Yeah, so sure yet you got correct in another post. Hilarious you and the other guy, taking ambiguous shots and not explaining why you think it's the worst comparison. It's pretty much the best analogy, vs any sports one w/ more rigid rules for "what ifs". Guy went 2/3s, we dunno if he could've done 100% maybe maybe not, unknown, that's the fact. Also the fact is that he didn't do 100%.

The question remains, *why* did someone initiate the buyout? He's afraid the washroom dude will make it to 30 days? Then isn't it screwing the YES camp out of 33% or whatever it is since they only got 67% give or take?

Again, I didn't bet on this sh*tshow, I'm just telling it as it is, something fishy about the whole thing. I'd ask why did someone think of the buyout and go from there. If it continues to sound fishy, possibility of some backroom shenanigans happening, screw that, I wouldn't pay. As it stands, the YES camp may have been shafted out of 33%, the NO camp may have been forced to pay 33% when perhaps washroom dude would've folded and then they would win. Buyout is messed up, it should've been stipulated in the rules in the first place, since they were already so thorough, I'm surprised no one brought this up, how could they not account for this from the very beginning?

I think most ethical people didn't consider the buy out as it is so outrageous it didn't even come up in their minds.

Oh btw I didn't bet either side.

But, like, he also didn't didn't do 100%, mannnn

Now THIS is a great analogy

The only obvious solution.

Even if you wanted to get really nitty, you should argue that the YES 30 days side wins. The only reason he stopped was because the NO side acknowledged he would lose the bet and was willing to end it at a discount


A proper analogy would be a football game where the O/U is 40, it's 20-10 at halftime and the losing team suggests canceling the rest of the game and will give the winning team 14 points to do so. What say you now NVG?

Good pt, the "no human contact" is key, so how can a buyout talk even happen? It's like they are trying to reason in backwards way, HEY we made a buyout, this happened, so accept it period!, vs explaining why the buyout was even an option/possibility...they basically unilaterally changed the rules on the fly! Yeah, let's just make up stuff, it's legit and don't ask *why*, just shuddup and pay up lol. Incredible some ppl just take this and also fishy some ppl would wanna quash any discussion, leads to more shadiness. The way it turned out, somebody got made, that's for sure.

Like I said, someone got shafted either way, YES ppl because they lost out an extra 30%, NO ppl because it's assumed washroom dude would've went the distance.

More like this.

You're right. It's not a football game. It's a "can I stay in a dark bathroom" game.

Didn't they have an intercom system for necessary communication during food delivery? For the purposes of the bet, the "human contact" in the "no human contact" rule has an implied definition (maybe even an explicit definition if they hammered out the rules extensively) that doesn't necessarily have to match 100% with the plain English language interpretation of that term.

If Young talking to Alati would cause Young to win the bet because it breaks the "no human contact" rule, then Young shining a flashlight on Alati should also cause Young to win the bet because it breaks the "complete darkness" rule.

Don't know how you come up with that logic. If anything it causes Young to lose the bet because he interfered with it and it's not in Alati's control.

Now if he replies that's a different matter.

Who cares? Why do you have to know whether someone is involved in a side bet to "keep this debate honest"? All that allows you to do is dismiss someone's argument because you think they are biased, but there's no need for that. Either someone has a good point, or they don't. Debate the point, not the person.

TBH, I can't see how anyone can be so certain about what the outcome should be of bets that they weren't party to and don't know the terms of. This is a pretty unique situation where the exact wording of the sidebet matters. For example, betting on the outcome of the original bet is a lot different than betting on whether he makes it 30 days. Even something as subtle as betting on whether he can make it or whether he will make it could be argued to make a difference. Blanket statements about everyone on one side of the sidebet or the other are worth nothing more than the pixels used to display them.

They could have agreed a buyout scale beforehand and the way that is triggered is if the outside party opens the door and enters the room - the moment that happens the bet is concluded. Or he just tells the father who was monitoring the bet. Anything like that. Obviously the guy inside would have to agree on the earliest date this could happen.

Didn't he hedge it for like 3:1 at $30k? Thought I read that somewhere in this thread.

In that case don't disclose where the thing takes place, make a "bet", say you made a "buy out" that lost you the bet and collect $30k from people. Easy game. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

So many assumptions. Anyway, something's not right.

Yeah, wouldn't be beyond realm of possibilities. They shouldn't be allowed to make side bets on their main action in the first place. Just leaves room for shady stuff.

the issue is all in the motive/incentive. it's an assumption here but hopefully a safe one... bathroom dude probably didn't think that it'd be a great time but the $100k set to win would make it worth his while/motivation to keep going, just as the potential $100k loss would. as soon as the financial terms change, the behaviour is gonna change too and the conditions people made their sidebets on have essentially been corrupted - in a bet with no human contact and buyouts would reasonably be assumed to not be an option.

if the original bet had been $1 stake per person, do you really believe that there would be as much action on bathroom dude's side? how about if there was a "get to 21 days and you can leave for +$62k" or w/e clause originally included?

I see some people are asking questions about how the buyout went down. I spoke w/ Rory for about 30-45 minutes about it and talked about what he told me in a video I made last week. He said there was an intercom system setup so that the two could talk to each other. Starts about 5:00 into the video.

A buyout attempt was made days prior and turned down. At the point the buyout officially took place, Rich had some idea of how long he had been in the bathroom for.

Reaffirming my suspicion that this entire bet is a complete work and a hoax. It never happened.

Once a buy out is offered the entire bet is corrupted because the guy in isolation knows he doesn't actually have to last the entire 30 days to get paid.

At least we all can agree this is a really stupid bet and most likely a scam and it's even stupider to have placed side bets on it.

I was suspicious of this at first but he was more than happy to answer every question I had about the bet and gave some pretty good answers to everything. He also tried to get in touch with me prior to the bet and multiple times after the bet was made to clear up any suspicions of OOL activities taking place. There is always the possibility that something isn't on the square with it with that said but I'm not sure what the point of that would be outside they parlay it into something but I doubt that would ever end up being anything substantial (who knows.) I tend to look for the conspiracy theory in almost everything nowadays and while this bet certain can leave a lot of questions about it all, I just can't see a large reason why it would be fake like some are implying.

They are in talks to sell the story/footage in some type of way but don't have more information on what that might be yet.


This is the most interesting part to me if they bet is no human interaction. I'm not sure if the contract states only human interaction between each other.

I don't have a background in psychology, but I image one thing that makes it easier to go for long periods without any human interaction is some human interaction.

What a ridiculous POS bet. Joey please don't give these ass clowns any more air time.