Big Ethical Debate Regarding Bellagio Bet

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...