Ted is a scumbag

i don't know how to respond when you didn't read the post. i can only assume you can't read the post, as it contains more words than the average tweet, of which you can only read five at a time before completely losing concentration.

although, i don't know why i want any of these geniuses to actually attempt to respond to the posts, because even if they had the attention span to read five paragraphs, their attempts to understand it would surely be epic fails, even though i had assumed from my basic writing and logic level that someone with a high school education should be able to grasp it.

I agree that it is not a good example; but you chose the analogy of 2 dudes at the bar. I dont know how much the bet was; but I assume it was substantial. I think the vast majority of poker players wont shake on a 100k or 20k or 10k bet and treat it as if it is a 50$ bet.
Once someone shake on a substantial amount, it is my opinion that both parties will hold the other to their word and that if one decides to unilaterally cancel the bet, the other party has grounds to make demands.
I know you dont agree there but I guess its a question of what one assumes the exact definition of a bet is.
I consider a bet locked once agreement is reach. The only way to modify anything about the bet would be by consencus of all parties involved imho.

It must be tough thinking you're always the smartest person in the room and constantly being proven otherwise. You're dying on this hill alone, even Shaun Deeb doesn't side with you. Just tell everyone how dumb they are and pat yourself on the back.... You're good enough, smart enough, and doggoneit people like you...

I read your post (I had to look a few of the bigger words up because I'm obviously not as smart as you sir.) That said, none of your points are valid.

GL, God bless, take care, brush ya hair... Peace\

I get that you're a deeb fanboi. But if you made a bet with someone how much time would you give them to reconsider?

A month, 10 minutes before it starts, halftime?

i used the example of two dudes in a bar because this bet between rzitup and shaun is a casual bet, despite the large amount. how can you say it's not a casual bet, given rzitup's own description of how the bet went down? i can think of many bets for much smaller amounts that had many more stipulations and much more planning. the ******ed mcdonalds bet, for one.

so if there's a dispute, such as is one side allowed to bail before the bet starts, shouldn't one revert to the norms of a casual bet? the event they were betting on wasn't close to starting and shaun changed his mind 30 minutes later after their agreement. rzitup's crew wasn't damaged in any way and starting this thread was a real thug move. they just wanted to extract a pound of flesh when shaun wouldn't fulfill their ransom demands.

couldn't put an exact number on it, but 30 minutes after we shook would be well within the timeframe.

that's it, sulk away wounded when faced with the challenge of backing up your position with words instead of insults

augie_ , dude, seriously, what is wrong with you?

how do you mean? there are a variety of things wrong with me, only a few of them relating to this thread!

I was done with this thread but you keep it going.

There is no debate here because one side is completely right and the other is totally wrong. Mr Deeb is a professional gambler. He is not one of two guys at a bar betting $50 on a basketball game. These guys are not betting for fun. They are betting because they believe they have an edge. When one party later discovers that he doesn't have the edge he thought he had, he can't just call off the bet.

Also... "I just got some new information (that I'm not going to share) so I'm calling off the bet." Like seriously?

Mr Deeb has since made the situation right so we shouldn't keep this going. I will not be posting here anymore.

This bet was made between professional gamblers . It needs to be treated in that context . The bar analogy between friends as well as the other analogies itt are completely irrelevant.

There are no pro gamblers that would not consider this bet valid I don't care what your opinion is

I didn't think mods were supposed to troll.

over, and over. everyone keeps saying "dude, it's a bet. you can't call off a bet, duh."

of course you can call off a bet. want to know how i know you can call off a bet? because shaun called off this bet.

the dispute is the circumstances which someone is allowed to call off a bet without committing some kind of unethical act. you STILL, after all my berating, haven't even attempted to articulate the argument that one party may not call off a casual bet made on an event before the event begins.

the bet is similar to the two guys at a bar, and if you grant that the bar guys can call off the bet before tip off, logically, shaun should be able to call off this bet before shuffle up and deal.

The bet is NOT SIMILAR because it was done between two professional gamblers . How do you not understand this . We aren't holding this to the standard of the "real world". In the pro gambling world this debate is ludicrous

I'm sure you're trolling but whatever.

The accepted rules of behaviour and ethics are decided by the community you're in.

1) Bill and Ted in the bar, who are friends and not big gamblers, may consider calling off a bet in this manner to be perfectly ethical among their circle.

2) In the world of people who play 25K fantasy drafts and make 20K side bets, a handshake is considered binding, and to break that binding nature is considered unethical.

3) In the real world, until a contract is signed and witnessed, anything is fine to call off, and there are no ethical considerations.

All of your analogies are pointless, because what is and is not ethical is defined by the universe that the people are in. The thread is pretty clear that in the universe of this kind of bet, calling it off is unethical, and it is not holding Shaun's reputation hostage to call him out on it - it's fair warning to other people who might be considering a handshake bet with Shaun that what the handshake is generally accepted to mean in the community is not what it apparently meant to Shaun.

I don't think that one of the bar guys can call it off ethically tho the other guy may feel prevailed upon for the sake of friendship and getting along to not make a fuss and consider the bet cancelled.

It seems everyone disagrees with you and I agree with the post above that wonders about mods trolling.

It's a waste of time. Every time someone gives him an explanation, he just ignores it and says nobody has provided an explanation

absolutely. and had shaun never said a peep after their handshake, they would be perfectly justified to expect payment had they won.

but shaun did tell them he wanted out of the bet, and a mere 30 minutes after they shook. i'd think most people who do 20k bets on a handshake have enough generosity of spirit to allow someone to change their mind after 30 minutes, BEFORE THE BET STARTS. this is why i called starting this thread thug behavior, because they took this to a level far past what i would expect. like i said, this was posted as if shaun had completed the bet and failed to pay, not called it off before the start.

my argument is that shaun did not break that contract. he nullified it, and there's a difference that nobody will grant. the bet had not started yet!

additionally, in this world where the handshake and the word "bet" is the most sacred of bonds, there's also should be the ability of people to use their brain and recognize the difference between when they've been damaged financially, scammed, or suffered minor inconvenience.

why is this thread clear that calling off this bet is unethical? i don't agree with that. i'm the only one who's presented a dissenting opinion more than one sentence long, and you're the only one so far who's even attempted to address what i said. everyone else has utterly failed to even understand what i wrote. you did as well, but i do applaud you for writing something other than "dude, it's a bet. you can't cancel bets"

Augie , this bet was made with each party "knowing" certain facts about the circumstances regarding this upcoming wsop (schedules, abilities, etc). if it's possible whatsoever that deeb made this bet , and then got access to new information, how in the hell can he ever cancel it .

You said the bet didn't start yet , I completely disagree . Part of the bet is in the information each party knows and it's clear deeb at least had the opportunity for that to have changed after he shook .

"this was posted as if shaun had completed the bet and failed to pay, not called it off before the start."

bizarre and false.

"my argument is that shaun did not break that contract. he nullified it, and there's a difference that nobody will grant."

I don't know about contract law but I didn't think that once a contract is agreed to that one side can unilaterally cancel it. Even if that's the case, in my society once a bet is agreed to you can't back out, regardless of what contract law might be.

"the bet had not started yet!"

You mean the event upon which the bet is being made had not started yet. The bet starts upon agreement.

+1 and unassailable.

In the universe of people making this kind of bet, calling off the bet is generally acceptable but comes with a penalty such as a buyout. This kind of thing has happened many many many times; I don't agree in any way that people who do these kinds of bets allow people to change their minds without cost if they still like their side of the bet.

For a perfect example, think back to the Selbst-Mercier bet last summer, where Selbst made a bet, realized before WSOP started that she was overexposed or didn't like her side or whatever, and tried to cancel, and was told cancellation was fine as long as a penalty was paid - in fact, I think she immediately offered a buyout, they just didn't agree on the correct size and that's why the bet continued.

I don't believe she ever even remotely considered the ability to just say "nah, no bet after all", and she would have had somewhat more justification to do so (she was in her words super drunk at the time the bet was made).

If you go back to the OP, I believe that they in fact did offer a buyout, and Shaun rejected it as unnecessary on his part. To me, rzitup acted perfectly within the rules and ethics of this betting universe, and Shaun did not.

Yeah there are no cancelling bets after the bet is made, especially if you after making the bet find information that makes your bet bad. You can try to buy out.

Why is the moral code always so hard for americans to understand?