It's like he didn't even bother to do the search before accepting the bet. If wil can't afford the 200 calling it off as an angle shoot wouldn't be the worst result, but anything claiming wil "won" this bet is ridiculous.

As usual, idiots gonna idiot. Do you seriously believe this? I happen to know two lawyers very well and ran this by them last night. Both said unless the bet was about spelling specifically the person claiming the win over an error is wrong.

You honestly believe courts of law woild reward someone being devious? You truly believe this? Lol at you for actually thinking this.

Here's one of the responses :

"First of all, all illegal contracts are unenforceable. Unless the bet was made in a place were betting is legal, it would have no force of law at all. Second, assuming betting is legal, the bet would need to be in writing if it were over $500. Assuming it's under 5 bills, it could be unenforceable for any number of reasons related to the bargaining power of the parties (duress, fraud, etc.) Third, assuming everyone was on an equal playing field before the bet was made, the language of the bet (if unambiguous) would control. As you might guess, language is almost always slightly ambiguous, or the dispute would not have come up. In those cases, what people said to each other before the agreement was made will determine what the words mean. If the bet here was about whether someone would be called the word a particular way of spelling (which would require it to be in writing), I don't see why the spelling would matter. Also, yes, obvious scrivener mistakes (especially backed up!
by conversation before the bet as to the word's meaning) should effectively defeat the misspelling. Lastly, if everything else weighs equally between the two sides, the language would be counted against the person who wrote it. So, unless the bet was expressly about spelling or pronunciation, I don't see how it would matter. That will be $250."


Samson, you are just a colossal moron.

Good to know that I can add Jalfrezi, Victor and aofrantic in the list of scumbag welchers who I will never enter a bet with and discourage anyone else from doing so. From now on I will refer to Jalfrezi, aofrantic and Victor as scumbag welchers regardless of discussion to make sure any searches for their username will include those terms.

ok maybe Victor is just aiding such behavior so maybe he should be excluded..

Well, yeah, you either set rules so angles don't happen or you sigh and pay up. Hard to believe there are poker players out there that haven't experienced "tough ****, it's not against the rules".

You obviously do not know what the word "literally" actually means.

Lol. Wow. Paying lawyers to legally angle shoot the tax code is a thing that happens everywhere.

But, Wil's problem here is that the bet might be unenforceable? Obviously it's unenforceable. But it's a poker site so gfys.

The language of the bet wasn't remotely ambiguous. Also, the "scrivener" argument doesn't hold water. There were no errors! Jal wrote precisely what he intended to say; he repeated the exact language multiple times.

The best argument in wil's favor is that there was no "meeting of the minds" i.e, wil didn't understand what the bet was about due to his questionable literacy.

The amount of dirt bags in this forum is amazing. The only one I'm actually surprised at though is Crispen. Samson and kerowo were automatic.

Since Dan brought up Victor's obesity and he replied by 'cycling up mountains' I searched for threads started by him. He wanted to bet on cycling 100 miles in less than 12 hours(in a seemingly drunken state). That is a bet I would only accept against a 70 yo or a severely obese poker player

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/85...05/?highlight=

This is about the equivalent of betting that you can walk the marathon except much easier!

Bolded is the best argument in jalfreizi's favor. It was blindingly obvious to anyone that there must have been some kind of loophole, since any clown can use the search function. Being nitty about the language seems entirely in the spirit of the wager.

lol singletrack mountain biking is way different.

and lol at calling me a scumbag welcher when I never once passed judgment on who should win the bet.

reading comprehension must be really really hard for you marn.

ofc, that is no surprise to anyone who has seen the way you synthesize your views.

not even a little surprised the gods of morality are acting favorably to an angle shot

Can you link to the ride? I just thought you might have been attempting to angle shoot in the Health and Fitness forum.

heres the results from 2015.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...1Ss9YI/pubhtml

97 men finished in under 12 hrs. it looks like 20 finished after and ~30 didnt finish.

Im not counting women or singlespeed or whatever.

Winner finished in 7h 10 min in an amateur race with 147riders, seems like 12 hours is not exactly an ambitious goal, but well done regardless!

I never achieved it budday.

regardless, it is a highly competitive race in a highly comptetitive series. pros and former pros do compete.

Well, do you care to? Who wins in the world of Victor the arbitrator?

going by the list it looks like the opposite of highly competitive given the spread of times. Anyhow, enough of this derail from my side.

if I cared to, I would have already weighed in. but I didnt.

This is not true, though ime people stop caring about it the second they realise they're wrong.

"Shocking". So your only post was to attack me for actually weighing in?, seems normal.

I agree with all of this, with the caveat that if I were arbitrating I would just declare the bet void and tell everyone to move on. It's obvious that jalfrezi is intentionally leaning on the misspelling in setting up the bet but I don't think you actually have a bet when the two sides aren't in agreement on the terms. The fact that it's obvious the two parties understood the bet differently seems enough to just decide that no bet was actually made.

btw , I edited my post 30 mins before you made this one, did you really miss that? I don't want to unfairly treat anyone in the way you guys gang up against wil. I have no doubt in my mind that the response would have been different from the lot of you had wil been in your 'team'.

Anyhow I have some advice before someone else shows themselves as either a fool or an immoral wank:

Before you decide to side with Jalfrezi just because you find Wil to be a terrible, obnoxious person or whatever, really flip the two roles around, and ask yourself if your view of the situation would still be the same. Because I have a feeling for some it wouldn't.

Would you really be going "Haha Wil tricked that guy good because of propogandist/propagandist! Woah he even used the word literally! Literally!" I doubt that.

You would probably be seeing this as what it is. One dude tried to shoot an angle, which then doesn't even hold up, and it blew up on himself. He played himself. It is a hilarious self own. He played a stupid game and won a stupid prize: being out $200 bucks to someone he hates. It is humorous. It is why there are entire subreddits dedicated to /instantkarma

I think some of you would see the situation for what it really is with the people involved reversed.