The side bets debate is interesting, I don't have a strong view either way: I can see both sides.

It would be useful, I think, to have some sort of database/record of past bet arrangements. In effect, some sort of "common law" for bet disputes. I don't know the mechanics, etc., but it would be useful for the poker/gambling community to have some sort of precedent-setting arbitration.

If you're hedging your bet and taking both sides, do you have to tell the person you're betting with?

Rich and Rory made a bet. If they want to use an intercom or offer buyouts, it's nobody else's business. You guys that made side bets act like rich and Rory owe you anything. It was their own bet, if you're butt hurt about how it went, tough titty

I didn't bet.

What if the warden guy felt bad and told his buddy, you can come out after day 15 and I will pay you the whole $100k?

What if the guy took the $62k and came out of the room and declared he was going to walk out any second and there was no way he could have made it the full 30?

What these guys bought out for is not the subject of the side bets on 30 days in the bathroom, IMO.

This "game" was not completed and all side bets are null and void, IMO.

Grunch: call it arrogance, naivety, or whatever, I think I'd be able to do this and I'd bet on it with 1:1 odds.

I don't get bored. I can always occupy my mind. I'm not one of those people who will retire and then get a random unskilled part-time job for a "sense of purpose". I'd rather stare into darkness all day than flip burgers. I can find much more purpose in my own thoughts.

The only hard part would be the time away from my spouse. Aside from that, it would be a break from obligations. I'd kill spend time doing:

- Meditation, philosophy, math, brainstorming for my sci-fi, musical ideas, other topics, random daydreams.
- Lots of exercise
- Eating
- Sleeping

I might not know what day it is, but I also wouldn't care. Or I might know (or be one day off), because the circadian rhythm is a thing and I have no trouble sleeping.

Anyone want to take the bet with me? It will have to wait until I have enough spare $ to bet so that winning the bet will make the time away from poker worth it.

The first full day/night is the toughest. After that every day seems like positive reinforcement. I could not do this myself.

The guy makes it to day 30 IMO.

In a vacuum the guy loses because he agreed to 30 days and not even buyout should sway him. Once you walk out the door you've given up.

Really, "he had this" and maybe only because his friend and no hard feelings did he agree.

Yeah, I’m sure he accepted the buyout just because they were friends, and the $62.4k was just a bonus

Action Network posted first interview with Rich.... quite interesting. Hallucinations, pictures of the room, etc. Check it out.

https://www.actionnetwork.com/poker/...-darren-rovell
Yikes.

dude got 60k for an epic trip. lucky bastard

sklansky should rent out enough rooms to cover everyone that voted 'yes' and have a contest.

Bank's analogy is better. I'll give it a shot, too:

Anyone who lifts knows you don't walk into the gym and do your one-rep max cold. You work up to it. Powerlifters often train toward their 1RM over the course of multiple workouts.

So a more plausible analogy would be if Person A says he can bench 1,000, but Person B doubts it and bets against it. Somewhere along the way, Person A makes it apparent that he can very likely get to 1,000 – e.g. he bangs out a set of raw 500s. Person B offers a buyout, and Person A accepts without having to do the lift.

Either way, it's a funny analogy. Person A's ability to bench 1,000 – or even come close to it – would be very apparent right away (cf. Ryan Kennelly). If Person B offered so much money that he feels the need to buy out, he was clearly not paying attention.

I used to pay a lot of money to feel like that.

Lol

Also, color me interested if any of his hallucination story is true.

How's his better? He's just repeating what I said. No wonder we have so many confused ppl itt.

No, he's not repeating what you said. There's a pretty big difference between just getting 2/3 of the bet for doing 2/3 of the challenge and being offered a buyout by the other party.

What are you talking about? That's what I meant, how else did he get 2/3? Out of thin air? Ofc the parties talked. Do I have to spell everything out? I.e. warden pressed "talk" on the intercom, washroom dude then (magically) pressed "listen". Warden dude said, hey you pushed the bar up 2/3, I'll buy you out for 2/3 of bet, okie-dokie? Don't be ridiculous.

"Alati: Rory didn’t know this, but things that I was doing in my life were leading up to this moment. For the past six years, I had gotten into yoga, meditation and prayer. I had gone to Bali to a silent retreat where you don’t speak."

You must be joking
The first day is super easy and could be done by anybody

i thought it was supposed to be in a pitch-dark bathroom, the dude even has a visible shadow in the pictures so he could clearly see what was going on.

The 'night vision' tools for shooting the film would probably still permit shadows to exist. Not being someone who does photography on any manner of level to have those sorts of tools, I will defer to others with more experience. But it appears that they did, in fact, have the necessary steps taken to make it pitch dark...

https://images.actionnetwork.com/800...rich-alati.jpg

there are multiple light reflections in the sink and on the tubs surface too, can it be caused by a night vision footage with no real light sources?

Night vision enhances light. If there is no light whatsoever, then nightvision will not work.

This bet was done poorly. Rich could hear gardeners outside everyday and there was some small amount of light. That stuff makes a difference.

But in that pic it's not nightvision, you can see the shadows and even the reflection of the light off the camera.

so the original bet never took place? no complete darkness and no isolation? lol

Read the ****ing article, you dunce