Big Ethical Debate Regarding Bellagio Bet

I would be very interested to know which side you would come down on regarding a controversial situation regarding two high rollers and a bet that one of them now says should be cancelled.

The Bellagio is holding a $10,000 buy in tournament a few days after the WSOP. One of the high limit players bet another that there would be less than 100 entrants. He laid $9000 to $6000. Two days ago, weeks after the bet was made, the Bellagio announced that they would guarantee a million dollar prize pool, meaning that they would have to kick in the difference if they got less than 100 entries. This clearly helps the "over" bettor but does not guarantee he wins it. The "under" bettor says the bet is void given this change to the tournament, adding that if an analogous change had been made that would have helped him rather than hurt him, he would have agreed to cancel that bet had he been asked to. The over bettor thinks that the number of entrants will be well over 100 and that he would have thus won even if there would have been no guarantee. He thinks the under bettor is trying to weasel out of a bad bet. He also says that the possibility of various enticements by the Bellagio was part of the reason he made his bet. The under bettor counters that a million dollar guarantee is more than just an enticement but is a major change in the rules that was not part of what he was betting on. He likens it to the Bellagio cutting the buy in in half to $5000 where presumably most would agree there is no bet since there is no 10K tournament.


What do you think?

it seems to me that in these types of situations the best thing to do would for these 2 guys to pick someone from their peer group that they both respect and agree to abide by what that person decides.


of course it may not be possible to find someone who will do this, but in any event if i were the person with the under, this would at least be my fallback position.


brad

David,


The bet should stand.


My reasoning has to do with sports betting. What would happen if a star basketball player that was responsible for making the most scores for the team gets injured during the first few minutes of the game and they have to take him to the hospital. Let's say the team before the game was a 2-to-1 favorite, but now they are a 3-to-1 dog. Do all the sports books let there customers cancel their bets?


That's why they call it gambling.


Furthermore, it is very common for casinos to make a guarantee to promote the event. I don't think the circumstances are unusual, so I think the under bettor used bad judgement and is trying to weasel out.


Good Luck


Mark

The under bettor is right. The proposition he bet on no longer exists.

I think this is what the economists call an "announcitory effect." Even if it goes over, the fact that they announced the possible jelly was enought to produce the over.

I'm a lawyer in Texas and my professional opinion is that I have no F*ing idea.


I feel that the bet should stand unless the over bettor was privy to some inside information. There are a million things that can affect a bet like this. You can't start picking and choosing which ones are serious enough to fundamentally change the bet.


A bet's a bet and shit happens. That would be my decision.

THE BET STANDS!!!

If he were betting on a quantity that originally were the product of something beyond human control, like a supernova, then I would say if by surprise people intervened, the bet might be off.


But the number of people he was betting were going to show was already a function of actions on part of Bellagio promoters. He was never making a bet on anything other than the ability of the Bellagio to attract entrants.


To me, the relationship between buy-in and numbers of entrants is by no means clear. But I would say if they ended up having to halve the buy-in, the guy betting fewer than 100 would show up to pay 10k and buy in would clearly have won!


In the end, he could not rationally assume the Bellagio would ever refrain from actions which would, in his view, invalidate the bet every single time. How can you make allowances for a guy who is stupid enough to think he is betting on something which doesn't exist?


eLROY

Bet stands.

Unless a "rule" specifying certain conditions was included when the bet was made, the bet must stand. To attempt to cancel it simply because a (stupidly) unforeseen situation arose is ludicrous. And to complain about it is worse.


He also says that the possibility of various enticements by the Bellagio was part of the reason he made his bet


Why else would somebody make that bet if not for the above reason? I've never been there but by all accounts the management of Bellagio are not light weights. They're going to stand back and watch their first big tournament fail? I think not.

they made the bet before the change. this was a possibility before the bet anyway. the fact that they didnt consider it shouldnt even matter. it couldve went either way. the bet stands. there were no exceptions for change put on it. if the "game' was already in progress as players had already signed up for the tourney, the bet is live. now if noone had signed up, only then may he have a case. its like a ballgame bet. the ballgame is the players signing up. if the ballgame started, good luck renegging on your bet then. same principle to me...


b

if there was no discussion about contingencies then the bet stands. this is not an unusual extraordinary development, on the contrary it is a relatively common practice that was forseeable to both parties at the time the bet was made. So without any agreement about such a contingency there can be no griping by the under bettor since he did not make any provisions to deal with a reasonably forseeable contingency.


You do not say who offered the bet and who accepted. Certainly if the under bettor offered the bet then he clearly has no claim to rescind the offer. Any ambiguities in the bet are his own fault, just as a contract is construed against the drafter (at least in new york). Either way I think the bet is still valid.


Pat

I feel that the bet should stand unless the over bettor was privy to some inside information.


This seems like the most reasonable position - and it's worth noting the caveat.


These guys are big enough bettors that the over bettor might just have had some inside scoop (lunch with Doug Dalton, whatever). And if he does, my sense of ethics (such as it applies here) is that the bet should be voided.


Other than that, he was simply more observant than the under guy about the possibility that the Bellagio would step in; bet stands.


Regards, Lee

If you are going to bring up a sports bet analogy, why don't you all use the correct one that applies to baseball totals. Whenever you make a bet on a baseball total, the pitchers for both teams ARE LISTED regardless of whether you want them listed or not. If one of them now fails to make his start, the total bet is void and the bet is refunded. The same is true if you bet a baseball side and list a particular pitcher that now doesn't make his start. I just have a problem with the over guy having privy to inside information that the under guy may not have had. Are you telling me that the under guy would still make this bet if he knew about the guarantee??? I think not. When the parameters of a bet change, the bet is null and void.

I have to say that there is a *really big* difference between a tournament with a $10K buyin and a tournament with a $10K buyin and a $1M guarantee. The guarantee will have a significant impact on players' decision to enter.


Personally, I think the bet should be voided.

Does anyone know how many people actually cough up the 10k fee for the WSOP main event (as opposed to qualifying in satellites) ?

I think, that the gauranteed million, materially changes the circumstances in which the bet was offered and I accepted and I would void the bet. I cannotr imagine the under bettor making this bet if he knew of or even reasonably suspected that the Belligio would make this kind of offer.

The most obvious reason this bet should not count is the simple fact that a guarantee of 1 million dollars has been added to the tournament. When the two players made the bet, the bet was on a tournament entry with no guarantee. Since now there is no tournament with no guarantee, there can no longer be a bet on this event because this event is not taking place. If the Bellagio had for some reason cancelled the tournament all together, would the under bettor declare a victory because there were zero entrants? In such a situation, I am sure the two bettors would have declared no bet, as I feel they should now as the event they origionally bet on has been changed.


This situation has already been likeded to a sports betting situation. Since one of the bettors laid more money, I liken this to a baseball bet, where a bettor lays more money on one team than the other, based on what particular pitcher is pitching. If a sports bettor lays 2 to 1 on Randy Johnson and then for some reason the team decided to start Rick Helling, the bet is cancelled (or a amended lay price is set by the casino if listed pitchers are not specified).


If it is decided that this bet has to stand, then at least the price laid needs to be changed. I do not know how much the million dollar guarantee would effect the lay price, but if someone can come up with a suggestion or a way to correctly adjust the lay price then this might be a possible solution as well.

Since neither person booking this bet seems to be a casino or similar entity all the sports book analogies are moot. All that matters is how the bet was worded. If it was as simple as David stated, the bet stands. If the over bettor had more information than the other bettor then "Thems' th breaks", the bet stands.


Titantic made a living hustling people on sure bets all his life. I believe I know how he would rule if asked to referee.


Jimbo

I am not saying that he could'nt of thought of it or even that he should not have thought of it but only that I do not believe that he did think of it and that it was a big enough change.


Look at it another way, what if the Bellagio had said this instead, we are taking 1000 out of everyones entry for administrative fees. There is no way that I would expect the over better to have to pay-off when no one entered.

What if you bet the O/U on the final game of the NBA finals and just before the game started the commissioner announced there would be a $1,000,000 bonus for the teams if they could score more points than the O/U because we all know offense makes for a more exciting game. Would your bet stand? Any bookie who let you bet the over would cancel your bet.

The bet should stand unless they had an agreement as to conditions of the bet that would render it void. This is part of the chance you take when you make a bet. You better make your "ifs" and "unless" conditions up front. Conditions can change. Changed conditions can favor either bettor. What if another casino decided to host a competing event at the same time? Should the bet be cancelled? Remember the admonition about the joker squirting cider in your ear?


Alden Chase (tyro)

If there was no clause in the bet agreed upon by both parties that if something significantly tainted the odds than the bet is off, otherwise its on... not very difficult. if it wasnt sklansky who posted this there would 1 response... so obvious come on dummies.


Obvious!

the outcome is unknown. the parameters are all 'reasonably' suspected (things that fall outside this reasonable suspicion are: bellagio burns to the ground, a crazy man with an uzi shoots registrants before tourney starts, tourney has exactly 100 registered and over-guy immediately signs up for a significantly reduced buy-in because of his automatic win of the side-bet, etc.)


just because a guy makes a bet and doesn't expect something to happen to change the outcome doesn't mean he should get to renege.


if you had quads on the turn and went all-in against a straightflush draw, and it got there, would you get your money back? fat chance...

There is nothing to discuss. The bet is on and the winner takes the money--period. If your word is no good, then you shouldn't open your mouth.

When we were nine years old and didn't like the way a game was going you simply called interference. Some high rollers these guys are. They bet a lousy 9 dimes ($90 to you and me) and they want to get out of it on a technicality. I can't believe this is something that is even being considered.


When I sell call options on a stock and the day before the options expire another company announced they are are going to take over the company on which I sold options--moving the price up 15 points...well...that is simply interference...and everyone knows you can cancel the bet.

Ha, ha good point about interference. When we were kids we just called "overs." Let's do it over. Nobody ever won. Well, the big kids won, or the biggest crybabies.


These "high rollers" and I use that term very loosely, should just call "overs," until one of them gives in.

A bet is a bet, there were no conditions attached prior to placing the bet. It should stand.

Unless they said the tournament should remain like it was on the day when they made the bet.


Where would you draw the line between what's acceptable and not when you haven't got an agreement on it?

What if you had quads on the turn and your opponent wasn't getting sufficient pot odds to call but suddenly the dealer said if he would draw at it and he hit the house would quarantee him a pot big enough to justify his call? Would you then have the right to pull your bet back?

the difference is that one is a common practice and is therefore reasonably forseeable. the other is not forseeable and has never happened. these things make a big difference. any reasonably forseeable contingencies should be addressed at the outset. if not then the ones that are not addressed are assumed to have no effect on the bet,in my view.


pat

they already do, its called a bad beat jackpot... by all means, it is +EV for me either way.

dealer can't do that. not 'reasonably forseeable'

David,


I find it completely unfair that you posted this question without consulting me. Jim Beam (not his real name)is now using the split nature of the responses to this question as grounds to cancel the bet. How could you post a question seeking arbitration, without consulting both parties.


First of all, your account of the bet is not correct and is one sided. Not surprising, as you only got one side of the story. The bet was made many weeks ago. And was very simple. Would the $10,000 tourney at the Bellagio have a hundred entrants? He layed me $9000 to $6000. I then tried to confirmed that I would win if there were exactly 100 entrants. He said that would be a push. I did not want to blow a sure thing over a technicality, so I agreed. I then pointed out to him that he better hope the number was less than 98, as I would put the needed people in the event to cash my bet. I felt that I would be able to overcome any disadvantage in the staking of players by earning the difference between winning and losing the bet, $15,000. He laughed, and did not object to the idea of me helping my own cause. A bet is a bet.


The notion that I had inside information is absurd and is not in dispute by either party. This piece of false information would have not been reported if you had talked to me first. If the Bellagio had any intention from the start to make a gaurantee, they would have done so right from the beginning. The reason they have put the gaurantee in, was to make a technical change in the tax status of the event. They now no longer have to issue W2G's. You will note that all of the Bellagio events now have gaurantees. The adding of the gaurantee was an unforseen event that did not occur to either of us at the time of the bet.


You have also noted that the gaurantee does not preclude him from winning. In fact, the last big gauranteed event, the Commerce $7500, fell short of the number by one.


Jim Beam points out that when he offered a doubling of the bet a couple of weeks ago, I declined. He offers this as proof that I had a bad bet and now am saved by the unfair gaurantee. I still loved my bet, but instead of diving in headlong, when something unknown to me might have negatively affected my bet, I waited. BTW, when did it become unfair to make a bad bet and get lucky? Also, the luck didn't have to go one way. What if there was a terrorist attack somewhere in the country a week before the event and no one wanted to travel? If this had happened, I would have payed. No questions, no attempts to settle.


There are only two scenarios where I would have considered the bet to be cancelled. If the buy-in were changed, as the buy-in was stated when the bet was made. Or if the event did not happen at all. There could not be a total of entrants in an event that did not exist.


It would have never ocurred to me to claim no bet if I had been on the other side of the bet. I would simply have chalked it up to making a bad bet, not taking into account the chance that this might happen. To this, he claims that he would not have accepted my payment if he found himself on the over. I find this hard to believe.


Also, even though I don't think it fair, I have offered arbitration. I have even offered to bet $5000 on the outcome of arbitration. He, of course, declined. I also think that even if I did know about this before hand, he would have to pay. The only difference would be that I had hustled him. I have been hustled countless times, and have never contested a bet.


The bottom line is this. In the immortal words of Doyle Brunson, "It takes two to make a bet, and it two to off a bet." This statement cannot be in dispute in the world of high gambling. Jim Beam is a professional, and when professionals disagree on something, they have it arbitrated. In all my years of gambling, I have never heard of a bet being cancelled over someone's objection without some kind of arbitration.


Of course, this is my side of the story, and I welcome Jim to come forward, identify himself, and tell his side. I somehow doubt this will happen, as I think he would lose the respect of the gamblers he most wants to get respect from, the professionals who have been around and found themselves on both sides of these freak situations.


Howard Lederer

Say you have quads on the turn and you know your opponent has an open end straight flush draw. You realize that the casino you are playing in gives a high hand bonus for any straight flush. Taking this in to consideration you realize that your opponent has more than the proper odds to draw at his straight flush, would you still bet?


I realize that the house does not change things in the middle of a hand, but speaking theoretically in the instance I mentioned in my last post you would demand to be able to retract your bet. In the instance above you might not bet.


But, the point I am trying to make is something happened after this bet was made, out of the control of the bettors that has a definitive impact on the outcome of the bet. It has changed the basis upon which the bet was made. If I was either party to this I would consider the bet null and void.


What about the post I made above, and I realize the scenario is farfetched, about the NBA finals? Any bookie anywhere would not allow your bet to stand. Because the commissioners actions would change the basis upon which the bet was made.


Just one inexperienced guys opinion.

I think it is more unfair for your opponent to use the responses here than it was for David to post it. (I don't think it was unfair for David to post it though. It may have been better if he consulted you, but that's between you two) Besides, a lot of the responses are on your side, so what does that get him? I can't imagine forum responses would affect how two big gamblers resolve a bet like this. I guess I just see David's post as more a general discussion than a request for "arbitration" on this forum.

Howard,


I find it really funny that you challenge "Jim" (and I know his real name so don't think I don't know him or his character) to post here. "Jim" never posts here, or does he even read this forum. You are calling him out in an attempt to make yourself look better, knowing full well he would never even read this or post here. You are taking a shot at him in that aspect, and are taking even more of a shot at him for DEMANDING that the bet stands after the conditions of the tournament have changed. I have known "Jim" for the better part of half of my live. I have never once known him to squelch on a bet, or pay off a losing bet. He is one of the few high limit players who I know to have honor, integrity, and a heart. He is 100 percent honest, fair, and one of the most decient people I have ever known or would ever want to know. This situation, however, is different. He is giving you plenty of notice on the changed conditions of the bet. It's not like there are 90 people signed up the day before the event and he wants to back out. We are talking 6 weeks before this tournament will start, and at the time of the announcement that there would be a million dollar guarantee, and at the time he said no bet based on these changes, there was not one player signed up for this tournament.


David put it best when he stated: "But, the point I am trying to make is something happened after this bet was made, out of the control of the bettors that has a definitive impact on the outcome of the bet. It has changed the basis upon which the bet was made. If I was either party to this I would consider the bet null and void."


Even if I knew you and were frineds with you, I would stand behind my opinion of NO BET based on the fact that the tournament had been changed.


If you want to get technical, the event that you bet on (a $10,000 buy-in event) will have zero entrants, and "Jim" should win because zero entrants will play that tournament. Instead, there will be a $10,000 buy-in with a million dollar guarantee, and you two never made a bet on that event.


And one other thing you said that I do not agree with is when you said that "Jim" was using these posts as a grounds to cancel the bet. You are 100 percent incorrect in that statement. "Jim" is using the fact of a million dollar guarantee being added to the tournament as grounds to cancel the bet, not because of the opinions of others who posted here.


BTW, I was going to play in this event, but now I am not going to, as an attempt to keep the amount of entrants under 100. Nothing I would like more than for you to force "Jim" into keeping this bet with the changed parameters, and you still lose and have to pay it off.

While opinions are split about whether or not the bet should stand, it seems to me that the weight of opinion is on the side of the bet standing. (As I said above, personally I thing the bet should be cancelled.)


But if "Jim Beam" is using these discussions as "proof" that the bet should be cancelled, well, it ain't -- it's just a bunch of gamblers with opinions shooting their mouths off.


Take the bet to arbitration. If "Jim Beam" won't take it to arbitration, then the opinion of this particular gambler shooting his mouth off is that the bet ought to stand, even though, were I the arbitrator, I would cancel the bet.

CardNut,


I will address each one of your points in order.


1. You state that he would not read or post here. He not only read these posts, he PRINTED out the ones that agreed with him and showed them to people at the Bellagio.


2. You claim that I am taking a shot by DEMANDING that the bet stand. He his DEMANDING that the bet be cancelled. Since I am also willing arbitrate the dispute I would call the claim that I am DEMANDING that the bet stand as inaccurate.


3. You state that I am calling him out. Nothing could be further from the truth. "Jim" gave David permission to post the question. If David had asked me before posting, I would have asked him to keep this issue off the Internet. "Jim" is the one who made this a "public" dispute. I was simply willing to make my case and put my name to it.


4. Your statements about "Jim's" honor and integrity are ones I would have absolutely agreed with a week ago. Your statement about his good heart is one I would still agree with.


5. You say he is giving me fair notice by cancelling the bet weeks before the event. All he is doing, is telling me ahead of time, that he will welch on a bet that he now thinks he cannot win.


6. David's point about unforseen events carries absolutley no weight with me. When the bet was made, unforseen events could have gone either way. We did not make a bet with the provision that if something happened to make the bet unfair in the future there would be no action. Who would be the judge of what an unfair advantage is. When you keep the bet simple and clear as we did in this case, you should not have a problem like this.


7. Your technical argument that I should lose the bet, because there will be no entrants in the event we bet on, deserves no response. I assume you included it for some comic relief during your post.


8. You say that "Jim" was not using these posts as grounds to cancel the bet. You are simply wrong. He is using every argument he can think of, including the posts on this group.


9. BTW, I'm sure that the 150-200 entrants in the tournament will miss you.


Howard Lederer

High Desert,


My main objection to David's post is that I am indirectly quoted when he did not actually talk to me. David writes, "He also says that the possibility of various enticements by the Bellagio was part of the reason he made his bet." This certainly implies that he spoke to me which he didn,t. It is also completely untrue. Even "Jim" doesn't think I did this.


I really don't care that there is a difference of opinion on this group. I care that the opinions were based on inaccurate information. And those opinions are now being printed out and waved around the Bellagio as evidence that "Jim" is right.


Howard Lederer

Howard:


Had you made the bet with me there would be no discussion. The bet is on, and we'll see who wins.


Your buddy Jim Beam wouldn't last one day in the pit at the CME. You break your word one time and the other traders not only ostracize you, but you will probably get fined as well.


When you open your mouth in the pit a bet is a bet. We call them trades. You guys made a trade. In the business world it's called an oral contract. Oral contracts are binding.


The last guy that tried to weasel out of a bet at the Merc got knocked on his ass and thrown out of the pit. Oh yea, the trade stood. Traders here don't look too kindly on people that can't keep their word.


You're right, Howard and the bet should stand. I can't believe Sklansky would say otherwise. Remind me to never make a bet with him.


I used to come to Vegas for the World Series, and I've been in games and standing on the rail watching when Puggy Pearson did this welching routine more than once. I couldn't help but think to myself, "Who would even think about betting with this asshole?"


Good luck, buddy.

I can't believe your opponent is printing out the favorable responses. I'll keep him from printing this one out. Bet Stands.

Howard,

I think it is both noble and wise to post a response on this forum especially because of the unfavorable circumstances that brought this wager to public knowledge. You have been 110% right in all of you reasonings and have stated them in such a clear manner that it seems strange that anyone could argue these FACTS. I of course don't need to tell you any of this, but I think it would be interesting for you to print out a few of these type of responses just to even the score a bit around the Bellagio. I hope you can at least enjoy a sense of justice in knowing that you are right and hopefully the right actions will come to pass. wishing you the best with this one. J.Brown

well, if it were me, i wouldn't make bets like that unless it was friendly (i.e. with a friend) if something like that happened, it either wouldn't matter because the stakes were small and 'friendly' or we'd both consider the bet null and void because we're friends.


but it doesn't seem like this is the case here. seems like these 2 guys made a serious bet. no stipulations about things changing, etc.


in the situation described, i would probably still bet. it would depend on how likely i thought my opponent was to call (or even raise!) i don't let jackpot possibilities effect the play of a hand (with one exception. i will be willing to put in more bets with a non-nut hand that, if it loses, will qualify for the bad beat jackpot. i.e. - i have AcesFullOfTens and the board allows for quads or straightflush, will be a bit more aggressive when i encounter bettors. if the jackpot were not in effect, i might go 4 or 5 bets on the river, where if it were, id probably go from 7 to about 15 (depending on how maniacal my opponent was)) all in theory of course. ive never run into a jackpot hand yet.

well, i don't know the people involved in this bet, but it seems to have become more than expected. if i were to give you advice on this matter, id say you should call the bet off if your relationship with this person matters to you. if not, don't stoop to his level of campaigning for public opinion by printing out ou responses on here. its a dumb move in the first place, so don't follow suit. if the guy welches on this bet, don't ever bet with him again. i assume that the money you are betting is pretty inconsequential for both of you.

Howard,


I find this proposition bet interesting. Were there any provisions made when the bet was agreed on that would force the bet to be voided?


Not to be funny or anything, but I'd hate to be the guy that had breast implants, and then have someone welch on the bet after it was done. I've heard some of the strangest stories that have happened to be true. But, now since this story is public, it will make me think twice about side bets with anyone.


I would like to know the real story and outcome.


Anyway, I was playing a satellite a few years ago with a guy named Johnny Walker, and he told me Jim Beam was at the other table. I thought it was a joke.


Good Luck


Mark

Could he be privy to inside information? He just married one of the higher ups in that poker room. I guess it is possible LOL that he could have been privy to inside info. Plus Doug Dalton loves him because they juice Doug Dalton evertime a "whale" comes in and dumps a few milion. Remember the guy 6 months ago when they were playing 20-40k and 30-60k limit holdem? Doug always gets a piece.

Howard,


1. "Jim" did not print out the posts, they were printed out by someone (David I think, I did not ask who), and were given to him. He never reads these forums. I asked him what Two+Two was on the net and he had no clue what I was talking about.


2. I really don't see how you can fairly have this arbitrated, because most arbitrators would laugh at something as silly s this argument over a bet by word of mouth. If you would have put it in writing, then you might have a case.


3. You are blaming this thread on "Jim". He did not give permission to David to post here. David asked him if he cared if he posted, and "Jim" said no. I do not think you have to give David permission to post anything. He pretty much posts his opinion regardless.


4. No need to comment, we both agree.


5. The only reason "Jim" wants no bet is becasue the stipulations of the tournament prize has changed. There is no other reason. He was not winning or losing the bet at that time.


6. Obviously when you made it simple, you made room for something like this to happen. You ask who would be a judge of something like this then you say you want arbitration? Well, what is it? Make up your mind already.


7. Technically you lose. Pay up. Since the bet was simple and clear, there should be no argument for disputing this, tight? At least thats what you claim.


8. "Jim" has one simple arguemnt. The tournament entry has changed. I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOU STOP MAKING UP STUFF TO MAKE "JIM" LOOK BAD.


9. BTW, I hope you donate the money to charity when 75 people show up, and "Jim" refuses to take your money.

For those of you who will beleive anything printed, you can stop believing that "Jim" printed out the posts from here.


A third party printed them out and gave them to "Jim". "Jim" never reads this forum, and never has posted here.


Last time I was as his house, his computer was so dusty I wrote "WASH ME" on the computer monitor.

CardNut,


I have made nothing up. And "Jim" doesn't need any help making himself look bad on this issue.


The merits of who is right or wrong are no longer of consequence. The only issue is this. I am willing to arbitrate even though I think I am right. "Jim" is not willing to arbitrate. Arbitration is the ONLY solution in situations like this. And if "Jim" is unwilling to arbitrate, I can conclude that I misjudged his character all these years.


This has nothing to do with the money, it is now a matter of principal. You can disagree with me on whether the bet should stand, but saying that arbitration is not the answer, goes against all that I know to be ethical in gambling.


One more thing, you should be more careful about whom you accuse of being a shot taker. A charge I do not take lightly. I have taken no shot. I simply want something that approximates justice here.


Howard Lederer

it looks like your only recourse is to bad mouth 'jim' to his peer group.


the funny thing is that against civil people that this doesnt come naturally to, jim is pretty much on a freeroll.


brad

Howard, if you read my first post regarding this matter, I suggested as one possible solution to this an adjustment in the lay price (kinda like sportsbooks do when they have pitching changes), so I don't want you to think that I did not think that arbitration was not a possible solution, even though my opinion was to cancel the bet.


No matter what is said or discussed here, the only thing that really matters is what you and "Jim" ultimately decide upon. If it happens that "Jim" does back out of this bet entirely, all I ask is that you do not let this one situation sway you from your opinion of him and his character, as we had talked about before. I probably wouldn't like it if I were in your spot, but I wouldn't risk losing a friend over it.


This will be my last post regarding this matter, as I really do not want to be caught in the middle of it. There have been many things said and not said that I do not know the full extent of, so as far as I am concerned, this is the last of it for me.


I wish you the best in whatever happens with the bet, I apologize to you if I upset you in any way on here with my opinions, and I promise that you will never hear another word about it from me here or on any another thread.