500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court • Hacker News Board

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#131

Post by btilly » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #69

hedora wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court argues it is a game of skill but follows up with: > it seems evident … that the game also involves a large part of chance, so that it does not take 'only skill or bodily exertion on the part of the parties,' They would have invalidated the bet even if wasn’t “excessive”. Presumably, the law also bans wagers on gambling activities, such as poker.

I love playing cards, but poker is just... not as much fun because there's too much luck involved compared to, say, Rummy-type games (like my biased favorite, the Brazilian Buraco: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraco )

There are variants.

The poker variants that are popular are popular exactly because there is so much more chance. The edge that skill gives is less in Texas Holdem than Omaha Hi-Lo. Which is why you see the former more than the latter.

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#132

Post by Alupis » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

apta wrote: post #124

TuringNYC wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we do not know what would happen if the situation were opposite. They both entered into the agreement, presumably seriously. It seems like just playing the game qualifies both sides as jerks.

And this is why gambling should be banned. Just because a couple of people "agree" on something, doesn't make it rational or legal.

> And this is why gambling should be banned

How do you propose to enforce this? If these two people had simply gambled the same way, and the loser took out the mortgage and paid the winner, nobody would even know.

It's illegal to gamble where I live, yet every year my friends and I place bets on major sporting events.

The solution to problems isn't always more government. Particularly when the proposed laws are totally unenforceable.

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#133

Post by choward » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 6:16 PM UTC

flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #26

>The court also upheld the lower court's conclusion that the $517,000 wager was excessive. Quebec courts are not arguing that Rock Paper Scissors is not a game of skill. They only ruled that the bet was "excessive" which is against the law. IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho. I am thoroughly impressed that the loser actually made good on their commitment thoug…

> IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho.

To you it may be, but where do you draw the line though? Is $100,000 excessive? $10,000? $1,000? Tbh, $1,000 does actually sound excessive to me.

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#134

Post by icebraining » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 6:18 PM UTC

flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #127

apta wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with the excessive argument. The argument should be to completely ban gambling, because it's been proven to be a harmful practice on society, whether practiced in excess or not.

Wagers on games of skill are not a gamble. Gambling can only be performed with games of chance.

Which Rock, Paper, Scissors is, according to the court.

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#135

Post by flyGuyOnTheSly » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 6:19 PM UTC

choward wrote: post #133

flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #26

>The court also upheld the lower court's conclusion that the $517,000 wager was excessive. Quebec courts are not arguing that Rock Paper Scissors is not a game of skill. They only ruled that the bet was "excessive" which is against the law. IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho. I am thoroughly impressed that the loser actually made good on their commitment thoug…

> IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho. To you it may be, but where do you draw the line though? Is $100,000 excessive? $10,000? $1,000? Tbh, $1,000 does actually sound excessive to me.

The definition of "excessive" is "more than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate." according to a quick Google search.

I would argue that the wager was for more than a necessary amount, and definitely not normal.

How often do you hear about half million dollar RPS games, really?

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#136

Post by icebraining » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

apta wrote: post #125

jon_elbrook wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho. vegans think meat eating is excessive. let's ban meat eating, then?

I disagree with the excessive argument. The argument should be to completely ban gambling, because it's been proven to be a harmful practice on society, whether practiced in excess or not.

Proven by whom?

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#137

Post by joosters » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

apta wrote: post #124

TuringNYC wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we do not know what would happen if the situation were opposite. They both entered into the agreement, presumably seriously. It seems like just playing the game qualifies both sides as jerks.

And this is why gambling should be banned. Just because a couple of people "agree" on something, doesn't make it rational or legal.

Not sure I follow? If two people have a 'rational' bet, then is that legal in your eyes? Surely you can't be saying that irrational actions should be illegal, or that gambling on 'irrational' decisions (however one might even try to define that) should be banned? Or that all gambling should be banned, because there is a chance that some bets might be irrational? None of those viewpoints seem to make any kind of sense, as far as I can see?

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#138

Post by joosters » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 6:23 PM UTC

yunesj wrote: post #97

globular-toast wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am thoroughly impressed that the loser actually made good on their commitment though and took out the mortgage on his house! Well he didn't commit to it because he went to court to get out of it.

It appears that the court broke the contract without being asked to do so by the loser. “But without government, who would break the contracts?!”

The person with the bigger army?

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#139

Post by ramblerman » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 6:23 PM UTC

flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #26

>The court also upheld the lower court's conclusion that the $517,000 wager was excessive. Quebec courts are not arguing that Rock Paper Scissors is not a game of skill. They only ruled that the bet was "excessive" which is against the law. IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho. I am thoroughly impressed that the loser actually made good on their commitment thoug…

> IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho.

IANAL either but to me the law/government is there to uphold contracts. Not judge if they are smart or deemed a good idea.

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#140

Post by LargeWu » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 6:24 PM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #69

hedora wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court argues it is a game of skill but follows up with: > it seems evident … that the game also involves a large part of chance, so that it does not take 'only skill or bodily exertion on the part of the parties,' They would have invalidated the bet even if wasn’t “excessive”. Presumably, the law also bans wagers on gambling activities, such as poker.

I love playing cards, but poker is just... not as much fun because there's too much luck involved compared to, say, Rummy-type games (like my biased favorite, the Brazilian Buraco: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraco )

There's only "too much luck" in games like poker, or backgammon, sports betting, over a short timeline, which is probably longer than you think. That can be hundreds, or even thousands of hands or games.

Over a statistically large sample of hands or games, skilled players will almost always dominate unskilled players.