Originally posted on 08/23/2016:

Quote Originally Posted by Triple_D_Bet View Post
Solid post Arun...I'd say the analogy isn't quite right. A prop bet, by it's nature, is between parties who both think the other person is getting the worse deal, based on the information they have. In this case, the person offering the wager intended to make it so lopsided that it couldn't be won or even accepted, but he miscalculated and allowed it to be easily won. Prop betting doesn't have (and shouldn't have) safeguards to restrict betting to what someone else considers reasonable; what's considered a reasonable bet varies considerably, but giving the loser an option to dispute the terms of the wager as 'unfair' after the fact isn't reasonable.

bobbo and DS both insist it was a valid wager which was accepted. DS clearly won it and complied with the described terms. There's simply no other conclusion to reach except "bobbo lost and is stiffing by refusing to pay".

Don't blame ya for staying out of this for so long or for not replying, this stuff is often a useless mess, and not everyone has the free time (or should waste it on this crap either probably )

Fair point. I would agree that in the analogy I gave, the party who ended up getting "scammed" (or whatever you want to call it) was in a no-fault situation, they did nothing wrong. If Bobbywaves wants to claim the intent of his proposed bet was to who between him and tatddy would reach 100k first with him starting with 92k and tatddy with 8k, via earning it in some fashion (poker, casino, sports bets), a bet which he had no realistic way to lose, that doesn't exactly win him any accolades for ethics. As such, if you do that and someone manages to turn the tables on you, should not come as a surprise if you don't get a lot of sympathy.

That said, the main issue to me is about "intent". Again, if bobby wanted to claim that his intent when he said no loans was to include no gifts as well, naturally only he can sure what his intent was. So if his defense was based on this not falling within his intent of what the bet was supposed to be, that to me at least would constitute a valid defense. Whether it would hold up in a court of law, no idea.

But instead of arguing his own intent, he seems to be trying to serve as judge/jury as to what someone else's intent was (continually claiming that downsouth's intent was to give a loan not a gift). That, in addition to being inconsistent with the timeline of his own actions as I noted in my earlier post, doesn't strike me as a valid argument (again only the person in question can know their own intent).

And unfortunately for him, even if he were to now change to the more valid defense, arguing his intent, his own actions would now put that in question. Since he again appointed himself as judge/jury as to what someone else's intent was, everyone else would have just as much right to do the same thing to him - to claim that bobby's "intent" was that only loans were disallowed, not gifts. Again that argument about his intent would be just as valid as his argument about downsouth's intent.