Friendly bet dispute

Quote: SOOPOO

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...

You're good with me SOOPOO. Let me rephrase that I would not want to bet with anyone who approves of what the other party did, for example by calling it "cunning."

I do not disagree with those who would pay her in the interests of keeping the peace, but not making any further bets with said person. That is the less troublesome and time-consuming option. However, I'm big on principle, and will fight hard for it.

Quote: Paigowdan

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...

First let me address a comment about casinos in general. I did say that when I play in a casino I'm at war. However, that doesn't mean I view the casino as the enemy. For example, I take all games very seriously (including non-gambling games like chess), and view my opponent as the enemy, even my kids. I never ever let them win and always give them my best game. That is just for the game. Afterward, I resume being my normal self.

What I was trying to say is that there is a difference, to me at least, between a small friendly bet among friends and playing in a casino. In a casino the rules are carefully established and the dealers are trained to enforce them. They are trying to win my money by almost any legal means necessary, so I respond in kind.

Let's look at a specific example. A while back the Rampart casino ran a promotion during Monday Night Football, paying 2 to 1 on blackjacks. I happily played that as much as I could. However, if a friend offered that I would warn him that he was making a big mistake by giving me a significant advantage.

Dan, you've also made it perfectly clear that you applaud what the other party did as being within the rules of the bet and a clever advantage play. At least that is how I see your position. So it seems we are 180 apart, you support advantage play against a friend, but not in the casino. If that is not your position, feel free to correct me.

Quote: EvenBob

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.

Boy, you sure can take things to extremes! This clearly illustrates my point of how humans like to polarize things.

That aside, you need to remember that the opposing side of your argument is neither saying that the judge cheated, nor advocating cheating.

Quote: Wizard

Dan, you've also made it perfectly clear that you applaud what the other party did as being within the rules of the bet and a clever advantage play. At least that is how I see your position. So it seems we are 180 apart, you support advantage play against a friend, but not in the casino. If that is not your position, feel free to correct me.

Mike, - we aren't that far apart at all, me thinks. Let me explain:
1. I support STRATEGY play, within the ground rules of a bet or game going into it. This is a sub-set of advantage play that I have no problem with as a "casino cop." I thought that is what I saw in this case. I am not a judge on this case (Lord knows you already have one!), but maybe a distant juror.
2. In a casino, you have floor supervision and surveillance and even Gaming working as referees, along with a lot of self-declared expert gamblers trying to call the dice rolls or BJ rules over the floor dealers and supervision and surveillance, a losing battle admittedly, hating to use a warrior type word. BUT On an ad hoc prop bet dispute, all you have is a "he said, she said" situation - kinda like arguing with your wife about a questionably needed expense from a hard-pressed checking account. Not an easily resolved situation in either case.
3. Generally, the best thing to do is:
a) With the wife - kiss and make up and eat the loss as a refree act.
b) In a casino dispute, swallow the floormen's POV and pride and take a measly buffet comp, or go forward to gaming if need be, but disattach.
c) On this prop bet, accept the forum's decision of this jury that it's a no-call, no-roll, misdeal, completely hung jury that vindicates you as not having to pay out, and hurts you as not receiving the win - as an aggregate push. If it had hit 80%-20% either way, then game over on this prop bet. but it's a CLEAR HUNG JURY, and take the push. MISDEAL - NO ACTION. Remain friends, share wine but no win either side.
If I - as a friggin' casino cop - says NO PAY - that's a huge win from a bastard casino operator lackey dog such as myself, and I am essentially or quasi or pseudo siding with you.
Questions:
1. Did your co-better the judge read this thread also?
2. What was really done?

Quote: Paigowdan

Questions:
1. Did your co-better the judge read this thread also?
2. What was really done?

1. No
2. She paid, although under some protest, after the Vegas judge's ruling. Later I told her that the forum was going 2 to 1 in her favor, at the time I checked, and she seemed at least personally vindicated. By the way, we did more prop bets the next day without any disputes. We never seem to have trouble with the usual ones about whether a chosen person can answer a trivia question, so I learned to stick to those.

How about a blanket rule for such friendly bets that says "no action unless both parties agree the outcome was fairly decided"? That would have immediately ended the dispute in question, yet it still gives one of you the opportunity to say "okay, you got me that time" and pay up.

Mike,
1. Very glad to hear that a beautiful friendship remains between all parties, a la Bogart.
2. Since she paid, and hadn't read this read, and it's done with, I think it's a closed matter IMO and IYO. Let sleeping dogs lie without a poke in the eye, as that may be best justice on a non-felonious matter.
3. Tell her that she is personally responsible for a glorious jury-room debate that rivaled "Twelve Angry Men." Actually, 184 gamblers and nine casino dealers/supervisors/agents and countless spectators for 3,100 views that helped advance gaming ethics for an awesome thread for your site. She should get a bottle of wine just for this. It may be forever hers, and your, most important prop bet, just for this. And speaking for myself, I sometimes think of this whenever I do a California roll through a stop sign. "I have to pay Mike..."

Quote: MathExtremist

How about a blanket rule for such friendly bets that says "no action unless both parties agree the outcome was fairly decided"? That would have immediately ended the dispute in question, yet it still gives one of you the opportunity to say "okay, you got me that time" and pay up.

Stacy, that's the assumption going in.

Aw!....shit,opps...Assumption. Wacky Prop bets are always going to be strong debated if ethically tight either side and cleverly addressed.

That's the extra juice in them. Who remembers a Pai Gow hand from three months ago, aside from a moron like me...

Quote: Paigowdan

Wacky Prop bets are always going to be strong debated if ethically tight either side and cleverly addressed.

How do you rule on the drink under the hat bet?

Quote: MathExtremist

How do you rule on the drink under the hat bet?

Stacy, I'm not too familiar with it - but will get VERY familair with it and post a response with 24 hours here.
I AM familiair with:
1. Locked in a bathroom prop bet (kind of nasty).
2. Coffee cup and two quarters prop bet.
3. Tire iron prop bet (not the 4-way tire iron, the angled tire iron)
etc...
Mike's ad hoc "stop sign" prop bet was utterly reasonable, and should have gone according to his plan - just watching the next driver and their pedestrians at the corner for a minute or so, until "Judge judy" got creative.

Oh, I'll review the drink and the hat. As much ethics as math....give me a half-day actualy....

Quote: MathExtremist

How do you rule on the drink under the hat bet?

Answer: the marks takes NO action to win, since if he lifts his buddy's hat, allowing his buddy to grab his glass and drink - he loses.
He just smiles and drinks his own drink, enjoying his own drink, forcing his proposer to lift his own hat to get to his drink, especially if he continues to order and enjoy his own drinks - he thereby wins the bet by taking no action except by his own drink and winning.

In this case, NO ACTIVITY is the way to win by the rules of the "hat and drink" prop bet. One may argue by propelling the mark to take action on his buddy's hat, then the bet is unfair, and should not be paid. But it must, by the rules of that trick: Lift your buddy's hat, - you lose, as you allow him to access his drink without touching his hat. Drink your own drink, and wait it out with a smile, and force your buddy to lift his hat to get to HIS drink while you leave him alone and belt some down - you win.

In Mike's case, it's very similar: force a no-action (let's say, remaining a no-action observer) you lose, because in a quiet surbarban area the next driver will almost certainly do a roll-through with no cops or pedestrains, but become a pro-active pedestrian by taking action - as a pedestrian - a legal act - the judge wins. She actually did, in a very similar way - by taking the no-action versus pro-active response - to win the bet.

Edit: Stacy, you actually gave a remarkable example to compare Mike's situation to: a legal "no action" or legal "pro-action" to win or lose the bet, very equivelant.
That's the gimmick of the prop bets - and Mike's mark had gotten it right.
But in both cases a misdeal can be called, because you're either prompted to action ("lift your buddy's hat to see and lose") or pro-action ("stand on the corner and watch with no action and lose") - and Mike's bet was tougher to win - because you have to be legally pro-active to win. And she was.

On these types of prop bets, the proposer is always expecting the mark to miss the solution, and always cries foul if the mark finds the answer to win the bet legally. Still. call it a misdeal to keep the peace.

Oh!
What if the "hat drink" proposer - while waiting to see if he can get his mark to lift his hat to get to his drink - asks the bartender or another patron to lift his hat - and he gets to his drink without lifting his hat all day long collecting money. He still wins by the rules of the game, the prop bet. He gets to his drink while never lifting his own hat to do so all day long, and while collecting money from suckers.

And if a mark came in with a rubber mouse, aware of the situation, and dropped it on his bet-proposer's hat, saying, "HOLY shit - there's a Freakin' MOUSE on your hat!"
forcing the bet proposer to grab his hat and lose the bet, well...the mark wins by strategy, too.

Prop bets can get this ridiculous, and if you're going to propose them or be a mark yourself, you gotta take money or pay money, thankful for the education.

If you want fair and consistent rules, go to the Cannery casino and play freakin' EZ Pai Gow.

Quote: Paigowdan

and Mike's mark had gotten it right.

But she wasn't a 'mark'. This implies that Mike had a
trick up his sleeve, that he was was trying to fool her.
It was a straight up friendly bet, no illusions, no trick
answers. It wasn't a riddle. She lost because she either
she didn't understand the spirit of the bet, or she
did understand, and chose to violate it. In either case,
she lost.

BOB -
SHE WAS A MARK. Okay...
Definition of a mark:
1. A person who accepts to enter into a "proposition" bet of a non-standard or "ad hoc" nature, in which:
2. There is no way to regulate or to enforce the result of that bet, or to determine the parameters of said wager - aside from the good-faith agreement of the betting parties involved.

Edit: In this particular case, Mike elected to submit the issue for review by a mix of gamblers and casino agents for consideration of such a public forum.
To his CREDIT.

Edit 2: Mike did have a trick up his sleeve: he thought he had a reasonable shot of winning said prop bet (which he absolutely did have), and as a gambling man, he gave it a go, and as did his mark, who openly said to him, basically "very fine - I'm in!" The prop bet was a go, it had a dispute as to its resolution, and he asked us all to debate it - which BOY did we do!

Quote: Paigowdan

Definition of a mark:
1. A person who accepts to enter into a "proposition" bet of a non-standard or "ad hoc" nature, in which:

You made that up. If you didn't, give the source. Here's
the real definition:

"A person who is the intended victim of a swindler; a dupe."

She was neither of these. I would think Mike thought he had
a 50/50 chance of winning, thats the case with most of these
bets. He had no intention to dupe her, as she did to him.

I'd buy you both a cup of strong coffee at the nearest dining establishment.

Quote: EvenBob

You made that up. If you didn't, give the source. Here's
the real definition:

"A person who is the intended victim of a swindler; a dupe."

She was neither of these. I would think Mike thought he had
a 50/50 chance of winning, thats the case with most of these
bets. He had no intention to dupe her, as she did to him.

No Bob, it isn't.

A "mark" is someone who accepts a proposition bet, a personal proposition bet.
That's it.
I might be a mark. I'm in Brookeland Texas on vacation with a degenerate gambling friend of mine (he admits it) - and I JUST enough gas on my rented Chevy Aveo to get back to Houston International airport. A half-tank is 160 miles, (the same distance to Houston) and I want to return it with the tank empty to maximize my "pre-paid" fuel refill when I turn the rental car back in at Houston.

The prop bet is this:
For $500, if I get there without re-fueling, bringing the car back with perhaps 4 ounces of gas in the tank, I win $500.
Stop for gas, to prevent getting stuck and missing my flight, I lose $500.
I CAN use strategy: instead of driving 75 MPH with the flow of traffic with the air conditioning on (it is Texas in August), I can drive at 55 mph on cruise control with the windows closed in the heat and probably make it. (to reduce air resistance and really get its rated MPG).
Using the strategy (by me as a mark) is not cheating.
Taking this bet is retarded: I might miss my flight, I'll suffer, it's a stupid thing to do.
But I can use the extra 5 bills.
I take the bet - I'm a mark.
If I drive slow, with NO Air Conditioning - as a strategy - I am NOT cheating...

Again:
1. I take the bet - I am a mark.
2. I use a strategy on an ad hoc prop bet - I am not a cheat.
And verification of the bet - it's personal good faith between me and a friend.

What to do...

Quote: Paigowdan

No Bob, it isn't.

A "mark" is someone who accepts a proposition bet.

Says who? Thats ridiculous. Accepting a prop bet doesn't mean
someone is going to be swindled or duped. Prove it. You're
making it up because you can't stand that the Wiz was right
and you'll go out on any limb to prove he was wrong.

Quote: zippyboy

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

Likewise. I thought it was long enough at 7 pages. Now it's 17, and counting...

Do we have a bet for how many pages it will go for? Of course, the precondition is that neither of us is permitted to post in order to extend it nor begin an unreasonable discussion or flaming war that will have the thread prematurely locked. Lol. I'm kidding about the bet, by the way. I just couldn't resist the analogy.

Quote: dictionary.com

mark definition

n. a dupe; a victim selected for a theft or a swindle. (Underworld.) : I bumped the mark on the shoulder, and he put his hand on his wallet just like always.

By that definition of "mark," which is also how I understand the term, I resent the other party being referred to as a mark. I make up bets off the top of my head and always give the other party the opportunity to negotiate odds. Usually it takes a while to find an agreeable bet. Most of the time I perceive a small advantage only, as I'm sure the other party perceives against me. I would not accept a wager that I knew was unfair in my favor, without at least professing to the other party why I felt so. So, no, I don't consider the other party to be a victim.

Example: Last night I bet a friend that the cocktail waitress would name under six of the seven drawrfs in under a minute. She got all seven in 15 seconds, so I lost and paid up. Probably a bad bet on my part.

I vowed not to come back to this thread but here I am [g]

do you think there is a certain level of *known* +EV at which it is no longer acceptable to bet with friends? acquaintances?

for example we were just discussing on another thread a bet in which, for a pays-even bet, one side knows the odds are 56% the event will happen, which I believe is a 12% edge for that side. Unethical?

Quote: Wizard

Example: Last night I bet a friend that the cocktail waitress would name under six of the seven drawrfs in under a minute. She got all seven in 15 seconds, so I lost and paid up. Probably a bad bet on my part.

Terrible bet. I'd guess that over 80% of CWs under the age of 30 have seen all the classic Disney movies, and probably many of the more recent ones. There are some good trivia questions to be had there, like "What are the names of the wicked stepsisters and stepmother from Cinderella," but the seven dwarfs is too easy.

Quote: odiousgambit

do you think there is a certain level of *known* +EV at which it is no longer acceptable to bet with friends? acquaintances?

for example we were just discussing on another thread a bet in which, for a pays-even bet, one side knows the odds are 56% the event will happen, which I believe is a 12% edge for that side. Unethical?

With the kinds of bets I make I would never know exactly my odds of winning. However, for the sake of argument, if I knew my odds were 56% then I would disclose that. If my opponent still wanted the bet, I would accept it.

A story comes to mind. I was at a party at a friends house that was one house away from the Los Angeles County/Orange County border. I knew this because my friend's parents lied about the street number so that he could go to the better Orange County schools. Somehow the topic of conversation came up about where the county line border was and another guy disagreed with where I put it, and he challenged me to a bet. I warned him that I was about 97% sure I was right, and hated to take his money. However, he said he felt he was just as sure he was right and accepted the wager. Turns out I was right, I was paid, and I didn't feel badly about it because I warned him before the bet was made.

Quote: MathExtremist

Terrible bet. I'd guess that over 80% of CWs under the age of 30 have seen all the classic Disney movies, and probably many of the more recent ones. There are some good trivia questions to be had there, like "What are the names of the wicked stepsisters and stepmother from Cinderella," but the seven dwarfs is too easy.

I agree. It just goes to show that the other party in this case was not a "mark." He got the better of me on that one.

Quote: Wizard

For example, I take all games very seriously (including non-gambling games like chess), and view my opponent as the enemy, even my kids. I never ever let them win and always give them my best game.

For me, this answers the question.

I have a friend who is very physically oriented. He played football in high school, and even though that was 20+ years ago, he still thinks of himself as being some sort of prime physical specimen. As such, any contest with him that involves physical actions are lost causes. Not because he will win every time. He might win 95% of the time. But if he loses, he either becomes extremely irate and unpleasant, or insists on repeating the contest until he wins.

One such example occurred at the arcade at the New York New York casino in Las Vegas. Upstairs in the arcade, there is a "whack-a-mole" game, although I'm sure that's not what it is called. My physical friend, another friend, and I were there, and decided to play. I won. My physical friend could not handle this. After all, he is definitely stronger than I am. So we played again. And I won. At this point, the third friend dropped out. But my physical friend insisted on playing again. And again. And again. He kept insisting that since he is stronger than me, he should be able to beat me at the game. I tried explaining to him that physical strength had a lot less to do with "whack-a-mole" than hand-eye coordination and good reflexes. He wouldn't listen. And since he was paying for the games, we kept playing.

In total, only because I counted and because I was amazed at how absurd the whole thing was, we played 28 games. I finally let him win. Of course, he finally felt vindicated in beating me, "as it should be".

The point of the story is that I know not to get into physical contests with the guy. Not necessarily because I can't beat him, and most of the time, especially if it does have to do with strength, I can't beat him. But because of his attitude toward the contest, and his insistence of always having to win, and being a sore loser.

I don't think the Wizard is any of those things. However, you would think, that if somebody has known him for quite a while, and been a long-term friend of him, that the person would know how he treats bets or contests or games.

I've never met him, and prior to reading this thread, I wouldn't know anything about how he handles bets, even friendly bets. Thus, if he made a bet with me about someone coming to a stop at an intersection, I might, in the interest of being clever, do something similar. Once I see that the car isn't going to stop, I just out in front of the car. (Now, me personally, I would laugh it off, admit that I lost the bet, and that I was only being goofy by what I did, and pay up. But that's irrelevant to my point.) You see, I would just think of it as being something funny or stupid to do.

However, NOW, knowing how he feels about bets, I wouldn't do this. I would know that he takes such things fairly seriously, and that it should be treated as such.

So, if the bet is made with a person who doesn't know how the Wiz feels about these things and the way he treats bets, then an argument could be made for that person. However, if the person does know the Wiz and has been friends with him for a while, then that person should definitely know better, and in that case, I would side with the Wiz.

Just for the record, I think I'm a good loser. When I lose I congratulate the winner. I'm not one to make excuses for it. If it was close I will probably ask for a rematch. Recently my daughter has been surpassing me at all kinds of Wii games, and it makes me proud.

About Whack-a-mole, I wonder if there is a pattern in that game.

I concur that in the case of the original issue, a person knowing the Wizard should have realized the move was off limits.

Quote: Wizard

About Whack-a-mole, I wonder if there is a pattern in that game.

it reminds me of some pretty strong guys who kept losing at the contest of sawing through a log with a two-man saw. If they do it wrong, a pair of normal strength guys can beat them every time. The trick is the saw is designed to be *pulled* for effect only, and not knowing this wears out the other guys. I have seen this played out to hilarity.

Quote: odiousgambit

I concur that in the case of the original issue, a person knowing the Wizard should have realized the move was off limits.

Ridiculous assumption in gambling - that a particular strategy usage - as an important ground rule - is disallowed without mention whatsoever.
Guaranteed it will come up as an issue - and boy has it.
By the way, the usage of the word mark means askee, with no malice. I'm a mark on the bet I mentioned. Sitting shotgun in a car means the front passanger seat, doesn't mean I'm Jesse James.

Quote: odiousgambit

I vowed not to come back to this thread but here I am [g]

do you think there is a certain level of *known* +EV at which it is no longer acceptable to bet with friends? acquaintances?

for example we were just discussing on another thread a bet in which, for a pays-even bet, one side knows the odds are 56% the event will happen, which I believe is a 12% edge for that side. Unethical?

Not unethical in a prop bet. When proposed a bet you say yes, or you say no. The odds are can be usurious, but any result may happen, and we enter into a gambling transaction with risk. Ideally we should have a strong grasp of the odds, but cannot always. Just decide to bet or not bet without a guilt trip, and within your limits. If you're a gambler, you are responsible for your knowledge.

Quote: Paigowdan

By the way, the usage of the word mark means askee, with no malice.

Show the dictionary definition. Give a source.

Quote: EvenBob

Show the dictionary definition. Give a source.

No. Why? I was very clear how it was used, and how it was meant. If I take a prop bet, I say, "Fine, it's a bet, I'm your mark," and either watch the bet unfold, or take action to try to win the bet. This is an unimportant issue that is tangent to the issue of this thread. We may also say "cage" instead of cashier, shotgun seat instead of "right fromt passenger side," "Chip" instead of "Check," what have you. To argue about a meaningless diversion instead of discussing the point of the thread is a waste. The issue of this thread concerns the ground rules of ad hoc prop bets and the scenario that Mike described.

The derogatory term "mark" goes back at least a hundred years to the carnival midway games that came through the towns with the traveling circus. Then, as now, many carny games were rigged and couldn't be won. When a dishonest game operator was able to keep an ignorant local farmboy playing his game, he would pat the local on the back leaving a chalk "mark" on his back, and thereby alert other colleagues that this boy is easily duped. He was marked.

Quote: Paigowdan

No. Why? I was very clear how it was used, and how it was meant. .

You're the only one who uses it that way, I
can't find one example of anybody else
doing it. And apparently neither can you.
Obviously you're doing just what the judge
did to win, making up your own rules to
win the argument. You're your own mark..

Where Marks Hang Out


(I loved that show)

This morning my friend was complaining to me about a traffic ticket he got last night. He was caught 'not coming to a complete stop' at a stop sign. He said nobody comes to a complete stop. I bet him if we went to an intersection a car would come to a complete stop.... It didn't... I am now recovering from the broken hip as the car chose to run me over.... (joking)

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.

Good for you!

Quote: Wizard

By the way, we did more prop bets the next day without any disputes.

Im surprised you were ok betting with her again.

Also, you said that the result was that she paid you. I'm confused why she paid you. How did you win?

Quote: SOOPOO

This morning my friend was complaining to me about a traffic ticket he got last night. He was caught 'not coming to a complete stop' at a stop sign. He said nobody comes to a complete stop.

As I've mentioned before on the board I am very anal-retentive. Not only do I often drive the 35 mph speed limit on cruise control to make sure not to go over but I am someone who actually does come to a complete stop at stop signs. I also do it when I come to a red light before making a right-hand turn (as the law indicates, at least here in California).

Wanna hear a joke?

A lawyer runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a Sheriffs Deputy. He thinks that he is smarter than the Deputy because he is sure that he has a better education. He decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the deputy's expense.

Deputy says, "License and registration, please."

Lawyer says, "What for?"

Deputy says, "You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign"

Lawyer says, "I slowed down, and no one was coming."

Deputy says, "You still didn't come to a complete stop. License and registration, please."

Lawyer says, "What's the difference?"

Deputy says, "The difference is you have to come to a complete stop, that's the law. License and registration, please!"

Lawyer says, "If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration and you give me the ticket, if not you let me go and no ticket."

Deputy says, "Exit your vehicle, sir."

At this point, the deputy takes out his nightstick and starts beating the ever-loving snot out of the lawyer and says "Do you want me to stop or just slow down?"

Hahahahaha!:D

Quote: HotBlonde

Not only do I often drive the 35 mph speed limit on cruise control to make sure not to go over

* potential future resident of Florida.

Quote: rxwine

* potential future resident of Florida.

??? I don't understand.

Oh, like I'm an old person. Ok, I get it now. :)

Quote: HotBlonde

A lawyer runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a Sheriffs Deputy. He thinks that he is smarter than the Deputy because he is sure that he has a better education. He decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the deputy's expense.

Deputy says, "License and registration, please."

Lawyer says, "What for?"

Deputy says, "You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign"

Lawyer says, "I slowed down, and no one was coming."

Deputy says, "You still didn't come to a complete stop. License and registration, please."

Lawyer says, "What's the difference?"

Deputy says, "The difference is you have to come to a complete stop, that's the law. License and registration, please!"

Lawyer says, "If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration and you give me the ticket, if not you let me go and no ticket."

Deputy says, "Exit your vehicle, sir."

At this point, the deputy takes out his nightstick and starts beating the ever-loving snot out of the lawyer and says "Do you want me to stop or just slow down?"

Hahahahaha!:D

Hahahaha! That is funny. A laywer would know better than to argue with the cops, though. You can't win with them. Save it for the courts :)

Quote: EvenBob

You're the only one who uses it that way, I
can't find one example of anybody else
doing it. And apparently neither can you.
Obviously you're doing just what the judge
did to win, making up your own rules to
win the argument. You're your own mark..

No, Bob:
1. I use it all the time on prop bets I make (usually with friends from Texas), generally noticing that there are no "Heaven's to Mergatroid - I have the VAPORS" sentiment expressed when we dare someone "You wanna be a mark? Here's the bet...."
2. I don't make up rules - I stick to the parameters of the bet going into that bet, and if no parameters stipulated you can't use a clever strategy, good for you - it is part of the game. If rules were claimed AFTER the bet resolves that were NOT a part of the ground rules going into the bet - now that I view as the made-up part. "You used inventiveness and your wits to win the prop bet! Not fair! It's against our gentlemanly rules, a silent understanding!" This I can't buy. I don't care, really, how others handle their prop bets' resolutions - just expressing an opinion here.

I like marks. I frequently eat them for lunch.

I also use the cruise control in 35mph speed zones. I pass through a couple of such zones on the way to the office, one of which is a four lane road, and both are frequently monitored. Cruise control is the only way I can maintain such a slow speed.

Just to be clear, I use the work "mark" to mean a small round citrus fruit. I prefer the large seedless ones from California with the thick rind that are easy to peal.

I use "marks" for my grades at school. Got good marks for some classes, bad marks for others.
Also use them to describe someone who takes on a prop bet.

Quote: kp

I also use the cruise control in 35mph speed zones.

H-Hey! Me likes!!

Quote: Wizard

If you were the third party what would you do?

The implication, when making the wager, is that there will be no interference by the bettors. This would be comparable to a person making a wager on the outcome of a collage basketball game and then convincing one of the players on the team bet against to throw the game (either by money, sex, blackmail, etc..).

Quote: s2dbaker

The implication, when making the wager, is that there will be no interference by the bettors.

Bravo! Thats really it in a nutshell. Thats the implication, the unspoken
understanding, that was violated here. Its really not any more complicated
than that.

Quote: kp

I also use the cruise control in 35mph speed zones.

I am scrupulous when it comes to traffic rules, except for certain speed limits.

Case in point, I travel daily, at least twice a day, through a residential neighborhood that reduced speed to 40 kph (around 25 mph) in the main avenue for no good reason at all. Such streets usually have a limit of 60 kph (about 37 mph). Thing is even the police don't respect that limit; it's absurd.

Other than that, if I had a nickel for every idiot who honks his horn at me when standing on a red light, I could afford first class travel to Vegas twice a year. Really.

Sorry to wake up an old thread, but some of the Isla Vista shootings took place right by the intersection where this bet took place. The convenience store you probably saw on the news was just a few small stores away.

I might also add the shooting happened on my birthday.

She interfered. At the very least, all bets are off.

Were I the judge, she would have to pay.

ETA - didn't notice this was a 3YO thread when I replied. Doh!

Quote: Wizard

Sorry to wake up an old thread, but some of the Isla Vista shootings took place right by the intersection where this bet took place. The convenience store you probably saw on the news was just a few small stores away.

I might also add the shooting happened on my birthday.

Crazy coincidences. Fortunately the shooter hadn't gone off the deep end by that point in his life.

She opened up a can of worms. You can make a bet saying a man would grope her in the next twenty minutes. You squeeze you win right?

Quote: TerribleTom

ETA - didn't notice this was a 3YO thread when I replied. Doh!

I didn't either and looked for the "payoff in chippies" choice but this was before the time that currency became vogue on this site.