Guns and lawyers

I think this is the clearest example of how your argument is wrong.

It's very clear that a draft bet STARTS at the time when you make the bet. A draft bet is made using available info, and that info changes all the time. There's no point in booking bets if you can just unbook them whenever your edge changes.

Your LeBron James analogy is a fallacy. The bet isn't called off if LeBron breaks his leg, either before the game, or during the game. It's just your bad luck that you bet on LeBron's team. Luck is an inherent risk in any bet... staking your money on an outcome that you don't have total control over is inherently a gamble. Sometimes, when you gamble, you lose.

Is Augie tweaking or something ? Comparing the bill and ted friendly bet to high stakes professional gamblers making high stakes bets against each other is laughable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that guy with green colored name should stfu he is embarassing himself

mental gymnastics goin on here.

a bet is a bet you cant backout you can only buyout

goddddddddddddddddddddddd

Sorry, you're wrong on this one augie

it wouldn't have mattered if he did. Deeb's fingers were crossed behind his back so if he wants to unreg pre that is totally acceptable.

Could Ted back out of the bet if it was clear that Bill took a phone booth time machine to break Lebrons leg himself?

Augie, I'm sorry but I too think that you're somehow really misinformed about how bets work or have some bizarre mental leak here. I like Shaun and only have positive things to say about him based on my (very limited) dealings with him in the past, but based on the information provided I find it impossible not to side with OP here. Your stances on all these random examples like the bar thing, for example, are just plain wrong IMO.

You make a bet with a friend about an NBA game, find out 0,2 seconds later that your top 3 star players are out due to injury, bad luck. The bet isn't off, period.

The only way I could see it being debatable whether the bet is on or not if there's more to this story than what we know.

A friend would cancel the bet or let you cancel without complaining.

Well maybe 0,2 seconds is a bit dramatic. But say 30 minutes later, basically anytime after the bet is made he's in no way required to "be a friend" and cancel the bet. It's mindblowing to me that this is even a question among poker players. I'd expect regular joes who have never used sportsbooks etc to try to pull that kind of thing. As poker players we are supposed to understand variance and players getting injured after you make a bet is just one part of the equation of betting on sports and those variables even themselves out in the long run.

Sure, as the friend you *can* let them off the hook. But in Shaun's shoes you're definitely not in a position to just decide that the bet is off and shrug it off. Also when you start letting people cancel bets on you just like that, you open yourself to getting exploited in various ways in the future. I think OP is 100% right to demand something from Shaun here (buyout fee or something) assuming we have *all* the relevant info here.

Deeb should not have cancelled and is in the wrong, but this is pathetic that it ended up being posted.

Is the bar so low for working things out between people that we are posting this stuff within 24 hours of a dispute starting?

Embarrassing for all involved.

Shaun doesn't have any friends. Only marks.

Yep. Bill and Ted bumped their heads on the way in.

Where did I say he was required?


Just trying to understand your viewpoint. In your proposed scenario of betting on a sports event (where I originally quoted you), if he shook hands and 10-15 seconds later said he didn't want to bet, would you consider the bet off? Where do you draw the line? Just curious.

I agree.

sadly, a lot of times leverage in the form of a public outing is needed for people to remain honest and true to their word. hardly embarrassing for OP unless there's info we're not privy to.

You either have a bet or you don't. Once the bet is made you have a bet. Everything else is noise and if people want to offer free cancellation afterwards it's up to them. But not understanding the basic principles of what betting means is mindblowing to me (augie apparently, not you)

LOL, well I wont' be betting my 25 cents against shaun deeb in the future if he's like this ted guy. People are betting for many thousands of dollars here, yes you should have your "rep smeared" for doing takebacks on a made bet. I won't be betting with this augie guy either.

Anyways I'm going to go with shaun thinking he can opt out of a fantasy draft after its occurred based on (lisa kudrow) Brand New Information is bizarre and pretty scummy. Yes he reconsidered due to public pressure/people thinking he is shady or whatever, but I'm not going to credit him too much for that.

It's not too surprising, all too often high stakes trustworthy guys seemingly make bets and then decide, oops I'm not going to pay because of whatever. In that way bets really aren't made until the money is escrowed.

"Deeb should not have cancelled and is in the wrong, but this is pathetic that it ended up being posted."

This is uhhh wrong. In fact I'd argue its useful information people now know when placing a bet against deeb, he may decide to simply "opt out" in the future so to be cautious.

joke obv

How would Ted not be a scum bag in this scenario? The only way I would let Ted off this bet would be if it was my best friend or a family member and I probably wouldn't make many bets with them in the future that were not for a friendly amount.

Well played by Shawn to realise he made a mistake and to correct it.

Everyone makes mistakes, but it is impressive to see he has the decency and integrity to reconsider the situation and fix it.

I'd bet this forum couldn't find one thing to agree on.

Josem, you must be kidding right?

It's clear from the OP that there were multiple back-and-forths about Shaun trying cancel the bet... Shaun citing multiple friends that thought he was right, yada yada...

Only after it was posted in NVG and it was clear that the OP wasn't going to just let it fizzle, did Shaun decide to do the right thing. Using the words decency and integrity just seems over the top to me....

edit - just saw this when rereading OP:
Yeah, decency/integrity might be overstating it a bit...

chuckamuck,

I accept your point of view, but the disagreement between you and I here is only one of degree.

I'm inclined to over-reward people for eventually coming around to do the right thing, because in the future, I want people who are on the fence to come around and do the right thing.

Augie, the piece that I think is missing from your argument is that information constantly changes and one party can have a large advantage by backing out when information goes against their position.

I don't think your sportsbook example counter is spot on either. You don't need collusion from big bettors to see why allowing canceled bets any time before the event would be unfair to the book. Lines are going to change based on new information all the time. Imagine Brady gets hurt and you can just back off your -400 Pats bet. No big bettor collusion needed, just new public info that changes the value of your position.

Beyond all that, I think it's standard practice in the gambling community that once you make a bet, it stands, and you can't just go back on it bc you feel like it or bc new info becomes available. Whether that's 30 min or 3 days or 3 weeks.

If they were hanging out together and there was no chance of new info to come across Deeb's radar in those 30 min, then I'd agree that it's poor spirit not to let him out of the bet for free, since he'd 100% have the same info as when he made the bet, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

If the OP is accurate it doesn't sound particularly bullying to me, what options would you have in OP's shoes if you believed you were correct but the other party did not want to arbitrate nor buyout? You could make the case that the reneger is the bully by saying "I'm not honoring that bet, there's nothing you can do, I won't discuss this with neutral 3rd parties or entertain anything other than cancelling this bet." The layout of the OP seems rather drama and emotional free compared to many that feel they have been wronged.