Legality of friendly bets and home poker games
October 17th HotBlonde Weight Loss Challenge Weigh-In:
| Attending | Maybe Attending | Not Yet Responded | Not Attending |
|---|---|---|---|
| HotBlonde | AcesandEights | lucyjr | LarsLarson |
| Wizard | Golfbuddy | vegas | Sami B. |
| SOOPOO | SOOPOO's lady friend | sunrise089 | texasplumr |
| Switch | Jennifer** | Catherine** | ConsultantDave |
| rdw4potus* | Denise** | Avery** | SportingGoodsMike |
| Raquel** | Dad | ||
| Zerina** | Mission146 | ||
| thecesspit | |||
| Nareed | |||
| buzzpaff | |||
| teddys | |||
| pacomartin | |||
| DJTeddyBear | |||
| FrGamble |
*October 17th is his birthday so it'll be a double celebration
**Personal friends/relatives of HotBlonde
Whether she wins or loses the bet: what can be done to compel payment if the loser simply refuses to pay?
Can this bet be legally enforced, and sued upon if not paid?
I think not: a welsher would likely have no consequences.
Other than opprobrium on this board, of course.
Quote: MrV
Whether she wins or loses the bet: what can be done to compel payment if the loser simply refuses to pay.
.
Say pretty please? Thats about your only recourse. The
loser is under no legal obligation to do anything.
Quote: Wizardeven members of the Supreme Court have a home poker game.
That's not helpful unless you know one personally on your way to court.
That's obviously one of the driving reasons behind only Prop betting amongst people you know, or at a minimum, people with whom you have substantially the same network of acquaintances. Absent the threat of physical violence, it can be said that many people could theoretically make a bet in which they have no intention of paying if they lose, provided they do not plan to associate with that person/in that network again, so that's pretty much going to be honor system.
Quote: FleaStiffBenny Binion had a better collection rate than Sears did on the Sears card even though his debts were gambling debts .
I suspect "old school" methods of collecting gambling debts.
Quote: WizardI suspect "old school" methods of collecting gambling debts.
Not at all. Having your marker accepted there and paying it off really meant something. A man might try to evade other creditors and might not be able to look his wife in the eye but he always wanted to be accepted where it really counted. Not for nothing did that Salvation Army officer threaten Sky Masterson by promising to buzz it all over town that he had welched on a marker! Beside, in old Las Vegas ALL the casinos had better collection rates than credit card issuers did. Mob owned or not. In the old days, the call was "Gentlemen, Belly Up To The Bar" and if a man tried to line up with the rest of the room but a brace of bouncers forced him away in disgrace it was almost as bad as "Getting The Bum's Rush" at a tavern's Free Lunch. The rules were few... but they had clout! A man's marker really meant something and even hobos carried a piece of chalk to "chalk a man up" when he needed it.
Quote: DocWell, Wizard, let's see.
In the past month, there have been six suspensions of members, with each being due to a personal insult having been hurled. What could have stimulated such a sudden hostile environment here? Let's examine the six cases and where each insult was delivered:
Nareed: in a private message that I highly suspect came out of Thursday's interactions in the Hot Blonde Challenge thread.
MrV: in the Hot Blonde Challenge thread.
MakingBook: in the Hot Blonde Challenge thread.
kewlj: in a political thread.
Fleastiff: in the Hot Blonde Challenge thread.
Zippyboy: in a collection of posts later split off from the Hot Blonde Challenge thread.
It strikes me that there is only one thread around here in which members are really nasty and insulting to each other. About nine hours ago, I made a post in the Private Messages thread in which I asked the question, "Is there some cutoff such that after so many members have been suspended due to comments in a single thread that the thread itself should be suspended?"
Now our host seems concerned instead that the thread has gone quiet. I just dunno.
Don't forget NewAP and some other new account he tried to sneak past the Wizard
Quote: WizardIllegal debts are not legally enforceable. Even friendly bets among friends are not legal, and thus the loser is completely on the honor system to pay up. Lest you think I'm incrimating myself, even members of the Supreme Court have a home poker game.
As an attorney, I had to look up your claims Wizard - as I have always known that it is a state issue of whether "friendly" or "social" bets are legal - here is a chart (one of many that can be found online) outlining (with links) each state's laws on social gambling
LINK TO THE CHART
Quote: aceofspadesAs an attorney, I had to look up your claims Wizard - as I have always known that it is a state issue of whether "friendly" or "social" bets are legal - here is a chart (one of many that can be found online) outlining (with links) each state's laws on social gambling
LINK TO THE CHART
Hi Ace.... Chuck's chart is quite nice. But a prohibition is only as relevant as its actual enforcement. FWIW, social gambling is alive and well in the states I hold a law license for... KS and MO... ;-)
That said, I would never attempt a legal action in either state to collect a friendly gambling debt.
Quote: midwestgbQuote: aceofspadesAs an attorney, I had to look up your claims Wizard - as I have always known that it is a state issue of whether "friendly" or "social" bets are legal - here is a chart (one of many that can be found online) outlining (with links) each state's laws on social gambling
LINK TO THE CHART
Hi Ace.... Chuck's chart is quite nice. But a prohibition is only as relevant as its actual enforcement. FWIW, social gambling is alive and well in the states I hold a law license for... KS and MO... ;-)
That said, I would never attempt a legal action in either state to collect a friendly gambling debt.
Hi Midwest - looks like we can start our own law firm - I will refer KS and MO cases to you and you can refer NY cases to me :)
Quote: aceofspades
The first item discussed, the dominant factor of chance, doesn't seem to apply here. I don't really think that anyone would interpret the amount of weight lost by an individual over nine months to really be dominated by chance.
Quote: aceofspadesQuote: midwestgbQuote: aceofspadesAs an attorney, I had to look up your claims Wizard - as I have always known that it is a state issue of whether "friendly" or "social" bets are legal - here is a chart (one of many that can be found online) outlining (with links) each state's laws on social gambling
LINK TO THE CHART
Hi Ace.... Chuck's chart is quite nice. But a prohibition is only as relevant as its actual enforcement. FWIW, social gambling is alive and well in the states I hold a law license for... KS and MO... ;-)
That said, I would never attempt a legal action in either state to collect a friendly gambling debt.
Hi Midwest - looks like we can start our own law firm - I will refer KS and MO cases to you and you can refer NY cases to me :)
Gotcha. Will PM you sometime!
Quote: aceofspadesAs an attorney, I had to look up your claims Wizard
Thanks! So, if social gambling is allowed in a given state would the small claims court entertain a gambling dispute that took place in said friendly poker game? I have never once heard of this happening, but don't claim to sit in on small claims cases on a regular basis.
Quote: WizardThanks! So, if social gambling is allowed in a given state would the small claims court entertain a gambling dispute that took place in said friendly poker game?
The standard way to settle a dispute in a "friendly poker game" is by shooting the dirty cheater.
ref: cowboy movies.
Quote: WizardThanks! So, if social gambling is allowed in a given state would the small claims court entertain a gambling dispute that took place in said friendly poker game? I have never once heard of this happening, but don't claim to sit in on small claims cases on a regular basis.
I have never heard of this either as I am not sure friends want to testify against each other and waste time dragging their other friends in as witnesses. However, stranger things have happened...you would have to either have your attorney or ask the Judge to issue a subpoena ad testifcandum forcing your friends to testify. Whether their memory will be faulty at that point in time is something I would not bet against!
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 463.361 to 463.366, inclusive, and 463.780, gaming debts that are not evidenced by a credit instrument are void and unenforceable and do not give rise to any administrative or civil cause of action.
Quote: aceofspadesI have never heard of this either as I am not sure friends want to testify against each other and waste time dragging their other friends in as witnesses. However, stranger things have happened...you would have to either have your attorney or ask the Judge to issue a subpoena ad testifcandum forcing your friends to testify. Whether their memory will be faulty at that point in time is something I would not bet against!
I'm not an attorney, but would a Court actually get involved with anything having to do with a bet or Poker game, or what have you? They're not the gaming commission, and my guess would be that, unless a State has laws specifically regulating the actual game/betting, then the Judge would hesitate to get involved. My speculation on this would be that someone who lost in the game simply could not sue the host for losing.
If you will peruse 55-9-2, here:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/West-Virginia/
That's the West Virginia law on unauthorized gambling. It basically says that the loser can sue the winner for what he lost which is because, pursuant to your link, West Virginia is actually one of the states in which friendly gambling is illegal.
It is for this reason that in State where friendly gambling is legal, (with parameters to the amounts one is permitted to lose to another per twenty-four hours, if applicable) the loser cannot recover that which he lost from the winner.
I still think the Court would hesitate to get involved when it comes to allegations like bottom-dealing, card-stacking, etc.
Quote: Mission146http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/West-Virginia/
That's the West Virginia law on unauthorized gambling. It basically says that the loser can sue the winner for what he lost which is because, pursuant to your link, West Virginia is actually one of the states in which friendly gambling is illegal.
It is for this reason that in State where friendly gambling is legal, (with parameters to the amounts one is permitted to lose to another per twenty-four hours, if applicable) the loser cannot recover that which he lost from the winner.
I didn't follow the link or read anything further, but this (bold text) seems inconsistent. You can sue but cannot recover?
Quote: DocQuote: Mission146http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/West-Virginia/
That's the West Virginia law on unauthorized gambling. It basically says that the loser can sue the winner for what he lost which is because, pursuant to your link, West Virginia is actually one of the states in which friendly gambling is illegal.
It is for this reason that in State where friendly gambling is legal, (with parameters to the amounts one is permitted to lose to another per twenty-four hours, if applicable) the loser cannot recover that which he lost from the winner.
I didn't follow the link or read anything further, but this (bold text) seems inconsistent. You can sue but cannot recover?
I just bolded a little more text to answer your question :)
Furthermore, what if it is in dispute who is the "winner" of a bet. Assume the disputed money is held in escrow by a neutral party until the courts decide who should have won.
Quote: weaselmanI just bolded a little more text to answer your question :)
Quote: WizardI'm still confused. According to my interpretation you can sue in West Virginia where friendly gambling is illegal, and not in other states where it is legal. This would make sense to me if it were the opposite.
I think I see it based on His Excellency's further highlighting: If wagering is illegal, a loser can sue to get his/her money back, since it was not taken legally. If wagering is legal, you just plain lost, so don't go crying to the court about it.
This doesn't directly address the issue of what happens when a loser refuses to pay.
Quote: WizardI'm still confused. According to my interpretation you can sue in West Virginia where friendly gambling is illegal, and not in other states where it is legal. This would make sense to me if it were the opposite.
Furthermore, what if it is in dispute who is the "winner" of a bet. Assume the disputed money is held in escrow by a neutral party until the courts decide who should have won.
Exactly what Doc said, to the first part. I'm not sure why the WV court would get involved with money taken during the commission of an illegal act, when the loser was also committing the same illegal act, but that's apparently what is on the books.
There is a Hell of an advantage play, if someone wanted to be a real tool, and risk getting killed. (I wouldn't do it):
1.) Find someone and schedule Heads Up No Limit Hold 'Em with them, just the two of you.
2.) Try to win.
3.) As soon as you lose for the first time, get the winner to sign something stating, "I won 1k from so-and-so," tell him you need it for your wife because she's going to think you were at the strip club and wonder where your money went.
4.) Sue the guy.
5.) ???
6.) Profit.
*To the second part, if the money is held in escrow, then that person should be the final arbiter of who won the bet. I would think so, anyway. In the rare event that I have taken part in a Prop Bet in which there was a, "Holder," he would determine the winner, if it was disputed.
I suppose that a Court could adjudicate the winner of a Prop Bet. Small Claims certainly has adjudicated cases having to do with some sort of transaction between two people involving misrepresentation by one of the parties, or non-payment. I just don't know what the Court would do if the parties did not seem to agree exactly to the terms of the bet, it's a pretty simple matter to decide who won if the terms are agreed upon. The only time that I have ever had a problem in a Prop Bet is when (after the bet had been theoretically concluded) there was a disagreement on what the terms of the bet actually were. That's only happened once, and we both ended up calling it off and walking away thinking the other guy was a thieving jerk.
Quote: Mission146I suppose that a Court could adjudicate the winner of a Prop Bet.
Then why do you never see that on the People's Court, or any other of the other copycat shows?
Quote: WizardThen why do you never see that on the People's Court, or any other of the other copycat shows?
Um...
Not exciting enough for TV maybe.
Quote: WizardThen why do you never see that on the People's Court, or any other of the other copycat shows?
I was being literal about, "Could," I don't know that it has ever actually happened that way. I would also suggest that the vast majority of Prop Bets are settled out of Court, the terms of a Prop bet should really be as simple as possible. For example, the HB Prop is pretty simple, and there has already been some discussion as to whether or not SOOPOO must be present at the weigh-in if you are not available.
The vast majority of Prop Bets are if x, then y, if a, then b. (Y and B being the payments) There's usually not much room for disagreement, and in the event someone fails to pay, I would imagine that most people just assume that they don't have a legal right to collect, even if they live in a State in which they have a legal right to collect.
Furthermore, the terms of the bet are usually not evidenced in writing, and I would suppose they would have to be. Any given three people can conspire to say that I made x bet and lost when no such bet was ever made. The Plaintiff (one of the three people) has to prove the case, I would not, as the defendant, have to strictly disprove the case. They could have 100 people testify that I made the bet, and if that was all the, "Proof," they had vs. me denying making the bet, I'd probably win.
In the State of Ohio, audio recordings are legally admissible, so they could record the bet taking place whether it be audio or an A/V combination. However, they would very simply need something other than their testimony to prove I made the bet.
I'm on my home PC where FastCase runs slow as Hell, for whatever reason, right now. If I have some free time later, and it comes to mind, I will take a look for some cases involving a friendly wager in the State of Ohio. I don't promise anything. It would only pull Appeals cases, although, the proper venue for a Small Claims appeal in Ohio is the County Court of Common Pleas, so it should pull those. From there it would be appealed to a District Court of Appeals, and finally, the State Supreme Court.
I'm sure there has been such a case, at least once. If so, it will be easy to prove my assertion.
Quote: Mission146The vast majority of Prop Bets are if x, then y, if a, then b. (Y and B being the payments) There's usually not much room for disagreement,
I disagree. I've seen lots of disputed prop bets due to unforseen circumstances or different interpreations of the wording. Here are just a few I've been involved in that were argued here already.
1. A bet is made on whether the next car to approach a stop sign comes to a complete stop. The one betting the "yes," then deliberately walks in front of the car, forcing it to a complete stop.
2. A bet is made on the number of drinks ordered by three people on one side of an aisle of an airplane on a one-hour flight. The line is set at 2.5. The plane goes through rough weather and drink service is cancelled. Does the under win or no action?
3. Will Madonna wear fishnet stockings in the halftime show of the last Superbowl. She ended up wearing fishnet pantyhose. Do those count as stockings?
a) No provision was made about interference on the part of the betters. By strict wording, the car came to a stop. The spirit of the bet was violated, however.
b) Again, strict wording states the under wins. Spirit of the bet violated.
c) Strict wording says it wasn't stockings. Spirit of the bet was fishnet undies, etc, etc.
As an analogy on (a), at auctions, I will encounter somebody who notices something that has a value of around $500, then says something like it won't sell for more than $500. I tell them, I bet it will sell for at least $500, and I will bet them $500 that it does so. They take the bet. When the item goes up for auction, I yell out an initial bid of $500. I automatically win the bet. Further, if I'm the winner of the item, I get it essentially for free, which I can then turn around and sell for whatever price I can get for it. Obviously, the spirit of the bet is violated. But I give the person a fair chance to back out of their end of the bet. (Incidentally, nobody has ever actually taken me up on it. They usually see me grinning as my hand is out stretched and figure out what I'm going to do.)
Contracts have the same problem. That's why there are so many clauses in contracts these days. It's easy to find a loop hole to violate the spirit of the contract. A "gentlemen's handshake" is no longer sufficient for most people.
Years ago, my second cell phone contract was through Cricket. At some point, I forgot to get in to pay my bill, and my phone service was disconnected. I went in and paid my past due amount. They said I would have to pay a re-activation fee to re-start my service. I said I refused to pay said fee. They said, if I'm cancelling my contract, I will get charged a cancellation fee. I said, I'm not cancelling my contract, I'm perfectly willing to carry through my contract, I just refuse to pay a re-activation fee. The discussion pretty much ended in the store there. Cricket later contacted me by letter, stating that by refusing to pay the re-activation fee, they would have to cancel my contract, and charge me a cancellation fee. I responded with a nicely worded letter explaining that their very own contract stated, "If YOU (meaning the subscriber) cancel the contract, a cancellation fee will apply," and that since *I* wasn't cancelling my contract, but they were cancelling my contract, that said cancellation fee did not apply. I never got charged. I have noticed that since then, the contracts state "If the contract is cancelled for any reason, a cancellation fee will apply," or similar wording.
I was involved in grant contracts for a long time, and we spent the majority of the time looking for loopholes. For those of you that donate money to charities, I can tell you from first hand experience that they will do whatever they can to funnel that money to the areas they want, regardless of what you may want the money to be for. Even granted money, which comes with a contract of dozens of pages dictating how the money is to be spent, will eventually find a loophole so that the charity can use the money how *they* want, as opposed to how the granting agency wants. But even a personal donation is manipulated. The most common thing I would see is a check with a note or letter attached, "Please use this money for xyz," to which the official policy was, they used the word please, meaning it's a request, therefore we don't have to comply.
TL;DR: If you had a written out bet that a vehicle would come to a stop at a stop sign, and a member of the bet forced the vehicle to come to a stop, then the written agreement would probably be found standing in a court of law, assuming the court would adjudicate a bet in the first place.
