old-school money plays. In the old days players tried to take back money plays cash on a loss, even stating, "I'm taking it back because it lost - but it WAS cash...." Kid you not...
Well, because it was a free bet coupon, and he saw after the fact that somehow it "was wrong" because he did not anticipate that action happening, as a zero is a relatively rare spin occurance, and it caught him by surprise. "The nerve of you taking my losing bet on a zero/crap number/dealer blackjack" on a coupon, because the coupon's rare loss on a rare natural was a surprise. And sometimes in gambling, inventive strategy acts like a rare natural, and enters the grey zone area in our minds, even if it meet the stipulations going in.

Admittedly I am sensitized to this effect being a dealer...

Quote: algle

CHEAT: verb (used without object)
- to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.

She practiced both fraud and deceit. The fraud was accepting the bet, knowing she would win. The deceit was deceiving me into assuming she wouldn't interfere. No Vegas casino would pay a bet if it was won through cheating. At least I agreed to have it go to arbitration.

I am looking at these post as a outsider.

If WIZ have win the poll on his forum post, do you think is a fair results?
Consider the points below:

1. This is WIZ forum website.
2. Most of the members are WIZ friends (of course most of us will support him) including me.
3. Most importantly, WIZ have posted here, his side of the story (Interference). Therefore most of the members would not post something that WIZ don't like to hear.

Quote: MrCasinoGames

If you (WIZ) have win the poll on his forum post, do you think is a fair results?
.

He's not winning, of course its fair.

It occurs to me that it is remarkable how much the Wizard cares about winning this bet. Under the circumstances, with a woman who "wanted to hang out longer," I can see myself paying up with a smile. This would be the case if she was hanging out with me and my wife, but especially if she was just wanting to hang out with just me and her, playfully making a bunch of bets, etc!

Now the Wizard has said that he was tired and wanting to wind it up, so perhaps that is an indication that this woman is 85 yrs old with a face that would stop a truck. Or just an indication that the "etc" that I was referring to was just not going to be in the cards at all, for whatever reason. It could all be innocent, and me all wet, but I have to tell you that the description of what was going on here really jumped out at me.

In any case, it is clear the Wizard is something when it comes to his gambling.

Quote: odiousgambit

just an indication that the "etc" that I was referring to was just not going to be in the cards at all, for whatever reason.

Gee, that never occurred to me. The Wiz is on vacation with his
family in Santa Barbara, and is looking for ETC.

Are you certifiably insane?

Quote: EvenBob

How do you figure he won the poll? Looks like he's losing to me.

I say: If WIZ have won the poll...

Quote: EvenBob

Cheating should never be applauded.

I agree, Cheating should never be applauded.

But did she cheated?
Some member say yes, and some say no.

So the question should be: Did she cheated?

If the answer is:
1. She cheated, then the WIZ win the bet.
2. She did not cheated, then the WIZ lose the bet.

Quote: EvenBob

Are you certifiably insane?

I don't discount what people are capable of, bearing in mind sometimes one party hasn't thought it out or is in denial. That the Wizard is only concerned about this bet speaks to his part probably. I confess I could be all wet, we just got a little tidbit and I took off with it ... so yes that is a little crazy. But that picture he made was instant for me... playfully betting, lingering...

I can tell you that one's spouse would raise an eyebrow to hear that someone of the opposite sex was wanting to "hang out longer" with their significant other.

Quote: odiousgambit

It occurs to me that it is remarkable how much the Wizard cares about winning this bet.

That's not it. In this case the Wizard cares about fairness.

See here, when I met the Wizard last year, he would play trivia games with the casino waitresses for double their tip (he still tipped regular if they lost, I hasten to add, or if they didn't want to play). At one point he told us, Teddys was with us, he would next ask the waitress how Dorothy killed the Wicked Witch. I asked him, "what if the waitress says says 'she dropped a house on her'?"

So he ammended his question to specify the Witch Dorothy doused with water. Because that would be fair, while simply asking an ambiguous question wouldn't be. And that's the kind of man the Wizard is.

In this case his friend cheated by interfering with the outcome to her benefit. Suppose we bet on a boxing match we're seeing at the arena, and mid-fight I get up and hit your guy on the head with a club. He lost didn't he? I win the bet, don't I? If that happened, BTW, I'd be most properly arrested for assault and wind up in prison for a few years.

Incidentally, the good judge not only cheated, but risked her life to do so. What if the next driver had been obliviously texting on his cell or posting on his smart phone to his facebook account? So you can see who was determined to win, and it wasn't the Wizard.

Quote: odiousgambit

I can tell you that one's spouse would raise an eyebrow to hear that someone of the opposite sex was wanting to "hang out longer" with their significant other.

If you saw the other party you would realize my wife had nothing to worry about. Let's just leave it at that.

Quote: MrCasinoGames

So the question should be: Did she cheated?

Then it would get into a big debate about the definition of "cheat." I prefer to frame the question as who should win the bet. Your position that I lost the bet has been duly noted.

I think stepping out in front of the car was a pretty chickenshit(and not too smart) move.

Quote: Alan

I think stepping out in front of the car was a pretty chickenshit(and not too smart) move.

She crossed in the crosswalk, as a regular pedestrian.
It was a devious option, as she did it to effect a bet result, but all strategy game ploys are to effect the result.
Some are within the guidelines and parameters of a game, some are out of bounds.
The opinion of her actions are in a grey area, with many taking many sides.

Hell, if you really want to debate, as well as add some more parameters....

The original post makes it seem like she decided to step into the street after the car did a "rolling stop."

I.E. The car eventually stopped, but did so late, and if it was witnessed by a policeman, the driver might have gotten a ticket.

Does that change the outcome of the bet?

Not under the parameter of the bet. Neither does a meteor stopping the car.
It's if the car stops (including for a pedestrian, artificial or innocent) - or if it proceeds rolling. That's it.
I've seen Pai Gow Players split a pair of aces to beat my king-high Pai Gow hand, and I pay them.
And they do it with the intention of eeking out a win. Good for them if it ain't cheating.

How about adding option #4 - she was a complete idiot to step in front of a moving car.

No - that's how everyone walks across the street - in the crosswalk. Cars stop at a stop sign, and are less likely to do a rolling go-through. It was as every pedestrian does, and was both clever and devious and arguable either way.

My guess is that the best thing is to declare the equivelant of a misdeal on this ad hoc prop bet, due to contention.
This is a win for Mike - no needed quorum for the judge. Misdeal = no action on the bet.

Maybe you have them on your table game layout, but I have never seen pedestrian crossings in the "middle of the intersection."

Quote: Paigowdan

No - that's how everyone walks across the street - in the crosswalk. Cars stop at a stop sign, and are less likely to do a rolling go-through. It was as every pedestrian does, and was both clever and devious and arguable either way.

My guess is that the best thing is to declare the equivelant of a misdeal on this ad hoc prop bet, due to contention.
This is a win for Mike - no needed quorum for the judge. Misdeal = no action on the bet.

I disagree. If the 'friend' of Mike's really wants to get paid then I would 'rule' that she should get paid. I would just remove the word 'friend' when I discuss her in the future.

.....

Quote: gofaster87

took it in good faith to not find a work around to win. Its pretty straightforward.

Exactly. The seemingly pervasive attitude of win at all costs,
even if it means cheating on a bet with a friend, has gotten
out of hand. It certainly wasn't that way when I was young.
Must be the Lib school system, where cheating is overlooked
and even encouraged.

Quote: Wizard

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.

OK, I like my explanation better. That you cannot actively alter the outcome by artificial means. For example, the WIZ couldn't brandish a fake gun and run toward the car, because any sane driver would take a quick look at the intersection, hit the accelerator, and blow through the intersection.

A couple of the problems I have with this thread, and as much as we all love Mike:
1. You offer up an ad hoc prop bet that you think is pretty nifty, you have little right to complain if your mark comes up with a winning strategy that obeys the parameters that you had framed for the bet. You miss something, you applaud your education; this especially applies to game designers and mathematicians and people of logic. But it is hard to remain distant from your money involved and your pride.
2. Few people here had defended the mark. I feel that the proposer of the bet should at least offer a small salute to his mark in generating both an elegant solution that the proposer hadn't foresaw, and for generating such a popular thread by her inventiveness. Buy her a bottle of wine at least, even if and especially if a misdeal was called.

Read a book called the "Man with the $100,000 breasts." It's all about ad hoc prop bets and the people who had such scenarios. The title refers to a gambler, a man, who took $100,000 to have silicone breast implants and live with them for a year. He actually had a great time with them, scoring with so many gorgeous straight women who loved to play with his boobs. Once his roommate was not noticed to be home during a "session," and he witness the gambler having a simultaneous "lesbian AND straight" session with a gorgeous blond that was wild.

This was perhaps the most strange ad hoc prop bet, where it pissed off the offerer because not only did the mark win the bet by going through with it (getting the boob job), - his life had a windfall, instead of an albatross - which annoyed the bet proposer.

Quote: Paigowdan

A couple of the problems I have with this thread, and as much as we all love Mike:
1. You offer up an ad hoc prop bet that you think is pretty nifty, you have little right to complain if your mark comes up with a winning strategy that obeys the parameters that you had framed for the bet. You miss something, you applaud your education; this especially applies to game designers and mathematicians and people of logic. But it is hard to remain distant from your money involved and your pride.

Unless I misunderstood, the bet as described seemed to be placed on a random event. Whether the driver would stop or roll, and whether any of the random pedestrians would impede the driver and make him stop, were random events, and to me, clearly what the bet was on. Her's was no strategy, it was a fix, a fix which voided the randomness the bet was upon. Good for a laugh, but not for declaring victory and removing money from a friend. IMO, actions like hers are in the same family as the shot takers you vilified in your rant a few months back. There's not room for such actions amongst decent people, and I don't feel it should be encouraged. Perhaps I'm taking this too seriously / personally, but if done to me without willful surrender of the bet by the "winner", that person would be on his/her way to falling many steps down the ladder of friendship.

Dan, I have to agree with Face. In previous threads you've said that card counting is in a grey area on the cheating scale, and completely vilified hole carders. Yet here you take the side of the one putting a 100% easy fix on a bet. I'm having a hard time understanding what you stand for.

About the $100,000 breasts story, I don't see the comparison. That was more of a dare than a bet. By the way, I recall that he left them in longer than he had to to win the money.

Quote: Face

There's not room for such actions amongst decent people, and I don't feel it should be encouraged. Perhaps I'm taking this too seriously / personally, but if done to me without willful surrender of the bet by the "winner", that person would be on his/her way to falling many steps down the ladder of friendship.

Well said, Face.

Quote: Wizard

Dan, I have to agree with Face. In previous threads you've said that card counting is in a grey area on the cheating scale, and completely vilified hole carders. Yet here you take the side of the one putting a 100% easy fix on a bet. I'm having a hard time understanding what you stand for.

About the $100,000 breasts story, I don't see the comparison. That was more of a dare than a bet. By the way, I recall that he left them in longer than he had to to win the money.

He did, he came to love his boobs...anyway:

I don't mean to be a puzzle. What I stand for in gambling does have some consistencies:
1. The casino operator is not the enemy; I am against the concept of war. Gambling is an activity that has some ground rules. There is no "enemy," just an activity that may some jerks on either "side." We are trying to provide a service and pay our bills, but are not trying to kill or fleece our customers, though this is not believed. Station's "We Love locals" isn't a joke, the operator and customer are in it together. We love most gamblers, but recognize some are trouble.
2. Play by the rules. The ground rules going into a game are established, don't try to skirt them. Card Counting is neither a major sin or a real threat to operators. Blackjack is however, an old game that came about before it was thought to be really countable, and also most people don't try to count it. A ground rule at casinos is to not count BJ, and it's okay to be politely backed off by the casino but never back-roomed. The ground rules of BJ are not the ground rules of other card games (bridge, etc.) where perfect tracking of discards is 100% A-okay and applauded. Applying the same posture - and expectations - to these two games doesn't work well. I think casinos should have low and fair house edges and love their winners, but don't think they should have any 0% or positive EV games for players, and neither should players expect or demand to see +EV games as a birthright for being gamblers. winning sessions for players happen regardless of a -EV, and we're fine with it.
3. Legitimate Ad hoc prop bets are great, both sides are going to try to win it, and creative or obvious solutions used by a mark that are within the parameters going into it are acceptable, and should be met with good humor. As for a 'fix', it's a strategy that's all right if it were not parameterized in the framework of the bet going in, and also if a handgun were not part of the equation. Do not assume how a mark may solve a problem if it is clever or obvious and not malicious. This is not at odds with my posture on gambling. I see some very clever hand setting play adjustments by players on Pai Gow, if it's a legal hand set and wins, it doesn't have to follow the house way, and I am fine with paying the player.
4. Casino players are not all saints: alcohol and sweating one's paycheck can make for some brutal players we have to put up with in a job and environment that should otherwise be fun and exciting, and posions the well (or the floor), and no, we can't always side with such characters. Casino dealers are not all saints either, but dealers don't sweat the money, own the money or care or should care who wins in a session. Accusations otherwise are false, and no, don't deluge us with "But here's a story, yadayadaya." We go to our jobs and do our jobs like any other industry. I give back to the jerks on my "side" as I do the players' side. Any poison is simply that.

Quote: Face

...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...
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.

BRAVO, Face! I could not have said it better. Honestly! I stand up and applaud you! I, myself, like to do silly things like that for fun (in regards to her purposely stopping the car to be like "Haha, I won!") but I would have almost immediately revealed that I was just joking around. And, honestly, I may have not even done that in the first place, even in the name of humor, just to honor the bet.

Quote: Paigowdan

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

Well, technically, the majority did vote for the Wiz to pay, which I am upset about.

It seems so funny to me cuz it seems so clear to me without any hesitation that she cheated. I still am really surprised that people have voted otherwise. REALLY surprised. (But remember, I value honesty as my #1 character trait so you can't be too thrown off by my response.) I'm actually really sad to live in such a dishonest world.

Quote: algle

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: Nareed

1. Thou shall not cheat.

I have to tell you, I find this to be the most interesting post I've read in this forum thus far. I literally just squealed out loud reading these responses and counter-arguments.

Quote: algle

She. Did. Not. Cheat.

OK, I'm pounding my fists on my desk at this point.

Quote: Nareed

That's not it. In this case the Wizard cares about fairness.

I completely agree. That's why he put up this original post, no?

Quote: Paigowdan

1. The casino operator is not the enemy; I am against the concept of war. Gambling is an activity that has some ground rules. There is no "enemy," just an activity that may some jerks on either "side." We are trying to provide a service and pay our bills, but are not trying to kill or fleece our customers,

Of course the casino is the enemy, they set it up that way.
They purposely lead customers on to believing they can win,
all the time knowing they can't win consistently or stay ahead
of their losses. Every casino TV ad shows people orgasmic with
joy at winning. Where are the 95% who leave with less money
than they came in with? Where is the disclaimer that says all
gambling has a negative expectation of winning, that the chances
of you losing are extremely high? You see that disclaimer on
invention commercials, why not on casino ads?

Of course they're out to fleece you, do you think the free booze
is because they love you? They want to lower your ability to
think clearly, so they can FLEECE YOU. They want every dime you can come up with,
and they want it tonight. A service my ass. Try winning consistently
and see how good a service they are. What Benny Binion said in
1950 was true then and its even more true now: "Our job isn't
done until the customers last check to us bounces."

You go and have a good time at a club, a show, a restaurant, you pay, and can pay big. NO shot of taking them down, or leaving a winner. Well, you say you had a good time, or looked for a good time. Same at a casino.
Benny Binion spoke for himself and his operation fine. And there were times Old Benny was taken down.
For these views, and for people with these views, why gamble if you hate the casino service providers?
Why give them your money if you hate them as enemies?
You look for a good time from an enemy? A ridiculous mind set I see in some players.
Others come, are totally fine with us, accept that they may win or lose, accept that we all play by the rules.
Any problems, then go present your case to Gaming, or stay out of casinos and gambling.
It's a mixed bag: some players have a miserable attitude towards casino providers, others are fine.
We all post our own positions.

Quote: Paigowdan

, why gamble if you hate the casino service providers?
Why give them your money if you hate them as enemies?

I don't hate casinos, I understand them. And
I would never set foot in a casino if I didn't
know I was going to win. Don't be ridiculous..

Not certain about that.
Can't guarantee wins, it's gambling.
What you are guaranteed on is action.

Let me see if I have the facts straight:
(a) The bet was "whether or not the car would come to a complete stop," without any further conditions (i.e. it had to stop before the rear wheels crossed the line at the stop sign);
(b) The car did come to a complete stop at some point.

Seems straightforward to me. Anyone out there who has seen Guys & Dolls probably knows what I mean when I say, "You just got cider in your ear."

Wiz thought it was a friendly bet and she turned it into an unfriendly bet.

Quote: Wizard

About 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.

Having reread the question, nowhere does it state when or where the stop would occur. By the 'spirit' of the bet the 2 wagerers (clearly?) meant that it would or would not come to a stop at THIS INTERSECTION. Imagine if the car rolled through the stop sign, then pulled into a McDonalds and parked. Your "friend" could say that the car has now come to a complete stop. Of course you, Mr. Wiz, could rightfully asssert that due to natural forces the car might have appeared to be at a "complete" stop, but many of its molecules were at motion, due to gravity, wind, seismic activity, etc. To make it even easier for you to collect, the cars motor was still turning with your "friend" was standing in front of it, so it was not at a complete stop. It was likely oscillating somewhat back and forth. I will be happy to testify on your behalf when you send this fiasco to a higher court........

Quote: SOOPOO

Of course you, Mr. Wiz, could rightfully asssert that due to natural forces the car might have appeared to be at a "complete" stop, but many of its molecules were at motion, due to gravity, wind, seismic activity, etc.

Good post! My point exactly. I could indeed have argued that the fan felt had not stopped, and every electron in the car was still moving, since the temperature was above absolute zero. However, I would never resort to such arguments. It would also take all the fun out of such betting to cover ever such contingency. Unless it is understood by both parties to be a trick, like the example of drinking from a glass under a hat, the gentlemanly thing to do is to not interfere with the outcome and to go by the spirit of the wager in the event of a dispute.

I'm reminded of another discussion a while back. I was on a plane and made a bet that that the number of drinks ordered by three women across the aisle would be under some number, I think 2.5. Before the flight attendant got to our aisle the pilot announced that due to turbulence drink service would be canceled the remainder of the flight. Without even being asked I offered to call off the bet. At this point a third party in our group called me a fool and sucker for letting the other party off, for the women ordered zero drinks, making me the winner. However, I thought it was implied that there had to be an opportunity to order drinks in the first place.

So call me a sucker, but at least I sleep well at night. Also, if you ever meet me in person, and you voted that I should have paid up, and I challenge you to a wager, please don't accept it. I would not want to bet with anyone who voted that I lost.

.....

Quote: Wizard

I would not want to bet with anyone who voted that I lost.

Exactly.

And vice versa, we shouldn't challenge you to a wager either, I guess.

Quote: Wizard

So call me a sucker, but at least I sleep well at night. Also, if you ever meet me in person, and you voted that I should have paid up, and I challenge you to a wager, please don't accept it. I would not want to bet with anyone who voted that I lost.

You didn't leave a 3rd option for "The "friendly" bet was anything but, and my "friend" should have called no-action after demonstrating that she was willing to step in front of a moving vehicle to shoot an angle."

In any event, to the extent that the wager was a contract, you could argue for voiding it under the "no meeting of the minds" theory since you were betting on an element of chance and she was not. Or, as some have said, argue that you won due to the inherent motion of the engine, etc. You could also have argued that you won since the car, even after stopping relative to the intersection, was hurtling through space at over 66,000 miles per hour. That probably would have been my retort before chiding her for shooting an angle and agreeing to no-action.

Quote: HotBlonde

I completely agree. That's why he put up this original post, no?

Indeed it is. But I've also come to know him and appreciate the kind of man he is. Let me put it bluntly: you don't bet your soul against a $100, even if you don't believe in souls, with a man you don't trust to be fair.

I can't believe we're still discussing this after 15 pages. I think it's obvious whether she cheated or not, but let's suppose for a moment that the bet was reversed. It was the Wiz who bets the car comes to a complete stop. They shake hands, then she climbs into her Escalade to wait for the next car, then gets behind it and forcibly pushes it through the stop sign, even though the driver has his foot on the brake and is screaming for her to stop. Once she's pushed him 20 feet into the intersection, she gets out and tells Wiz to pay up. I guess some of you would think that's not cheating at all.

Quote: Wizard

Also, if you ever meet me in person, and you voted that I should have paid up, and I challenge you to a wager, please don't accept it. I would not want to bet with anyone who voted that I lost.

I want to discuss this further with you. I voted that you should pay her. My reasoning is that if YOU consider it a friendly bet then YOU should pay her if she wants to be paid. I would possibly have done the same thing as she did, jumping in front of the car, but I would NEVER ask for you to pay. I would have had a good chuckle with you, and knowing who YOU are, we would have of course cancelled the bet. I also can say with 100% certainty that no "friend" of mine would ask to be paid. As you saw with me and my son, it is VERY important to learn how to lose with grace, congratulate your opponent on their success, and basically stick to your motto- "It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet." I can promise you that if we ever wager again, as your friend, we would never need an arbitrator to decide who won.

Quote: zippyboy

I can't believe we're still discussing this after 15 pages.

And I can't believe how many people cannot differentiate between "cheating" and "cunning".
I don't think many [if any] of the majority who voted for Wiz to pay up are advocating cheating.
The Wiz was outfoxed by cunning, he was not cheated.

I admire cunning, but it tends to have pejorative animal associations: "rat cunning", "cunning as a fox", etc.
Compare that to "a PRIDE of lions" etc.

In reality these are not mutually exclusive traits, but humanity likes to polarize things into black or white.

Quote: algle

And I can't believe how many people cannot differentiate between "cheating" and "cunning"....The Wiz was outfoxed by cunning, he was not cheated.

Was Tonya Harding being cunning when she had Nancy Kerrigan's leg smashed by a bat? Was Rosie Ruiz being cunning when she won the Boston Marathon by taking the subway nearly all the way, then just running the last mile? Is that being cunning to you?

Quote: algle

And I can't believe how many people cannot differentiate between "cheating" and "cunning".
.

I can't believe how many people think cunning
should be applauded in a friendly bet between
friends. It used to be the play was what counted,
not the winning. Now apparently all that matters
is the win, get it any way you can. The same
thing is happening in education. It used to be
the actual learning was important, because you'll
need it later on. Now its the degree that they
want, get it any way possible. Cheat, buy your
projects on the net, take every shortcut. You won't
need the education, you can just cheat and be
cunning in life. Except that doesn't work and they
find themselves living in their old bedroom at
home because they know nothing when they graduate
and nobody wants them.

Quote: Wizard

I would not want to bet with anyone who voted that I lost.

What would be the point..

Quote: EvenBob

I can't believe how many people think cunning should be applauded in a friendly bet between friends.

Yes, it should be applauded with good humor. Cheating should not. This is the POV of the majority on this thread.

Quote: EvenBob

It used to be the play was what counted, not the winning.

Exactly - the woman's play is the precisely discussion of this thread. She did not win and was not paid.

Quote: EvenBob

Now apparently all that matters is the win, get it any way you can.

Apparently at this board. 99% of the stuff that goes on HERE is how you can get a +EV, how the casino is the enemy you should win against by any means necessary, the lottery with a positive win expectation, etc. Yet you criticise a woman who used inventiveness in playing exactly by the rules - without winning or being paid! - as the problem in this forensic case. I say this because the protest was after the bet-event was finished, and as far as I could tell, no stipulation was made about her being a pedestrain, although pedestrians were mentioned as an acceptable factor in this bet. Actually, that may have tipped her off.

Quote: EvenBob

Cheat, buy your projects on the net, take every shortcut.

We agree with you on that - this should not be condoned, which is why you should applaud an educated woman (-a court judge herself) who didn't cheat, who played by the agreed upon rules going in to a prop bet as a "mark," and whom many think won fair and square with legitimate strategy and inventiveness and without cheating. And against a fellow member of the gaming industry who ironically himself rallies the troops to use any "technically legal" advantage play against the evil bet offerers (casinos) that you can get away with: hole-carding, card counting, you name it! And also ironically, it was he who was the "bet offerer" or provider, and she was the customer or mark in this matter, no less, as much as we esteem ALL involved. G-d, we are relentless...

This is a wild thread.

Quote: Wizard

I would not want to bet with anyone who voted that I lost.

What if he were a dealer at your table, whom you know sticks to and follows the rules, and who applauds strategy players who win "by the rules." I would even pay you if I had flashed a hole card, if I had done so (though I'm among the tightest dealers on game protection.) And I didn't tell ya how I actually voted, I assume that you will assume...

Quote: zippyboy

Was Tonya Harding being cunning when she had Nancy Kerrigan's leg smashed by a bat? Was Rosie Ruiz being cunning when she won the Boston Marathon by taking the subway nearly all the way, then just running the last mile? Is that being cunning to you?

Tonya Harding committed a crime.

Rosie Ruiz cheated.

I rest my case - you are one who cannot differentiate between cheating and cunning.