No he's right. If my bet is that person x can't do this for 30 days and then gets bought out, he hasn't done 30 days and I don't lose the bet. He also didn't fail, so I think this is always a draw but the only one being a scumbag in this scenario is someone trying to make me pay up for "losing" the bet.

You can call it what you want but if two people made a bet that the guy would last 30 days, it has nothing to do with the main bet. In fact, there didn't have to be a main bet at all. For example, dude could have said he's going to stay in there for 30 days without making a bet and people could have bet on it.

ITT, the most likely answer to that is none.

1000% different case. In the case that occurred in reality it was a bet on a bet.

Whose bet was a bet on a bet?

No bud, everyone didn't bet on something slightly different than what the main bet was. Everyone arguing it this way is trying to weasel out.

I'm getting pretty sure you're just trolling so I am not going to proceed with this. Believe whatever you want.

If you bet on this you're crossbooking the original bet. So the result should mirror the result of the original bet. Saying you lose because there was a buyout and he didn't last 30 days is freerolling. Don't know if I fall for a troll tho.

Done just short of 3 months solitary before, no tv, no reading material and only the food thrown through the slit in the door,.

had human contact well, subhuman contact while being interviewed by police. Which I would rather of not had,

Long story short, it would be hard ,very hard but doable, its all about keeping the goal in mind and seeing it as pyschologic warfare

he's not a quitter, the people who bet with him are.
this bet gets way harder as you go along,smart move on his part taking the buyout.

Agreed

One more day is when the permanent mental and physical damage takes place according to my analysis

It’s kind of like the time when Kramer called off the bet about building the levels and determined it a push because he chose not to do it

So maybe some sidebettors made it specifically clear that they are betting on "will the guy stay inside for 30 days". In that case maybe there is point to claim that the one who bet on no wins the bet.

But if it went like this: hey, i want to bet on the guy that is gonna stay inside, u take the otjer side? Kk booked lets go. U are just beting on the outcome of the original bet in which case the results should be mirrpred.

The bet was "can he stay in the bathroom for 30 days". He didn't do it, so why would the one betting against him ever lose. Maybe he could have, we'll never know, but if you're betting on him finishing 30 days then a buyout just voids the bet.

Highly doubt anyone bets on "hey whatever they decide the winner is we will mirror". If this bet ever even took place that is.

This is such a weasel thought process. Imagine arguing for something different than the outcome. Do you understand what a buyout is?

I am not responding to trolls like you. Take a hike.

Unless specific in wording, all side bets should ofc be settled equal to the buyout in terms of payment. If other odds were laid then I'm sure they can be adjusted for a 2:3ish payout like the buyout was... Anything else is crazy angling

I have not joined this forum/conversation to troll or make accusations or offensive statements. I joined to share my 2 cents on this situation in regards to the side bets that may be in limbo.

Reading the posts since the $62,400 buy-out occurred, I have noticed some one-sided comments that recommend either a squash or for those who took the side of Rory to be a winner. I have a strong feeling that the person(s) behind those posts are trying to get out of paying the bet based on Rich winning or seeking some sort of approval by creating bias. I would like to disclose that I “have” placed side action on this bet on the side of Rich winning which is in limbo.

I strongly believe that the fair, right thing, gentleman, following precedent thing to do is the pay the side bets based on the ratio that Rory paid out to Rich (62.4%). Sure, legally speaking the side bets may not have listed the outcome of all technicalities such as a buy-out but common sense indicates that side bet's should follow the main bet unless it was specifically mentioned in writing that if Rich does not complete the 30 days for whatever reason including those beyond his control, a buy-out, law enforcement, or even collusion, than the party that bet against Rich succeeding should win the bet. I am sure this isn't the case in most if not a majority of the side action so let's assume for this argument that these terms were not indicated.

Once Rich completed 10 days, I was pretty confident that he would be able to complete the next 20, not to mention completing 20 days and still being in good spirit with just 10 days left. I believe that those who bet against Rich should be thankful for Rory offering/setting the buy out with only 10 days to go and saving them a good chunk.

Also keep in mind that Rory claimed to hedge his bet for $10,000 at 3:1 odds meaning that if Rich succeeded, Rory would receive $30,000 back from the hedge. It would be safe to assume that Rory received 62.4% of the $30,000 “side bet” ($18,720) and that should also set precedent for side bet action.

I can understand the perspective of those who lost to try and get out of the bet through a technicality but it is not the right thing to do and if they truly believe that they are in the right, then it should go to arbitration either through the 3 people selected by Rory and Rich in the main agreement or by a panel of 3-5 reputable poker players whom are unaware of this bet and can give an unbiased vote based on the agreed upon details provided to them by those in the disputed bet.

I would like to add that I am grateful for the honesty of the participants by making the buy-out public knowledge to avoid any feeling of conclusion instead of choosing to work something out under the table allowing them both to profit which neither of them appear to have done.

+1

Haha, thanks for reminding me to not place any bets with people without locking down every imaginable scenario.

Welcome to the forum. What exactly did you bet on... ie. what was the wording of your bet? At the very least you have a text right? Or was it 100% verbal?

Please post that you know the definition of a buyout.

I have 0 action on this, but I don't know how anyone who bet on Alati to last 30 days should be declared the winner. He didn't last 30 days. If you didn't stipulate in your bet that there are circumstances (such as a buyout) which void or change the bet, then sorry but that's on you

also there's a difference between betting on Alati to make it 30 days and betting on Alati to win the bet and some money. Should be clear in the terms of any bet imo. If Alati somehow got bought out on Day 1 does everyone who bet him to go 30 days win? seems a bit ridiculous and open to collusion

It was done through a third party so I am assuming it has the same terms as the larger bet but for the sake of argument let's treat it as a verbal agreement between two gentlemen after hearing about the 100k bet.

There are so many technicalities to cover. What if the cops force him out? What if there is an earthquake or simply poor construction and the ceiling collapses letting light?

I think the intent of the bet is clear and even if it wasn't, common sense would say that Rich had a super high probability of staying the final 10 days. To be honest, I am upset I didn't win 100% of the bet, I was 90% sure it was a lock after 10/15 days. Hallucinations can start after day 1, I don't think there are any new side effects that happens after 10 days that haven't already occurred other than waiting it out in in the same conditions you've been in which sure is difficult but he likely knew a rough idea of how far he was in the bet and Rory was apparently worried about losing the full bet because Rich was showing confidence and good spirit.

Again, it could appear I am a tad biased since I had money on Rich but I believe my common sense is beyond correct. I believe the chances of me winning the full 100% was greater than 62.4% but Rory set the precedent at and I am willing to accept it.

Legally speaking, I can see a judge having to rule it a squash because the technicalities were not discussed and verbal contracts are worthless, however, since this is a gentlemen's bet it should be based on common sense and intent and not technicalities. If Rory approached all the side betters who had action on his side to get approval for the buy-out, I am sure they would all approve of it, I doubt I can say the same thing for people betting on Rich.

Here's a thought - maybe try not to make stupid bets that you have no control over!

Define the terms of a bet before you make it? What are you, a smarta$$?