Quote:
Originally Posted by sheetsworld
Are you sure about this? Do you think that if bookies who owed bettors thought that the bettors were broke that they would/should not pay?
Not if the bookies just thought that the bettors were broke....if the bettors were objectively broke/insolvent and had no intention to pay if they won. Yes, I don't think the bookie should have to pay if this is the case. This is the definition of a free roll. Just like I don't think Moneymaker should have to pay if Jason was objectively insolvent/broke and had no intention/ability to pay if Moneymaker won.
Of course, it is virtually impossible to prove that a bettor was insolvent or never intended to pay had he lost. This is why the issue never comes up. If a bookie tried to claim this and not pay out, the bettor can always claim that he had means to pay (job, paycheck, loan, friend would pay for him, etc). So it won't do a bookie any good to take the position that he doesn't have to pay because the bettor would not have been able to pay had he lost. The bookie would literally need a video recording of the bettor talking about his plan to not pay the bookie if he loses.
But it's a lot easier to prove that a bookie is insolvent/broke and not intending to pay if he loses. I agree with my original post in that the reasoning goes both ways, no matter who is owed the money. But practically speaking, the bookie won't be able to use the argument because he has no way to prove that the bettor would not have paid him. The bettor can use the argument because he may (depending on the evidence) be able to prove that the bookie would not have paid him.