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.