so you want to prop bet a bet, at the same odds, so you can angle vs a buyout later? any prop should have been on the winner of the bet, not the same condition, as they have zero influence.

if your way was correct, losing bettor from real scenario could have friends load up on his side, buyout, then have them go collect on the technicality. guy in room won, and anyone who bet on him should be paid.

If the bet was "No he won't make it the 30 days" then the only angling is by the people claiming that he won the bet so they shouldn't have to pay even though he didn't make it 30 days. If the bet was "he will win the bet" that would be a completely different bet.

Could the participants pull some shadiness? Sure, that's why you protect yourself ahead of time with wording or simply don't bet on degenerate crap like this...particularly considering people think this was just a publicity stunt and not even a real bet.

BTW, you say the guy in the room won but I'd argue he's the biggest loser in this whole deal.

^^^

Its really that simple, if you bet he wont make it 30 days you win because he did not make it 30 days

It is crazy that people are thinking there be some prorated payout in this instance because he did 2/3 of what most of the bets were on

Whether he got bought out, quit or however it ended really does not matter IMO

Some others are arguing that he would have most likely won so there should be a payout. Maybe so but it is also possible he could have cracked in the final 10 days of a THIRTY DAY BET

In the end he did not make it 30 days.

exactly this and what dc said. people betting he's not going to make it may have been assuming that a buyout was the most likely outcome. regardless, if you bet he will make it 30 days you lost imo

QFT

I'm confused about the buyout. What would have happened if there wasn't a deal reached?

Then he would have either made or lost $100k depending on if he finished or not.

All side action should just push. People with no control over the buy out happening shouldn’t lose money. We have no clue if he would have made it or not without the buyout, so all bets should pudg

We do have a clue though, he didn't make it.

He was paid to quit before the 30 days were up

Correct, we don't know. That doesn't change the fact that he didn't make it 30 days. What might have happened has nothing to do with the bet which was made in regards to what actually happened.

There was a buyout. In my eyes this means one person pays the other person money to get out of the bet, in other words: so that the terms of the bet are cancelled.

No bet = no winner of the yes/no sidebets.

this depends on the terms of the sidebets.
If no terms were agreed on the sidebets then its relatively simple, he was not in there for the 30 days, the reason does not matter.

Maybe if the side bets were betting on who would win the bet. However, if the side bets are betting on whether he makes it 30 days there doesn't even need to be a main bet for those bets to be valid.

Agreed, if sidebets were made on the initial bet, then my story applies.

If sidebets were made just on the event, then "he will not make it" wins the full amount.

So Joey Ingram said about the buyout...

Joey said he was told there was an intercom system setup, so that Alati and Young could communicate during food delivery while Rich was in the bathroom.

Also said that a buy-out was brought up on multiple days, giving Rich some concept of time based on dollar amount.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4BDrQwhZIk

I would treat a buyout the same way that I would treat someone setting the building on fire, forcing him to leave the room. Unless it were explicitly covered in the terms of a side bet, I would treat it as an incomplete or suspended game. I believe there are standard ways for dealing with such things.

If they were hoping to use the footage to create a reality show, a buyout seems like the most boring ending.

to me the guy in the dark and whoever bet on that guy won the bet

as for the not making it 30 days argument, it seems to me that wording is a pretty ****ty way to lose a side bet in which people are essentially gambling on which person made the +ev original wager. doesn't seem right that the "losing" participant nets 62k while the people that took his side are expected to pay out. clear void imo.

What would the case be if guy in dark lasted 29 days and 8 hours and was perfectly alright and guy on the outside said I give up can I buy out for 98k and they agree? Its implied he was gonna make it and that guy in dark won. A buyout is part of the risk on either side before the bet starts.

It's pathetic enough that he cut off his manhood with only 10 days left. It would be even worse if he lost his balls with under a day left. Either way, not making 30 days is not making it 30 days and dude is a quitter either way and people that bet he wouldn't make it were correct and won the bet.

nah

Anyone who would refuse to pay a sidebet based on what the bet was and not "what you felt it should be" or whatever then they would be a scumbag in my book. 30 days is 30 days. If the sidebet is for 30days then pay up scumbag he didn't make it 30 days. You better be real clear in the text of your bets. If you bet Slim he can't hit a golfball a mile and he drives to a frictionless frozen lake or hits it off a mountain and it travels a mile, then you lose. You got hustled. Don't be a sore loser and sure as hell don't refuse to pay off a bet you lost fair and square. That's scumbaggery. You ain't getting off for a dime less. Don't bet if you don't know the rules are the rules and a bet is a bet and 30 days is 30 days. Anybody who doesn't understand this is straight up ******ED.

If the building got set on fire on day 29 (and he didn't burn up in the fire) then you'd lose the sidebet. Need to make it clear in the original bet any contingencies.

Nah you're a scumbag if you try to weasel out on technicalities.

The side bet is a bet on the outcome of a bet between 2 people. Those 2 people decided the winner with a buyout. Unless you specifically bet with guy in the dark than you're at the mercy of the 2 participants.

If it is not "real clear" and there is reasonable ambiguity, I would lean towards voiding the bet. The rules may be the rules, but sometimes the rules are incomplete.

I wonder how many of the most strident voices for counting this as a loss are people who bet against Alati and are trying to find an angle for getting paid.

I'm not fond of using "******ed" as a pejorative, but SimpleRick certainly seems....simple.